/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221125.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, November 25, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 230
Headlines
5TH BITE: Faces Renton Suit Over Staff's Unpaid Wages
A&A INVESTMENTS & AUTO: Ortega Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AES GROUP: Moynihan Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Forced Labor
AETNA INC: Radcliffe Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
AETNA RESOURCES: Murray Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMAZON.COM INC: Stelman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
AMERICAN HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Brewster Claims
AMERICAN HONDA: Cooper Sues Over Concealment of Vehicle Defects
AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Faces Breach of Contract Suit
BAKOTIC PATHOLOGY: Court Allows Tamraz to Amend Data Breach Suit
BEAUTY HUT: Apelian Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Appeals Nov. 23, 2021 Trial Court Ruling
BTRS HOLDINGS: Violates Anti-Takeover Protections, Kei Suit Claims
CALIBER HOME: Morgan's Cross-Motion for Class Certification Denied
CALIBER HOME: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Morgan
CARENETLA INC: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
CARVANA LLC: Appeals Arbitration & Dismissal Bid Denial in Jennings
CERES CLASSIC: Faces IPERS Class Action
CERES ORION: Alaska Electrical Pension Fund Suit Deal Approved
CERES ORION: Faces IPERS Securities Class Suit
CERES TACTICAL: Alaska Electrical Pension Fund Suit Deal Okayed
CERES TACTICAL: Faces IPERS Securities Class Suit
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Harris Files Suit Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Shampoo Contains Benzene, Grieb Suit Alleges
CICA COLLECTION: Carrasquillo FDCPA Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
CLOUDERA INC: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
COMEDY PARTNERS: Kaplan Sues Over Comedians' Unpaid Royalties
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Claims Money Laundering Suit Based on Hindsight
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Guy Says
CORMEDIX INC: Voter Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed
COX MEDIA: Disloses Subscribers' Info to Facebook, Bienkowski Says
DEMERT BRANDS: Morgan Sues Over Benzene in Dry Shampoo Products
DR PIZZA: Gifford Balks at Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
EFINANCIAL LLC: Ninth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Borden TCPA Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Bid to Dismiss Fogel's FDCPA Class Suit Granted
ESTATE MANAGEMENT: Rattacasa Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Scheibe Sues Over Deceptive Dietary Supplements
EXQUISITO RESTAURANT: Diaz Seeks Delivery Workers' Unpaid Wages
EYM PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mangum Suit Alleges
FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Edmonston Claims
FIGS INC: Faces Ryan Suit Over 25% Share Price Drop
FIRST STUDENT: Stewart Labor Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: McCollam Suit Parties Reach Confidential Deal
FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Court Junks Class Suit with Prejudice
FOCUS CAMERA: Elmekies Sues Over Unlawful Termination Under FMLA
FRESHWORKS INC: Sundaram Sues Over Share Price Drop
GASBUDDY LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Eubanks Suit Granted
GEISINGER HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Freitas ERISA Suit Okayed
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Faces Haak Class Suit in Florida
GENERAL MOTORS: Miller Sues Over Defective Chevrolet Volt Vehicles
GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Ordered to Redefine Automatic Deduction Class
GROUPON INC: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
H&K ENGINEERING: Ledet Seeks Conditional Class Certification
HADCO METAL: Perkins Balks at Unlawful Labor Policies
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Wagner Sues Over Unlawful Repair Restriction
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Awaits Ruling on Initial OK of Settlement
HONEST COMPANY: Continues to Defend Sida Mislabeling Suit
JANUS HENDERSON: Faces Schissler Breach of Fiduciary Duties Suit
KEYSTONE RURAL: Brake Files Suit Over Data Breach
KIA AMERICA: Faces Pearson Suit Over Defective Hyundai Vehicles
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Wipes Aren't Plant-Based, Whiteside Suit Says
KOBE JAPANESE: Fails to Pay Chefs' Proper Wages, Jiang Suit Says
LEON & ESPINOZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Alleges
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Summary Judgment Bids in Atlantic Suit Granted
LOANCARE LLC: Fails to Return Unearned Premiums, Kovachevich Says
LOOMIS ARMORED: Underpays Armored Transport Staff, Gray Claims
LUXURY BRAND: Dry Shampoo Has High Levels of Benzene, Henning Says
LYONS MAGNUS: Food Supplements Contains Cronobacter, Dixon Says
MAGNA SEATING: Duncan Seeks Manufacturing Workers' Unpaid OT
MAHARAJA FOOD: Fails to Provide Cooks Proper Wages, Capir Claims
MDL 2913: Avoca Central School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Bath Central School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Brockton Public Schools Balks at Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Broome-Tioga Board Hits E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Coxsackie-Athens Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Dedham Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Downsville Central Balks at Youth E-Cigarette Promotion
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Canisteo-Greenwood Says
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Milford Central Says
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Oxford Academy Says
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Roscoe Central Says
MDL 2913: East Greenbush Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Elmira Heights Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Promotion
MDL 2913: Fayetteville-Manlius Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Franklin Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Gilboa-Conesville Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Jefferson Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Livingston Manor Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Promotion
MDL 2913: Mashpee Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: McGraw Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Oneonta City School Sues Over E-Cig. Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Oswego City School Sues Over E-Cig. Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Prattsburgh Central School Sues Over Youth E-Cig. Crisis
MDL 2913: Schenevus Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Stockbridge Valley Central Sues Over Youth E-Cig. Crisis
MDL 2913: Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: West Genesee Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Sutherland Sues Over Spam Text Messages
NATIONWIDE MOTOR: Court Refuses to Enforce Arbitration Agreement
NEONODE INC: Purported Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Filing Bids Extended in Walker Suit
NEWREZ LLC: Files Bid to Seal Certain Documents in Yates Suit
NORTH CAROLINA: Settlement Hearing in Medicaid Suit Set Jan. 13
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in DeRosa Suit
PARKWAY COFFEE: Faces Mendez Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
PERRIGO CO: Shah Hits Misleading Non-Drowsy GoodSense Product Ads
PFIZER INC: Chantix Drug Contains Nitrosamine, Fish Suit Alleges
PHYSICIAN'S BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Morris Says
PIEPER ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Osowski Alleges
POLARITYTE INC: Filing of Opposition Brief Due Dec. 2
PROSUPPS USA: Scheibe Alleges Deceptive Calories-Per-Serving Claims
REAL TIME: Arbitration & Claims Dismissal in Ramirez Suit Affirmed
REALPAGE INC: Artificially Inflates Housing Prices, Navarro Says
S.C. JOHNSON: Shampoo Products Contains Benzene, Evans Alleges
SESEN BIO: Court Sets Jan. 23 Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal
SOMNIA INC: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Carrasco Claims
SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Files Appeal in Mullins Suit
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Annuity Benefits, McFadden Says
SPROUT FOODS: Davidson Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
STANLEY INDUSTRIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Streedharan
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Vasquez Sues Over Unpaid Uniform Maintenance Pay
SWANTON WELDING: Reed Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SWEETGREEN INC: Gabriel et al. Sue Over Untimely Payment of Wages
TD AMERITRADE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ford Suit to 8th Cir.
TRIM-LINE HITECH: Chua Appeals Ruling in Wage-and-Hour Suit
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Seeks to Amend Class Definition in Bickerstaff
TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Faces Woldanski Suit Over $2.88 Share Price Drop
UNILEVER UNITED: Dry Shampoos Contain Benzene, Rullo Suit Says
UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Mint Ice Cream
UPFIELD US: Redmond Sues Over Mislabeled Vegetable Oil Spreads
VENUS CONCEPT: Wong Fails to File Review Petition on Deadline
VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court
VINTAGE WINE: Faces Ezzes Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit
WALMART INC: Merck Files Bid for Class Certification
WELLS FARGO: Settlement in Mackmin Suit Wins Final Nod
WOLVERINE WORLD: Suit Over Property Damage Remains Pending
WW.COM LLC: Discloses Users' Info to Third Parties, Cantu Says
[*] 2022 U.S. Class-Action Decisions, Settlements Discussed
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argonaut Has Liabilities from Issued Policies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Strong Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 46 Pending Claims as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Has Pending Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Has $97MM Injury Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $467MM Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Reports $125MM Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Defends Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $130.3MM Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Paid $5.9MM Settlement as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,962 New Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 1,136 Claims as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 99 Personal Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 99 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer & Subsidiaries Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $10.7MM Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Defends Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Has $14.3MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 537 Outstanding PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean's Subsidiary Faces 231 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Records $73.8MM in Future Claims
*********
5TH BITE: Faces Renton Suit Over Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
ZEPHANEAH RENTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 5th BITE OF THE APPLE LLC d/b/a BLACK ROCK
BAR & GRILL FT. LAUDERDALE, a Florida limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-62082 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2022) is a
class/collective action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and the Florida
Constitution arising from the Defendant's unlawful labor policies
and practices.
The complaint asserts that Defendant committed federal and state
minimum wage violations because it failed to provide servers and
bartenders with sufficient statutorily required tip notice, and
compensated servers and bartenders at the reduced wage
notwithstanding that they are required to spend more than 20% of
their workweek performing non-tipped duties and side work. The
Defendants have also violated state and federal law by claiming a
tip credit during shifts when servers and bartenders are required
to spend 30 or more continuous minutes on side work and non-tipped
duties. As a result, Plaintiff, and similarly situated servers and
bartenders have been denied federal and state minimum wages during
various workweeks within the relevant time period, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a server and bartender at
Black Rock Bar & Grill in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from August 19,
2022 until August 24, 2022.
5th Bite of the Apple LLC operates and owns Black Rock Bar & Grill
restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Jake Blumstein, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
A&A INVESTMENTS & AUTO: Ortega Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A&A Investments &
Auto Service, Inc. The case is styled as Leslie Ortega,
Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. A&A
Investments & Auto Service, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010434
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 14, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
A&A Investments & Auto Service -- https://www.aainsinvestments.com/
-- is a corporation categorized under Car Repair and Services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Gorham, III, Esq.
MAYALL HURLEY APC
2453 Grand Canal Blvd. Ste. 2
Stockton, CA 95207
Phone: 209-477-3833
Fax: 209-473-4818
AES GROUP: Moynihan Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Forced Labor
---------------------------------------------------------------
TARYN MOYNIHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AES GROUP USA, LLC d/b/a KEY AUTISM
SERVICES, KEY AUTISM SERVICES OPR, LLC d/b/a KEY AUTISM SERVICES,
TRINITY KEY HOLDINGS, LLC, DON FOSTER, AVINOAM SCHECTER, and YOSSI
ZAKLIKOWSKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-11889-WGY (D. Mass.,
November 9, 2022) brings this complaint alleging the Defendants of
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a Board-Certified
Behavioral Analyst (BCBA) from June 2022 until approximately August
2022 in Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants failed to pay wages “finally and
unconditionally” no less than the federal minimum wage for each
hour worked;
-- The Defendants violated the federal statute prohibiting
forced labor by knowingly obtaining the labor of persons by means
of threats of serious harm, by means of the abuse or threatened
abuse of law or legal process, and/or by means of a scheme, plan,
or pattern intended to cause persons to believe that, if they did
not perform labor for the company, they would suffer serious harm;
and
-- The Defendants further violated the Wage Act by failing to
reimburse employees for mileage to and from clients' homes.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for all minimum wages that
are due to them, statutory liquidated damages under the FLSA,
compensatory and punitive damages, appropriate injunctive and
declaratory relief to further the purpose of the forced labor
statute, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief to which they may be entitled.
AES Group USA, LLC d/b/a Key Autism Services and Key Autism
Services OPR d/b/a Key Autism Services provide in-home and
community-based “Applied Behavior Analysis” or “ABA”
services to children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Trinity Key Holdings, Inc. is the owner of the “Key Autism
Services” trademark. Don Foster is the self-described
“Co-Owner” of and “Chief Talent Officer” for Key Autism
Services. Avinoam Shechter was a President, Treasurer, and Director
of AES Group USA, Inc. before it converted into AES Group USA, LLC
in March 2019. Defendant Shechter is the Chief Executive Officer of
Key Autism Services OPR, LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Smit, Esq.
Brook Lane, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Tel: (617) 607-3260
E-mail: rachel@fairworklaw.com
brook@fairworklaw.com
AETNA INC: Radcliffe Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND RADCLIFFE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Raymond Radcliffe, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Aetna, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-1274, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought by Raymond Radcliffe, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, against Aetna Inc., et al. on Aug.
28, 2020. On Nov. 3, 2020, Mr. Radcliffe and Ms. Carol Flaim moved
to consolidate this case with Flaim v. CVS Health Corp., Case No.
3:20-cv-01321, and to file an Amended Complaint. The Court granted
the Plaintiffs' motion on Nov. 4, 2020. On Nov. 12, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.
On Dec. 22, 2020, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
consolidated Complaint and on Feb. 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Feb. 25,
2021, the Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to
dismiss.
On March 5, 2021, the Defendants filed a notice of supplemental
authority relating to a New York state court case cited by the
Plaintiffs in their opposition to their motion to dismiss. The
Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendants' notice of supplemental
authority on March 19, 2021.
On July 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental
authority regarding a federal district court decision relating to
the False Claims Act action against Omnicare and CVS. The
Defendants filed a reply to the Plaintiffs' notice of supplemental
authority on July 29, 2021.
On Sept. 30, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss on all nine counts, but allowed the Plaintiffs leave to
file an Amended Complaint addressing any legal deficiencies.
On Oct. 29, 2021, Mr. Radcliffe and Ms. Flaim have filed a second
amended consolidated putative class action complaint ("SAC" or
"Second Amended Complaint") against Defendants Aetna, Inc., CVS
Health Corp., the Aetna Benefits Finance Committee, Larry J. Merlo,
Mark T. Bertolini, Eva C. Boratto, Aetna Does 1-20, and CVS Does
1-20. They allege that the Defendants failed to seek leave to file
their SAC and breached their fiduciary duty to them as participants
in Aetna's employee stock ownership plan under Section 404 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 1104, and engaged in prohibited transactions in
violation of ERISA Section 406(a) and Section 406(b), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1106(a), (b).
On Nov. 24, 2021, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
SAC. Soon after on Dec. 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a memorandum
in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On Jan. 14, 2022, the
Defendants submitted a reply to the Plaintiffs' memorandum. On Aug.
26, 2022, the Defendants filed a notice of additional authority in
support of their motion to dismiss to SAC.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC for the Plaintiffs' failure
to properly file the pleading without asking for leave. They argue
that "instead of attempting to convince the Court that the
amendment was justified, the Plaintiffs opted to leapfrog directly
to filing a pleading, without seeking either leave of Court or
their consent." They also note that "Courts routinely dismiss or
strike amended complaints that, like the SAC, are filed without
first obtaining leave to amend."
In response, the Plaintiffs concede that they "failed to notice the
Court's Order, in two places," and have deprived the Defendants'
"opportunity to preview their dismissal arguments." They proposed
to "seek leave nunc pro tunc to submit the SAC for the Court's
consideration on the merits."
On Sept. 30, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC through an Order entered by Judge
Victor A. Bolden. The Court found that that the Plaintiffs still
have not plausibly alleged that Aetna, CVS, or any individual
officers and directors functioned as ERISA fiduciaries as a matter
of law. The Plaintiffs still have not plausibly alleged a duty of
prudence claim arising from material, non-public information that
CVS participated in the "Illegal Prescription Scheme." Indeed, as
the Defendants rightly note -- for the most part -- the Plaintiffs
have simply tried to recast arguments already rejected by the Court
before. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' duty of prudence claim in the
SAC would have been dismissed, even if they had sought leave.
Given that the Plaintiffs already have amended their operative
pleading three times, without success, Judge Bolden saw no reason
to provide yet another opportunity and dismissed the SAC with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Radcliffe v. Aetna, Inc., Case No.
22-2757, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on October 26, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RAYMOND RADCLIFFE, et al., individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Defendants-Appellees AETNA, INC., et al., are represented by:
Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 383-5327
- and -
James T. Shearin, Esq.
PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
850 Main Street
P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
Telephone: (203) 330-2240
AETNA RESOURCES: Murray Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aetna Resources, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Kristin Rae Murray, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Aetna Resources, LLC, Does 1-10,
Case No. 34-2022-00329767-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Nov. 14, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Aetna Inc. -- https://www.aetna.com/ -- is an American managed
health care company that sells traditional and consumer directed
health care insurance and related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, 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
AMAZON.COM INC: Stelman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Rebecca Stelman, Mark Ochoa, Ian Coleman,
Caitlyn Hollerbach, Louis Weatherston, Demetries Wright, Jonas
Nyaris, Janni Samuel, Maira Hernandez, and Lindsay Moore,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMAZON.COM INC.; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.; TEM EXPRESS LOGISTICS LLC
dba TEMEX LOGISTICS and TEML, a Washington limited liability
company; TORITSE ORUBU, individually and on behalf of the marital
community composed of TORITSE ORUBU and J. DOE ORUBU; BUTCHIE BOY
PRODUCTIONS, INC. d/b/a EXSELON, a Washington corporation; JEFFREY
BUTCHER, individually and on behalf of the marital community
composed of JEFFREY BUTCHER and KATHRYN BUTCHER; KATHRYN BUTCHER,
individually and on behalf of the marital community composed of
KATHRYN BUTCHER and JEFFREY BUTCHER; ASTEROIDS GROUP LL dba ASTG, a
Washington limited liability company; KINGSLEY ONUCHUKWU,
individually and on behalf of the marital community composed of
KINGSLEY ONUCHUKWU and J. DOE ONUCHUKWU; ANAHIT MANUKYAN,
individually and on behalf of the marital community composed of
ANAHIT MANUKYAN and J. DOE MANUKYAN; BENCHMARK TRANSPORT, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company; DAMIEN WAGNER, individually
and on behalf of the marital community composed of DAMIEN WAGNER
and J. DOE WAGNER; ALDEN RADONCIC (aka ALDEN RADD), individually
and on behalf of the marital community composed of ALDEN RADONCIC
and J. DOE RADONCIC; THE TOTAL PACKAGE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; JEREMY FIXLER, individually and on
behalf of the marital community composed of JEREMY FIXLER and
HEATHER FIXLER; HEATHER FIXLER individually and on behalf of the
marital community composed of HEATHER FIXLER and JEREMY FIXLER;
NANCY LUNA, individually and on behalf of the marital community
composed of NANCY LUNA and J. DOE LUNA; ASLAR LOGISTICS LLC, a
Washington limited liability company; LAURA JOHNSON, individually
and on behalf of the marital community composed of LAURA JOHNSON
and JOSHUA JOHNSON; JOSHUA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
the marital community composed of JOSHUA JOHNSON and LAURA JOHNSON;
GOPLAY LOGISTICS LLC, a Washington limited liability company; TRACY
PELLETT, individually and on behalf of the marital community
composed of TRACY PELLETT and J. DOE PELLETT; AVANATOR.COM LLC, a
Washington limited liability company; RICHARD ZECH, individually
and on behalf of the marital community composed of RICHARD ZECH and
J. DOE ZECH; POLE POSITION EXPRESS LOGISTICS LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; DENNIS HANNAH, individually and on
behalf of the marital community composed of DENNIS HANNAH and J.
DOE HANNAH; TRUE MANAGEMENT LLC, a Washington limited liability
company; CHRISTOPHER LILLEY, individually and on behalf of the
marital community composed of CHRISTOPHER LILLEY and J. DOE LILLEY;
B.B.W. HOLDINGS, INC., a Michigan corporation; BARRY WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of the marital community composed of
BARRY WILLIAMS and J. DOE WILLIAMS; PARAGON DELIVERIES INC., a
Washington corporation; and JORDAN OFFUTT, individually and on
behalf of the marital community composed of JORDAN OFFUTT and J.
DOE OFFUTT, Case No. 22-2-15880-8 SEA was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington Nov. 14,
2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01632.
The Complaint seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, attorneys'
fees costs, pre and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief
on behalf of a putative statewide class for: failure to provide
rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; payment of wages
less than entitled; failure to pay overtime wages; willful refusal
to pay wages; and failure to pay all compensation owed.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Patricia A. Eakes, Esq.
Andrew DeCarlow, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 274-6400
Email: patty.eakes@morganlewis.com
andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com
AMERICAN HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Brewster Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEVSE BREWSTER, WESLEY HANSON, DONNA SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN
HEALTH IMAGING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04466-TWT (N.D.
Ga., Nov. 8, 2022) is a class action lawsuit 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 Class Members that their
information had been subject to unauthorized access and precisely
what specific type of information was accessed.
This class action arises out of the data breach on AHI's network.
As a result of the data breach, Plaintiffs, who were notified that
their information were breached by an unauthorized party, and
similarly situated individuals, suffered irreparable damage when
their sensitive personal and protected health information was
compromised and unlawfully 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 and healthcare
plans to guard against identity theft, including medical identity
theft. They may also incur out of pocket costs for, e.g.,
purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit
reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity
theft as well as incur out of pocket costs for changing healthcare
plan member information and monitoring medical documentation to
protect themselves against medical identity theft, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members were patients receiving medical
imaging services from AHI.
American Health Imaging, Inc. is a healthcare entity incorporated
in Georgia and has a principal place of business in Atlanta.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Sean Nation, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
snation@sirillp.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Cooper Sues Over Concealment of Vehicle Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Cooper, Ilya Birman, and Yosef Ben Zev, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
CO., INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-05299 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 28, 2022), is
brought to redress Defendant's misconduct of concealing defects
that where present in their Class Vehicles.
Honda has actively concealed, however, that multiple vehicle models
suffer from a latent defect which results in the failure of the
vehicles' essential purpose: to maintain reliable engine power and
safely transport passengers. The Class Vehicles1 are 2018-2020
model year ("MY") Honda Odyssey, 2016-2020MY Honda Pilot,
2019-2020MY Honda Passport, 2015-2020MY Acura TLX, and 2015-2020MY
Acura MDX vehicles equipped with the Idle Stop system (also
referred to as "Auto Start/Stop" or "Auto Idle-stop"), and each
Class Vehicle was delivered to consumers with an identical and
inherent defect in the Class Vehicle's design and/or manufacturing
process.
Each Class Vehicle suffers from a safety defect that causes the
Idle Stop feature to suddenly, without any warning, fail to restart
the engine after the feature automatically turns off the engine at
red stoplights and other momentary stops (the "Engine Defect").
Although the Idle Stop feature is designed to restart after the
driver releases pressure on the brake pedal, since at least 2015,
scores of drivers have reported incidents where their Class
Vehicles stalled and left them unable to move at intersections and
highway entrances.
Honda knew, and/or was on notice of the fact, that its Class
Vehicles suffered from the Engine Defect even before commencing
sales. Honda is experienced (and touts itself as such) in the
design and manufacture of consumer vehicles and conducts extensive
pre-sale tests on all of its components, including the Idle Stop
feature, to verify the vehicle is free from defects and complies
with its specifications.
If Plaintiffs and/or other Class members knew of the Engine Defect
at the time of purchase or lease, they would not have bought or
leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for
them. Plaintiffs and other Class members were denied the benefit of
the bargain in connection with their purchases and/or leasing of
the Class Vehicles.
The Defendant liable for, among other things, breach of express and
implied warranties, and unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices. In turn, owners and/or lessees of the Class
Vehicles, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss
of money and/or property and/or loss in value. The unfair and
deceptive trade practices committed by Defendant caused Plaintiffs
and the members of the Class damages, including, but not limited
to, loss of value, loss of use of the vehicles, and repair costs,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 Honda Odyssey equipped with the
Idle Stop system.
Honda is a holding company of sales, manufacturing, engineering,
design, and research and development strategies of HML in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 South Wacker Drive, 4th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312/741-1019
Fax: 312/264-0100
Email: beth@feganscott.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: 332/216-2101
Fax: 312/264-0101
Email: jonathan@feganscott.com
AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Faces Breach of Contract Suit
---------------------------------------------------
American Water Works company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022,
that a class action complaint was filed against the company
alleging a breach of contract and negligence. The class
certification hearing has been postponed to January 2023.
On September 12, 2019, the company's Tennessee subsidiary (TAWC),
experienced a leak in a 36-inch water transmission main, which
caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and
the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main by
early morning on September 14, 2019 and restored full water service
by the afternoon of September 15, 2019, with the boil water notice
lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019.
On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned "Bruce, et al. v.
American Water Works company, Inc., et al." was filed in the
Circuit court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the
company, and American Water Works Service company, Inc., on behalf
of a proposed class of individuals or entities who lost water
service or suffered monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga
incident.
The complaint alleged a breach of contract and negligence against
the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable
remedy of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint as
originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an award of
unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business, and economic
losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of
property, and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee
Plaintiffs' claims in their complaint, except for the breach of
contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending. In October
2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have been
engaging in discovery. A hearing that had been originally scheduled
for October 2022 to address the question of class certification has
been postponed to January 2023
American Water Works company, Inc. is a water and wastewater
utility company based in New Jersey.
BAKOTIC PATHOLOGY: Court Allows Tamraz to Amend Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON TAMRAZ, Plaintiff v. BAKOTIC PATHOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, LLC; BAKO PATHOLOGY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 22-cv-0725-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California:
a. grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the
action without prejudice; and
b. grants the Plaintiff leave to amend.
Before the Court is the Defendants' motion brought pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the putative
class action. The Plaintiff opposes, and the Defendant replies.
Bakotic Pathology Associates ("BPA") provides laboratory services
to healthcare providers. It is a subsidiary of Bako Pathology
Holding ("BPH"), a parent corporation. Through its services, BPA
collects personal information about the patients of its affiliated
healthcare providers. The Privacy Statement provided to BPA's
patients describes what types of patient information is collected,
how it is used, with whom it is shared, and how it is protected.
Tamraz was a patient of BPA through one of the healthcare providers
served by the Defendant. He received a notice letter from the
Defendants dated Feb. 25, 2022, reporting a data breach.
The Notice stated, "We have determined that an unauthorized third
party was able to access certain systems that contained personal
information and remove some data between Dec. 21 and 28, 2021." It
identified the types of information that were illegally accessed
as: "(1) information to identify and contact you, such as full
name, date of birth, address, telephone number, and email address;
(2) health insurance information, such as name of insurer, plan
and/or group number, and member number; (3) medical information,
such as medical record number, dates of service, provider and
facility names, and specimen or test information; and (4) billing
and claims information."
On March 7, 2022, the Plaintiff brought this putative class action
in California state court under California's Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act ("CMIA") and California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"). The Defendants removed the case to federal
court on May 19, 2022, and the Plaintiff filed his First Amended
Complaint on June 21, 2022.
The Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss on July 21,
2022, launching challenges to both the form and substance of the
FAC. First, they accuse the Plaintiff of shotgun pleading in
violation of Rule 8. Second, they argue he substantively fails to
state a claim under the CMIA and the UCL, respectively.
Judge Bashant holds that the Plaintiff fails to justify piercing
the corporate veil. First, a parent-subsidiary relationship does
not establish unity between the two corporations, even when they
share a principal place of business. Second, he FAC is devoid of
any allegations related to inequity. As a result, the FAC violates
Rule 8 by indiscriminately grouping the Defendants together without
reason. This deficiency alone sinks the Plaintiff's pleading.
Although dismissal is warranted on Rule 8(a)(2) grounds, for the
purpose of efficiency and completeness, Judge Bashant assesses
whether the Plaintiff has otherwise stated claims under either the
CMIA or UCL to satisfy Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility requirements. She
finds that the Plaintiff adequately alleges the data breach
included "medical information" under the CMIA. In addition, the
Plaintiff fails to allege that he bargained with the Defendants. He
cannot establish data security was part of a bargained for exchange
between the parties, because he does not establish there was a
bargained for exchange between them.
For these reasons, Judge Bashant grants the Motion to Dismiss and
dismisses the action without prejudice. Furthermore, she grants the
Plaintiff leave to amend. If the Plaintiff wishes to file an
Amended Complaint, he must do so no later than Dec. 6, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/32xmrktf from Leagle.com.
BEAUTY HUT: Apelian Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
--------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Apelian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE BEAUTY HUT, LLC, Case No.
9:22-cv-81745-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2022), is brought pursuant
to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text
messaging.
To promote its cannabis products and dispensaries, Defendant
engages in unsolicited text messaging, including to individuals who
have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry, to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA, and to consumers
who have requested for the messages to stop. The Defendant also
engages in telemarketing without the requisite policies and
procedures and training required under the TCPA and its
implementing regulations.
The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and
the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an
injunction and statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class
members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Palm Beach County,
Florida.
The Defendant is a Florida corporation and a "telephone
solicitor."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Appeals Nov. 23, 2021 Trial Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that in
January 2022, the defendants filed an appeal on the Nov. 23, 2021
trial court ruling that it breached the Limited Partnership
Agreements it entered with Plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul
Berger.
On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger
initiated a purported class action in the court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the company, Boardwalk GP, LP and
Boardwalk GP, LLC, regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP
of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units of
the company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates.
On June 25, 2018, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Trial court. Under the terms of the Proposed
Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed, and related claims
against the Defendants would be released by the Plaintiffs, if
BPHC, the sole member of the general partner of Boardwalk GP,
elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise its Purchase Right for a
cash purchase price, as determined by the company's Third Amended
and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended and gave
notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement.
On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.
On September 28, 2018, the Trial court denied the approval of the
Proposed Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified
class action complaint was filed in this proceeding, which, among
other things, added Loews as a Defendant.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the
Trial court in July 2019. In October 2019, the Trial court ruled on
the motion and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of
the case proceeding to trial. A trial was held the week of February
22, 2021, and post-trial oral arguments were held on July 14,
2021.
On November 12, 2021, the Trial court issued a ruling on the case.
The Trial court held that Boardwalk GP breached the Limited
Partnership Agreement and found that Boardwalk GP is liable to the
Plaintiffs for approximately $690.0 million in damages, plus
pre-judgment interest (approximately $166.0 million), post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees. The Trial court's ruling and damages
award was against Boardwalk GP, and not the company or its
subsidiaries.
On January 3, 2022, the Defendants appealed the trial court's
ruling to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On January
17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court
contesting the calculation of damages by the Trial court. Oral
arguments were held for this case on September 14, 2022.
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP operate the business through its
primary subsidiary Boardwalk Pipelines, LP (Boardwalk Pipelines),
and its operating subsidiaries, which consist of integrated
pipeline and storage systems for natural gas and natural gas
liquids and other hydrocarbons based in Texas.
BTRS HOLDINGS: Violates Anti-Takeover Protections, Kei Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL KEI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated stockholders of BTRS Holdings Inc., Plaintiff v. FLINT A.
LANE; CHARLES B. BERNICKER; ROBERT FARRELL; MATT HARRIS; CLARE
HART; LAWRENCE IRVING; JULI SPOTTISWOOD; EQT FUND MANAGEMENT
S.A.R.L.; EQT X EUR SCSP; EQT X USD SCSP; BULLSEYE FINCO, INC.;
BULLSEYE MERGER SUB, INC.; BAIN CAPITAL VENTURE INVESTORS, LLC; and
BTRS HOLDINGS INC., Defendants, Case No. 2022-1028 (D. Ch., Nov.
14, 2022) alleges violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law
("DGCL").
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to enforce Section
203 of DGCL in connection with EQT's proposed acquisition of
Billtrust. The Defendants will violate Section 203 based on
agreements, arrangements or understandings ("AAUs") among the EQT
Parties, Billtrust's Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and 16.1%
holder, Flint A. Lane ("Lane") and affiliates of 17.1% holder Bain
Capital, with respect to common stock held by Lane and Bain
Capital.
Billtrust, which has not opted out of Section 203 in its
certificate of incorporation or bylaws, is subject to Section 203,
which provides that "a corporation shall not engage in any business
combination with any interested stockholder" -- meaning a holder of
more than 15% of the Company's common stock or a participant in an
AAU with such a holder -- for a period of 3 years following the
time that such stockholder became an interested stockholder.
Absent an applicable exception, the EQT Parties' entry into an AAU
with Lane and Bain Capital renders them "interested stockholders"
for the purposes of Section 203, barring the Proposed Transaction
from closing for the next three years -- a fact that the Board has
failed to disclose to stockholders in the Proxy Statement issued in
connection with the deal.
BTRS HOLDINGS INC. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides cloud-based software and
integrated payment processing solutions that span credit
decisioning and monitoring, online ordering, invoice delivery,
payments, remittance capture, cash application, and collections.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
Meghan D. Dougherty, Esq.
Michael D. Bell, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN & DOUGHERTY LLP
1000 N. West Street Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 212-4330
CALIBER HOME: Morgan's Cross-Motion for Class Certification Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROGERS MORGAN, Plaintiff v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-02797-PX (D. Md.), Judge Paula
Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland:
a. grants Caliber's motion to strike class allegations; and
b. denies Morgan's cross-motion for class certification.
The case concerns alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 2605 ("RESPA"), and "Regulation
X," codified at 12 C.F.R. Sections 1024.1 to 1024.5. RESPA requires
loan servicers who receive a qualified written request ("QWR") that
disputes an issue with the servicing of a borrower's loan payment
to cease communicating adverse credit information related to that
payment for 60 days.
The Complaint concerns two individual plaintiffs who had sent
correspondence to Caliber disputing adverse loan information. The
first involved Morgan, who sent a letter to Caliber regarding what
he believed to be erroneous reporting of outstanding debts listed
on his credit report. For at least two months after receiving this
letter, Caliber continued to report adverse credit information to
credit reporting agencies. The second involved Johnson, who,
through written correspondence, broadly challenged the basis for
Caliber's denial of her requested loan modification and asked that
Caliber cease reporting negative credit information for 60 days.
Caliber declined to revisit the loan modification and went on to
report delinquent payments to credit reporting agencies during the
60-day period.
From this, both Plaintiffs alleged that their correspondence with
Caliber constituted a QWR, and thus Caliber violated RESPA and
Regulation X by reporting adverse information to credit agencies
for sixty days thereafter. The Complaint also generally asserted
that Morgan and Johnson each represented a putative class
challenging Caliber's "policy and practice" of continuing to report
negative credit information after receiving QWRs.
On Oct. 31, 2019, Caliber moved to dismiss the Complaint,
principally arguing that neither the Morgan nor Johnson
correspondence qualified as a QWR, and so the individual and class
claims must be dismissed. It reserved its right to file a separate
motion to strike class allegations if the individual claims
survived challenge. The Court granted Caliber's motion to dismiss,
concluding that neither the Morgan nor Johnson correspondence
qualified as a QWR, and dismissed the individual and class claims.
On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of
Johnson's claims, agreeing that she had not submitted a QWR because
correspondence limited to the dispute of contractual issues that do
not relate to the servicing of the loan, such as loan modification
applications, do not qualify as QWRs. As to Morgan, however, the
majority concluded that his letter provided sufficient detail
regarding the alleged payment servicing error to qualify as a QWR.
The Fourth Circuit, in turn, remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with its decision.
Caliber now moves to strike the remaining class allegations related
to Morgan's claims. Morgan opposes and moves for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
As an initial matter, Judge Xinis disposes of Morgan's argument
that Caliber is prohibited from filing a motion to strike because
Caliber sought no review of its effort to strike the putative class
claims on appeal. She rejects this argument as meritless. This
Court had initially dismissed the entire Complaint, including the
class claims, so Caliber had no adverse ruling from which to
appeal. Morgan also misapprehends the Fourth Circuit decision.
Nowhere did the Fourth Circuit "conclusively decide" the viability
of the class claims that depend on Morgan as the class
representative. Rather, the issue on appeal and the Fourth Circuit
decision was confined solely to Morgan's individual claims. Thus,
Caliber's motion to strike the class allegations is properly before
the Court.
The Complaint identifies the class as "all residential loan
borrowers for whom Caliber received a QWR/NOE in the three years
immediately preceding this Class Action pursuant to 12 U.S.C.A.
Section 2605 and 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.41."
Caliber first argues that the proposed class is not ascertainable.
It presses that this definition requires a fact-intensive inquiry
to determine whether each class member's correspondence qualifies
as a QWR.
Judge Xinis agrees. She opines that the Complaint's class
definition provides no administratively feasible way to proceed
without a fact-intensive inquiry that would defeat the purpose of
class certification. And, viewing the letter at Exhibit 2 most
favorably to Morgan, it does not make the putative class any more
identifiable. Given the generic nature of the correspondence, it
alone does not make the class ascertainable. Alternatively, even
assuming that the correspondence is sent only to those who
submitted a QWR, ascertainability problems remain because generic
correspondence sent to any borrower who submits a QWR does not help
to define the class.
Caliber next argues that even if Morgan could demonstrate
ascertainability, the putative class fails to meet the Rule 23(a)
requirements of commonality and typicality, as well as the
predominance standard in Rule 23(b).
Judge Xinis finds that Morgan's class allegations fail to
demonstrate the predominance of one legal question supporting
class-wide treatment. Because "individual factual determinations
will constitute a significant part of the action" as to RESPA
liability, Morgan has failed to demonstrate that a predominant
legal question favors class-wide treatment.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Xinis grants Caliber's motion to
strike the class allegations and denies Morgan's motion to certify
the class. The class claims are dismissed, albeit without prejudice
so that Morgan may seek leave to amend the Complaint to cure the
deficiencies of the class claims, if possible. A separate Order
follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ytx24d6 from Leagle.com.
CALIBER HOME: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Morgan
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGERS MORGAN, v. CALIBER
HOME LOANS, INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-02797-PX (D. Md.), the Hon.
Judge Paula Xinis entered an order:
1. granting the Motion to Strike Class Allegations filed by
Defendant Caliber Home Loans;
2. denying the Cross-Motion for Class Certification filed by
Plaintiff Rogers Morgan;
3. dismissing the class allegations in the Complaint without
prejudice;
4. directing the Defendant to answer the remaining Complaint
allegations as to Plaintiff's individual claims by no
later than December 1, 2022; and
5. directing the Clerk to transmit copies of the foregoing
Memorandum Opinion and this Order to the parties.
Caliber Home provides commercial finance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gj06Uzat no extra charge.[CC]
CARENETLA INC: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Hernandez Ortega, on behalf all similarly-situated employees
v. CARENETLA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV31959 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 29, 2022), is
brought seeking relief against the Defendant for its: failure to
pay all wages due, including regular and overtime wages; failure to
provide meal periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof;
failure to provide rest periods or premium compensation in lieu
thereof; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide
accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages due upon
termination of employment; and failure to indemnify for
expenditures or losses in discharge of duties.
The Defendant has consistently maintained and enforced the
following unlawful policies and practices against Plaintiff:
willfully refusing to pay all hours worked, including both regular
and overtime wages; willfully refusing to permit off-duty meal
periods or providing compensation in lieu thereof; willfully
refusing to permit rest periods or providing compensation in lieu
thereof; willfully refusing to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements upon payment of wages; willfully refusing to pay all
wages due upon separation of employment; and willfully refusing to
pay for expenditures or losses in the discharge of their duties,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant on April 17,
2018, as a caregiver.
CARENETLA, INC. is a caregiving company that operates in the state
of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Raleigh Dixon, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 562-590-5550
Facsimile: 562-590-8400
Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
rdixon@mahoney-law.net
CARVANA LLC: Appeals Arbitration & Dismissal Bid Denial in Jennings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARVANA LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its
motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss in the lawsuit
entitled Dana Jennings, et al., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carvana LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5-21-cv-05400, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiffs, who are both Pennsylvania citizens, commenced this
consumer protection action by filing a putative class action
complaint against Carvana in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County on Nov. 5, 2021. On Dec. 9, 2021, Carvana
removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, 1453,
invoking federal jurisdiction under the general diversity statute,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d).
Prior to Carvana filing a response to the complaint, the Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on Jan. 13, 2022. In the amended
complaint, the Plaintiffs allege they each purchased a vehicle
online from Carvana, a national used car dealer incorporated in
Georgia. As part of the transaction, they both agreed to pay, and
did pay, inter alia, a $38 state registration fee, $16 license
plate fee, and $55 state title fee. Despite paying these fees, the
Plaintiffs claim that Carvana failed to complete the permanent
registration of their vehicles. Instead, Carvana provided them with
temporary license tags without the legal right or authorization to
do so.
Both Plaintiffs allege actual damages amounting to $93 (including
the $38 state registration fee, $16 license plate fee, and $55
state title fee)1 for licensing and registration for the vehicles
which Carvana failed to complete. They set forth claims for breach
of contract and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Sections 201-1-10. They seek
to represent a class of individuals defined as: All persons in the
United States east of the Mississippi River who entered into
contracts with Carvana to purchase vehicles since Nov. 5, 2019, and
Carvana agreed to provide car registration services with
non-temporary and permanent vehicle registrations in the state of
their residence.
They also seek to represent a subclass of all persons from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who are members of the Nationwide
Class.
In response to the amended complaint, Carvana filed a motion to
compel arbitration and to dismiss on Jan. 28, 2022. The Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition to the motion.
On Sept. 30, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum opinion and order
which denied Carvana's motion to compel arbitration and,
alternatively, to dismiss. It directed Carvana to file an answer to
the amended complaint by Oct. 21, 2022.
The appellate case is captioned Dana Jennings, et al. v. Carvana
LLC, Case No. 22-2948, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on October 26, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees DANA JENNINGS, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
1500 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 351-0200
- and -
Phillip Robinson, Esq.
Consumer Law Center
8737 Colesville Road, Suite 308
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 448-1304
Defendant-Appellant CARVANA LLC is represented by:
Robert C. Collins, III, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 876-7700
- and -
Paul G. Gagne, Esq.
KLEINBARD
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 568-2000
- and -
Eric F. Leon, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 446-4731
- and -
Marc S. Werner, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 906-4632
CERES CLASSIC: Faces IPERS Class Action
---------------------------------------
Ceres Classic L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the company is
still facing a class action complaint captioned "Iowa Public
Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation
et al."
In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("SDNY") styled Iowa Public
Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation
et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S.
antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their
alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic
exchange-based platforms for securities lending.
The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions
with the defendants.
The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification
of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages.
On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint. A decision on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is pending.
On June 30, 2022, a magistrate judge issued recommendations that
the court certify a class.
Ceres Classic L.P. (the "Partnership") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized in 1998 to engage primarily in the
speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and
forward contracts, forward contracts on physical commodities and
other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign
currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural
products
CERES ORION: Alaska Electrical Pension Fund Suit Deal Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ceres Orion LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the court approved
final settlement of the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund Class Suit
on June 16, 2020.
Beginning on March 25, 2019, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a
series of putative class action complaints filed in the United
States District Court for the SDNY, the first of which is styled
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs., Inc., et al. Each
complaint alleged a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain
competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by the
following Government-Sponsored Enterprises: the Federal National
Mortgage Association; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;
the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation; and the Federal
Home Loan Banks.
The purported class period for each suit is from January 1, 2012 to
June 1, 2018. Each complaint raised a claim under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and sought, among other things, injunctive relief and
treble compensatory damages.
On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint styled In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, with
a purported class period from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016.
On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.
On August 29, 2019, the court denied MS&Co.'s motion to dismiss.
Ceres Orion LP (formerly, Orion Futures Fund L.P.) (the
"Partnership") is a limited partnership organized on March 22,
1999.
CERES ORION: Faces IPERS Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Ceres Orion L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the company is
still facing a class action complaint captioned "Iowa Public
Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation
et al."
In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("SDNY") styled Iowa Public
Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation
et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S.
antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their
alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic
exchange-based platforms for securities lending.
The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions
with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other
relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble
damages.
On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint. A decision on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is pending.
On June 30, 2022, a magistrate judge issued recommendations that
the court certify a class.
Ceres Orion LP (formerly, Orion Futures Fund L.P.) (the
"Partnership") is a limited partnership organized on March 22,
1999.
CERES TACTICAL: Alaska Electrical Pension Fund Suit Deal Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ceres Tactical Commodity L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the
court approved final settlement of the Alaska Electrical Pension
Fund Class Suit on June 16, 2020.
Beginning on March 25, 2019, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a
series of putative class action complaints filed in the United
States District Court for the SDNY, the first of which is styled
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs., Inc., et al. Each
complaint alleged a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain
competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by the
following Government-Sponsored Enterprises: the Federal National
Mortgage Association; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;
the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation; and the Federal
Home Loan Banks.
The purported class period for each suit is from January 1, 2012 to
June 1, 2018. Each complaint raised a claim under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and sought, among other things, injunctive relief and
treble compensatory damages.
On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint styled In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, with
a purported class period from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016.
On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.
On August 29, 2019, the court denied MS&Co.'s motion to dismiss.
Ceres Tactical Commodity LP (formerly, Ceres Tactical Currency
L.P.) is a registered commodity trading advisor.
CERES TACTICAL: Faces IPERS Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Ceres Tactical Systematic LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the
compamy is still facing a class action complaint captioned "Iowa
Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation et al."
In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("SDNY") styled Iowa Public
Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation
et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S.
antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their
alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic
exchange-based platforms for securities lending.
The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions
with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other
relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble
damages.
On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint. A decision on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is pending.
On June 30, 2022, a magistrate judge issued recommendations that
the court certify a class.
Ceres Tactical Systematic L.P. (the "Partnership") is a limited
partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of
New York on December 3, 2002 to engage, directly or indirectly, in
the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity
interests including futures, option, swap and forward contracts.
The sectors traded include currencies, energy, grains, indices,
U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates, livestock, metals and softs.
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Harris Files Suit Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON HARRIS, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06024 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2022) arises
under the laws of the United States, specifically, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration
Act, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, and the
Illinois Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiff is a former CTA bus operator who has sincerely held
religious beliefs against the COVID-19 vaccines because they were
either developed from, or tested upon, aborted fetal cells lines,
and for other religious reasons that were explained to Defendant.
Because of Defendant's unlawful actions in denying Plaintiff's
meritorious religious exemption request, Plaintiff faced an
immediate "choice" to either (a) receive a COVID-19 vaccination in
direct violation of his conscience and sincerely held religious
beliefs, or (b) be terminated from his employment with the CTA. The
Plaintiff held true to his religious beliefs and was terminated by
the CTA along with hundreds of other similarly situated CTA
employees, says the suit.
The class action suit is brought to remedy the rights of the
Plaintiff and hundreds of other CTA employees as a result of
Defendant's failure to comply with federal and state laws
protecting the religious liberty rights of employees.
Chicago Transit Authority is an independent governmental agency
which operates the nation's second largest public transportation
system in Chicago and 35 surrounding suburbs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julie Herrera, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JULIE O. HERRERA
159 N. Sangamon St., Ste. 200
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 479-3014
Facsimile: (708) 843-5802
E-mail: jherrera@julieherreralaw.com
- and -
Sorin A. Leahu, Esq.
LEAHU LAW GROUP, LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1527
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (847)-529-7221
E-mail: sleahu@leahulaw.com
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Shampoo Contains Benzene, Grieb Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANN GRIEB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01778-AJB-RBB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2022) is an action
seeks to remedy the unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business
practices of C&D with respect to certain aerosol Batiste Dry
Shampoos that reliable independent laboratory testing has confirm
contain benzene (the "Dry Shampoos" or "Products").
The Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that the Defendant through
its unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business practices regarding
the manufacture, testing, labeling, and marketing, has sold and
continues to sell benzene containing Batiste Dry Shampoos to
consumers throughout the United States, including in California.
The presence of benzene renders these Products "adulterated" and
therefore illegal to be distributed and sold. The Defendant knew or
should have known the Batiste Dry Shampoos contained benzene, or at
the very least that they are at the risk of containing benzene, yet
it failed to disclose that to consumers anywhere on the Products'
labeling, says the suit.
CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC. develops, manufactures, and distributes
household, personal care, and specialty products. The Company
offers contraceptive products, laundry and dishwashing detergents,
toothbrushes, shampoos, vitamins, pregnancy test kits, and hair
removers. Church & Dwight serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Joseph, Esq.
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Melanie Persinger, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
CICA COLLECTION: Carrasquillo FDCPA Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OMAR HERNANDEZ CARRASQUILLO, Plaintiff v. CICA
COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., Defendant, Civil No. 21-1506 (CVR)
(D.P.R.), Magistrate Judge Camille L. Velez Rive of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico grants the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses all the Plaintiff's
claims with prejudice.
The present case arises from a collection letter CICA mailed to
Carrasquillo attempting to collect a consumer debt he had with
non-party Claro Puerto Rico. Carrasquillo avers that, at the time
CICA mailed the letter to him, CICA knew or should have known that
he was under the protection of the Bankruptcy Code, as he had filed
a voluntary bankruptcy petition on Sept. 29, 2019 which listed the
Claro debt. He alleges that CICA's single letter violated multiple
provisions of the Fair Debt Practice Collection Act ("FDCPA"). He
also brings forth his claim in representation of an alleged class
of similarly situated consumers.
Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in which CICA
avers that the Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed as the
violation of the FDCPA is precluded by the Bankruptcy Code and the
allegations as to the remaining claims fail. CICA also contends
that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements to bring forth a
class action. The Plaintiff opposed the request alleging that all
claims have been properly pled.
As an initial matter, Judge Velez Rive considers the document the
Plaintiff himself attached to his Complaint, that is, the letter in
question and the official translation thereto. She additionally
takes judicial knowledge of the filings made before the Bankruptcy
Court in Bankruptcy Case No. 19-05560 (MCF).
Turning to the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant's first argument is
that the Bankruptcy Act precludes the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims.
Judge Velez Rive does not reach this issue as she finds that the
Plaintiff's claims fail on the merits and must be dismissed.
First, she dismisses the claims brought against CICA under 15
U.S.C. Sections 1962e(2)(A), 1692e(5) and 1692e(10). She finds that
the error in question was not caused by CICA, but rather by Claro.
The Court takes judicial notice of Bankruptcy Case No. 19-05560-MCF
and its filings, which established that Claro failed to notify CICA
of the bankruptcy filing, and CICA's violation was thus not
intentional. Without notification by Claro or the Bankruptcy Court
there is simply no way CICA could know of the bankruptcy filing.
Therefore, there was no knowledge or intent by CICA.
Second, Judge Velez Rive dismisses the claim brought against CICA
under section 1692c(a)(2). She says there cannot be liability by
the Defendant who did not know of the bankruptcy proceeding, a fact
which has been made clear by the filings in the bankruptcy court.
Third, she dismisses the claims filed against CICA under 15 U.S.C.
sections 1692g(a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(4). She holds that (i)
pursuant to applicable caselaw, even the "least sophisticated
consumer" would clearly understand the terms of notice; (ii) the
statute merely requires that the creditor be named; (iii) even the
"least sophisticated consumer" could discern that Claro is the
creditor, and that the Plaintiff, who had an account with Claro,
owed $872.60 to that entity; (iv) the Court cannot give credence to
the Plaintiff's overtly and unnecessarily strict reading of
1692g(a)(3) and (4); and (v) the Plaintiff has failed to cite any
case that has found the particular language in question to be
unclear.
Fourth, Judge Velez Rive dismisses the claim against CICA under 15
U.S.C. Section 1692e(11). She holds that a third-party negotiator,
by its very definition and virtue of being a third party, cannot be
considered an agent of both. An intermediary is precisely what CICA
was, a type of mediator between Plaintiff and Claro. Again, this is
language that even the most unsophisticated consumer can
understand. There is no confusion or falsity.
Finally, as previously explained, the Court has dismissed all
claims against CICA on the merits. Thus, there is no need for Judge
Velez Rive to reach the class action demand issue as it is moot.
In sum, Judge Velez Rive concludes that when a statute's language
is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it
according to its terms. She has found no violation to the FDCPA for
the reasons she described. As such, the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss is granted and the case is dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2hryat4s from Leagle.com.
CLOUDERA INC: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on October 25, 2022, Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted a
motion to dismiss a putative class action against an enterprise
data cloud platform company (the "Company"). In re Cloudera, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-03221-MMC, 2022 WL 14813896 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 25, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled
investors in its characterization of the Company's platform in
violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5. The Court, having dismissed an earlier
complaint, dismissed the claims without further leave to amend,
finding that the Company's statements were not false or
misleading.
In 2017, the Company announced an Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
and Secondary Public Offering ("SPO"). Plaintiffs alleged that
during and after this offering period, the Company misled investors
with claims about its "original cloud native architecture" and
"cloud-native platform" even though the Company lacked any of the
key features of "effective cloud computing." The key point of
contention was whether the terms "cloud native" and "cloud
architecture," which the Company used in its communications with
investors, had meaning beyond non-actionable corporate puffery.
Plaintiffs alleged that the terms had a specific meaning, which
they drew from an article published by the Company several months
after the close of the Class Period and years after most of the
challenged statements were made. According to plaintiffs, investors
would have understood "cloud-native" and "cloud architecture" to
refer to specific attributes that the Company's product actually
lacked. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that statements made
during an April 3, 2018, earnings call were misleading because they
"suggested that the Company's weak guidance and results" were
attributable to mistakes in how the Company allocated sales
resources rather than "the market's shift to cloud offerings which
the Company then lacked."
The Court rejected plaintiffs' arguments. First, the Court held
that the article published by the Company did not prove that the
Company made misrepresentations because the "article never use[d]
the term 'cloud native' or 'cloud architecture.'" Moreover, even if
the article had used such terms, the Court found the article to be
too far removed in time from the challenged statements to be
determinative. The Court also rejected plaintiffs' allegations
regarding how reasonable investors might understand "cloud native"
or "cloud architecture," holding that plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege that "cloud native" or "cloud architecture" had
"distinctive" meanings. Instead, the Court held that these
statements were puffery.
Second, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Company's
statements during its earnings call regarding its disappointing
guidance and results were misleading. Specifically, the Court held
that there was no factual support for plaintiffs' allegation that
the Company had disappointing results because it "lacked
cloud-native services and [the Company] could not provide public
cloud services comparable to its competitors."
The Court dismissed the complaint without further leave to amend
because plaintiffs had already amended their complaint and had
failed to cure deficiencies identified in a decision dismissing the
prior complaint. [GN]
COMEDY PARTNERS: Kaplan Sues Over Comedians' Unpaid Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KAPLAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMEDY PARTNERS, a New York
general partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-09355 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 1, 2022) arises from the Defendant's violations of the
statutory licensing provisions of the Digital Performance in Sound
Recordings Act of 1995.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members are comedians who have released
record albums of certain of their live comedic performances through
CCR. The Plaintiff and the Class Members granted licenses to
Defendant to exploit (i.e., use, distribute, sell, transfer,
market, etc.) their works via digital transmission (i.e.,
transmissions over the Internet, telephone, satellite, cable, wire,
or through the air, etc.) in exchange for payment of a share of all
revenues received by or credited to Defendant attributable to such
exploitation, also known as the Licensing Agreements.
As contemplated by the Licensing Agreements, Defendant has caused
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' works to be distributed to
various Digital Service Providers which publicly perform the Works
on their platforms via digital transmission. One of the DSPs to
digitally perform Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Works is
SiriusXM Radio, says the suit.
The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to properly account
to and pay Plaintiff and the Class Members their contractual shares
of all revenues received by or credited to Defendant from the
exploitation of Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Works on
SiriusXM, and for Defendant's bad faith conduct toward Plaintiff
and the Class Members relating to and arising from Defendant's
dealings with SiriusXM.
Comedy Partners, a subsidiary of Paramount Global, runs the network
television channel "Comedy Central" and the record label "Comedy
Central Records," the latter through which Defendant produces and
distributes comedy record albums.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
Melissa N. Eubanks, Esq.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
439 N. Canon Dr. Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 975-1080
Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
djohnson@jjllplaw.com
meubanks@jjllplaw.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
bpouya@pswlaw.com
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Claims Money Laundering Suit Based on Hindsight
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clancy Yeates, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Commonwealth Bank says a shareholder class action targeting the
bank's disclosure of mass anti-money laundering breaches is based
on hindsight, as the lender did not know if it would be sued when
it became aware of the issue.
Noel Hutley SC, representing CBA, also hit back at the plaintiffs'
interpretation of 2015 emails, between former chief executive Ian
Narev and CEO Matt Comyn, before an expected cross-examination of
Narev.
Hutley on Nov. 9 outlined CBA's defence in a class action that
alleges the bank failed to tell investors about material
information before it was slapped with a 2017 lawsuit from the
anti-money laundering watchdog, Austrac.
The Austrac lawsuit, which was ultimately settled for a $700
million fine, led to a 5 per cent fall in CBA's share price in the
days following its announcement to the market.
The Federal Court class action, brought by Maurice Blackburn and
Phi Finney McDonald, alleges CBA knew about serious instances of
non-compliance with anti-money laundering laws, and the fact it did
not tell investors earlier breached its disclosure obligations.
A key plank in Austrac's 2017 bombshell case was that CBA failed to
lodge more than 53,000 reports with the regulator to alert it to
cash deposits of at least $10,000 that had been made through its
ATMs.
Jeremy Stoljar, SC, acting for shareholders, on Nov. 7 told the
court the sheer number of contraventions was "law-breaking on a
grand scale."
But Hutley argued that when CBA first became aware of these
breaches, it did not know that Austrac would launch a lawsuit
against the bank, and Austrac repeatedly told the bank it had not
decided whether it would sue the bank.
"We say this material shows the real world in which people were
properly approaching this issue. And in our respectful submission,
the case of the applicant is wholly infected by hindsight bias that
we were sued, a claim was made and a penalty was agreed on, which
your Honour approved," Hutley said.
Hutley also hit back at the plaintiffs' interpretation of emails
between Comyn and Narev from September 2015, in which they
discussed concerns about the possibility cash deposits had not been
reported to Austrac. This was almost two years before the Austrac
lawsuit was lodged and CBA announced the issue to the ASX.
Narev and Comyn both referred to a need to manage "stakeholders" in
2015, and Stoljar on Nov. 7 argued the term stakeholders included
investors. Hutley said this was "simply wrong," and the plaintiffs
could put the issue to Narev directly.
Stoljar on Nov. 7 argued the emails showed senior CBA executives
regarded the issue as "extremely serious," referring to a 2015
email to Narev from Comyn (who ran CBA's retail bank at the time),
which said: "I've also put a rocket up a few people because there
are still some details that we need before we can accurately update
stakeholders with the facts."
Hutley on Nov. 9 pointed to Narev's reply, which said: "All good.
No need for rockets. Just keen to make sure we are in front of the
issue, not behind it."
Hutley said the Austrac breaches were "obviously a serious issue,"
but the response from Narev showed nothing more than the issue
being dealt with in a "wholly appropriate manner." [GN]
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Guy Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEO GUY, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01558-MJP (W.D. Wash., Nov. 2, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment
seeking redress for Convergent's unlawful conduct.
This class action arises out of a 2022 data breach of documents and
information stored on the computer network of Convergent. According
to the Notice of Data Breach Letter that Convergent sent to
Plaintiff and Class members, it first became aware of the Data
Breach on June 17, 2022, and began investigating. Convergent
finally began notifying the unknown or undisclosed number of
victims over 4 months after the "data breach" occurred, stating
that their personal identifiable information had been stolen in
what Defendant calls an "interruption to certain services performed
by Convergent affecting certain computer systems."
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' private information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party
and precisely what specific type of information was accessed.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, says the suit.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a third-party debt collection
company that serves the telecommunication, utility, banking, cable
company, and financial service industries by offering consumer debt
collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 624-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
CORMEDIX INC: Voter Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Cormedix 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 10, 2022, that the shareholder
derivative suit Voter v. Baluch, et al. is stayed while the motion
to dismiss the suit is pending.
On or about October 13, 2021, a purported shareholder, derivatively
and on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, in a case entitled Voter v. Baluch, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW (the "Derivative Litigation").
The complaint names as defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet Dillione,
Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa,
Greg Duncan, Matthew David, and Phoebe Mounts along with the
Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets
against the defendants and a claim for contribution for purported
violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act against
certain defendants.
The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims.
On January 21, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties,
the Court entered an order staying the case while the motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit described in the foregoing
paragraph is pending. The stay may be terminated before the motion
to dismiss is resolved according to certain circumstances described
in the stipulation available on the Court's public docket.
CorMedix Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
and commercializing therapeutic products for the prevention and
treatment of infectious and inflammatory diseases based in New
Jersey.
COX MEDIA: Disloses Subscribers' Info to Facebook, Bienkowski Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD BIENKOWSKI and FELECIA HAWKINS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COX MEDIA GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04462-JPB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 8, 2022)
alleges Defendant's violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act
after it knowingly disclosed Plaintiffs' personally identifiable
information to Facebook without consent.
The Plaintiffs are subscribers of Defendant's website, wsbtv.com,
which offers, inter alia, a wide array of video content. When
Plaintiffs watched videos on wsbtv.com, Plaintiffs' PII was shared
with Facebook without first notifying Plaintiffs and without their
consent. The Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for statutory
damages in an amount not less than $2,500 for each disclosure of
PII, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit.
Cox Media Group, LLC operates as a digital media company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kurt G. Kastorf, Esq.
KASTORF LAW LLC
1387 Iverson Street NE Suite #100
Atlanta, GA 30307
Telephone: (404) 900-0330
E-mail: kurt@kastorflaw.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
Lance Spitzig, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
lspitzig@lsccounsel.com
DEMERT BRANDS: Morgan Sues Over Benzene in Dry Shampoo Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEMERT BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-03962-DCC (D.S.C., Nov. 9, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, strict liability, negligent
failure to warn, negligent design defect, and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Act.
The Plaintiff bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself,
and all similarly situated consumers who purchased for normal
household use DeMert dry shampoo aerosol products that are
defective because they contain benzene, and which were formulated,
designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold
by DeMert. The Products are defective because each contains
significant amounts of the chemical benzene, a known human
carcinogen that offers no therapeutic dry shampoo benefit; yet
despite the presence of benzene, DeMert represents that the
Products are safe and effective for their intended use, the
Plaintiff says.
Because Plaintiff and Class Members purchased worthless and, worse,
they purchased and used Products that are dangerous to their
health, they have suffered losses. The Plaintiff seeks damages and
equitable remedies on behalf of herself and the proposed Classes,
the suit asserts.
DeMert Brands, LLC is a cosmetic company headquartered in Lutz,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
DR PIZZA: Gifford Balks at Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON GIFFORD, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. DR PIZZA, INC., and DAVID KEARNS, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00707-DBP (D. Utah, Nov. 8, 2022) is a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards to recover unpaid minimum
wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores and
employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver
pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of
reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs
of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed
method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an
unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the
expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause
their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or
all workweeks, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately May
2020 to October 2021 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's
store in Roosevelt, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com
EFINANCIAL LLC: Ninth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Borden TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BORDEN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EFINANCIAL, LLC,
a Washington Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 21-35746 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit.
Being deluged with "spam" telemarketing phone calls or text
messages is the bane of modern life. Back in 1991, Congress enacted
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). One of the purposes
of the TCPA was to prevent marketers from using "autodialing"
technology to call phone numbers en masse.
Fast forward to today -- and technology keeps evolving. After
Borden provided his phone number to an insurance company on a
website, he began receiving marketing texts from eFinancial. He
alleges in his Second Amended Complaint that eFinancial used an
autodialer to send him text messages.
Borden sued under the TCPA, claiming that eFinancial uses a
"sequential number generator" to pick the order in which to call
customers who had provided their phone numbers. He says that this
type of number generator qualifies as an "automatic telephone
dialing system" (often colloquially called an "autodialer") under
the TCPA. But eFinancial responds that it does not use an
autodialer. It argues that the TCPA defines an autodialer as one
that must generate telephone numbers to dial, not just any number
to decide which pre-selected phone numbers to call.
Borden filed the class action against eFinancial, but the district
court dismissed it, ruling that eFinancial did not use an
autodialer. This appeal followed.
The TCPA generally makes it unlawful for anyone in the United
States to make a call using an "automatic telephone dialing system"
without the consent of the recipient. But much litigation,
including this case, surrounds the issue of what equipment
qualifies as an "automatic telephone dialing system."
Borden argues that an autodialer must merely generate some random
or sequential number during its dialing process (for example, to
figure out the order to call a list of phone numbers), and is not
limited to generating telephone numbers. eFinancial argues that an
autodialer must generate random or sequential telephone numbers to
dial.
The Ninth Circuit holds that an "automatic telephone dialing
system" must generate and dial random or sequential telephone
numbers under the TCPA's plain text. The Supreme Court's recent
decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163 (2021),
supports that reading. eFinancial, thus, has not used an
autodialer, and its texts to Borden do not implicate the TCPA. The
Ninth Circuit, thus, affirms the district court's dismissal of the
lawsuit.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mrypjvnm from Leagle.com.
Shawn A. Heller -- shawn@sjlawcollective.com -- (argued), Social
Justice Law Collective, Dunedin, Florida; Joshua A. Glickman --
josh@sjlawcollective.com -- Social Justice Law Collective, Overland
Park, Kansas, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
James G. Snell -- jsnell@perkinscoie.com -- (argued), Perkins Coie
LLP, Palo Alto, California, Nicola Menaldo --
nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com -- and Anna M. Thompson --
josh@sjlawcollective.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington,
for the Defendant-Appellee.
Alan J. Butler -- info@epic.org -- Megan Iorio, and Christopher
Frascella, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Washington, D.C.,
for Amicus Curiae Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Tara S. Morrissey and Jonathan D. Urick, United States Chamber
Litigation Center, Washington, D.C.; Andrew J. Pincus --
apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- and Daniel E. Jones --
djones@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
Jessica L. Ellsworth -- jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com -- Mark
W. Brennan -- mark.brennan@hoganlovells.com -- Arpan A. Sura, and
Johannah Walker -- johannah.walker@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae ACA
International.
Michele Shuster, Mac Murray & Shuster LLP, New Albany, Ohio, for
Amicus Curiae Professional Association for Customer Engagement.
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Bid to Dismiss Fogel's FDCPA Class Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH FOGEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC,
d/b/a ERC, Defendant, Case No. 22 CV 1870 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants ERC's motion to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Fogel brings the putative class action against ERC, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692 et seq. The Plaintiff received a debt
collection letter from ERC dated March 5, 2021.
The letter indicates she had an outstanding balance on an account
with Barclays Bank Delaware. It lists the "Amount of Debt" and
"Original Balance" as $4,602.25, and the amount of "Interest
Accrued," "Non-interest Charges and Fees," and "Payments to Date"
as $0. it provides that upon ERC's receipt of a payment in the
amount of $4,6025.25, her account would be considered paid in
full.
The Plaintiff alleges the $4,602.25 amount includes interest and
fees added to her principal debt by Barclays, as well as deductions
for payments she previously made to Barclays towards the balance.
Thus, she alleges the statements in the letter that the amount of
interest and fees charged is $0, and that the amount of payments
made is $0, are false and misleading in violation of the FDCPA.
The Plaintiff alleges ERC's letter violates the FDCPA because it
misrepresents the amount and nature of her debt. ERC argues the
letter is not deceptive or misleading in violation of Section 1692e
because the itemization showing $0 in interest, charges, fees, and
payments on the Plaintiff's account could not reasonably refer to
pre-charge-off amounts, and that, even if this statement were
misleading, such misstatement would be immaterial.
Judge Briccetti agrees with ERC. He opines that reading the letter
in its entirety, and considering the least sophisticated consumer
standard, it is unreasonable to interpret these $0 itemizations as
referring to interest and fees added by Barclays, and payments made
by the Plaintiff towards the account, before the debt was
transferred to ERC for collection. He is also not persuaded that a
collection letter is misleading unless it breaks down the interest
and charges assessed, and payments made, on the underlying debt.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed plausibly to plead ERC's
letter would be deceptive or misleading to the least sophisticated
consumer.
In any event, even if the Plaintiff had plausibly alleged the $0
itemizations in the letter could reasonably be interpreted as
inaccurate, Judge Briccetti finds any alleged misstatements were
not material. The Plaintiff's allegation that the itemizations led
her to suspect fraud do not make these statements material.
Accordingly, because she fails plausibly to allege ERC's debt
collection practices were deceptive or misleading or that any
misstatements were material, her Section 1692e claims must be
dismissed.
ERC also argues the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged any unfair
or unconscionable conduct in violation of Section 1692f because she
has not identified any conduct distinct from the itemizations in
the letter which are not misleading and, in any event, immaterial.
Judge Briccetti agrees. The Plaintiff does not allege ERC committed
any of the eight proscribed practices. Because ERC's "collection
letter is not 'misleading' within the meaning of Section 1692e, it
is not 'unfair' or 'unconscionable' within the meaning of Section
1692f." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Section 1692f claim must be
dismissed.
Finally, ERC argues the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged it
violated Section 1692g because the letter clearly states the amount
of her debt.
Judge Briccetti agrees. The collection letter clearly and
accurately states the information required under 1692g. The
complaint lacks well-pleaded factual allegations indicating these
statements are false, and the Court is not persuaded the
itemizations would mislead the least sophisticated consumer as to
the nature of the debt. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has not
alleged ERC's letter failed clearly to state the amount of her
debt, her Section 1692g claim must be dismissed.
For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion and close the
case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3usk5hm2 from Leagle.com.
ESTATE MANAGEMENT: Rattacasa Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Rattacasa, on behalf of himself and similarly situated class
members, Plaintiff v. Estate Management Services, Inc. and John
Milton Crabb, III, Defendants, Case No. 9:22-cv-03905-RMG (D.S.C.,
Nov. 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid
wages, treble damages, and other relief under the South Carolina
Payment of Wages Act, and for defamation, breach of contract,
tortious interference with contract, breach of contract accompanied
by a fraudulent act, negligent misrepresentation, abuse of process
and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs Rattacasa was employed as Chief Financial Officer and
Executive Vice President from November 2, 2015, until March 23,
2022. Mr. Crabb, president of EMS, and EMS entered into an
employment agreement with Plaintiff to pay him commissions and cost
saving bonuses. Allegedly, Crabb failed to pay Rattacasa his earned
commissions. Instead of paying Rattacasa cash wages for his
cost-saving bonus, Crabb agreed to purchase Rattacasa a Ford 150
Pick-Up truck. The Ford 150 Pick-Up truck was in exchange for the
work Rattacasa performed and constituted his wages per the parties'
employment agreement, says the suit.
Further, the suit asserts that Crabb made verbal and written
statements in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's reputation.
Crabb's statements "are defamatory per se" because his statements
were about Rattacasa's being unfit in his position as a CFO,
asserts the suit.
Estate Management Services, Inc. is a licensed and insured aquatics
contracting and land management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW
652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A
Charleston, SC 2943
Telephone: (843) 588-5587
E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Scheibe Sues Over Deceptive Dietary Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SCHEIBE, on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
ESUPPLEMENTS, LLC dba Nutricost, a Utah limited liability company,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01765-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2022) alleges
that Defendant uses the artificial petrochemically derived DL malic
acid in its Products to create sweet and tart flavor, thus
misbranding the Products and deceiving consumers.
The ingredients on the Products' label are allegedly declared in a
way that is misleading and contrary to law, because the Defendant
designates the ingredient by its generic name, "malic acid,"
instead of by its specific name, "DL malic acid."
The Plaintiff alleges that certain products manufactured, packaged,
labeled, advertised, distributed and sold by the Defendant are
misbranded and falsely advertised in California and otherwise
violate California law.
The Products were tested using bomb calorimetry conducted by an
independent third-party nutritional analysis firm. That analysis
revealed that:
The EAA powder contains 5.12 kcal per gram -- about 1,690
calories per container -- or 56 calories per serving; and
The Pre-Workout powder contains 3.74 kcal per gram – about
3,366 calories per container -- or 56 calories per serving.
Here, the explicit representation that the EAA powder contains only
5 calories per serving is false and deceptive. Additionally, the
Defendant labels and advertises the Products as if they are
exclusively naturally flavored. Testing conducted by independent
third-party laboratories has confirmed the use of DL malic acid in
the Products. DL malic acid is also called d-hydroxybutanedioic
acid or (R)-(+)-2-Hydroxysuccinic acid, says the suit.
DL malic acid is not a "natural flavor" as this term is defined by
federal and state regulations and is not derived from a fruit or
vegetable or any other natural source. Rather, it is derived from
petroleum products. The Products therefore contain artificial
flavorings.
ESupplements is a Utah limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Vineyard, Utah. Nutricost's Products are
dietary supplements that contain an amino acid blend that
purportedly support endurance during workouts and aid in muscle
repair when taken after workouts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
EXQUISITO RESTAURANT: Diaz Seeks Delivery Workers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL DIAZ, MIGUEL GARCIA VILLEGAS, and SERVANDO GARCIA VILLEGAS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. EXQUISITO RESTAURANT INC. (D/B/A EXQUISITO RESTAURANT) and
ARGENEDIS NUNEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06802 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
8, 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.
Plaintiffs Angel Diaz, Miguel Garcia Villegas, and Servando Garcia
Villegas were employed as delivery workers at the Defendants'
restaurant located in Long Island City, New York from March 2016
until March 2018, from June 2017 until March 2020, and from
December 2018 until July 2019, respectively.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Dominican Restaurant,
located in Long Island City, New York under the name "Exquisito
Restaurant."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
EYM PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mangum Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DEDEE MANGUM, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. EYM PIZZA OF ILLINOIS, LLC; and EDUARDO DIAZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06322 (N.D. IL., Nov. 12, 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 Mangum was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.
EYM PIZZA OF ILLINOIS, LLC operate Pizza Hut franchise stores.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Edmonston Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMY EDMONSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01794-CCC (M.D. Penn., November 9,
2022) alleges the Defendant of unlawful pay practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Licensed Loan
Originator Assistant from on or about June 29, 2016 until on or
about June 20, 2022.
The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated Licensed
Loan Originator Assistant regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week. Specifically, the Plaintiff worked an average of 60 to 70
hours per workweek in her position with the Defendant. However, the
Defendant did not compensate her and the Class members for all
hours they have worked. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant
denied them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times of their regular rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Additionally, the Defendant
failed to accurately track and/or record all hours they have
worked, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class and collective
action complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated Licensed Loan Originator Assistant to recover all unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
all costs of this action, pre- and post-judgment interest, and all
additional general and equitable relief to which they may be
entitled.
Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation offers mortgage services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (267) 273-1054
E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
FIGS INC: Faces Ryan Suit Over 25% Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
SEAN RYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIGS, INC., HEATHER HASSON, CATHERINE SPEAR,
DANIELLA TURENSHINE, J. MARTIN WILLHITE, and JEFFREY D. LAWRENCE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-07939 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 1, 2022) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (i) FIGS
securities between May 27, 2021 and May 12, 2022, inclusive; and/or
(ii) FIGS stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
issued in connection with FIGS' initial public offering.
Founded in 2013, FIGS is a direct-to-consumer healthcare apparel
and lifestyle brand that primarily sells its products in the United
States through the Company's digital platforms. On June 1, 2021,
FIGS announced the closing of its IPO. Pursuant to the Registration
Statement, the Defendants issued to the public 30,344,317 shares of
Class A common stock.
According to the complaint, the Registration Statement contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material
facts that were required by applicable law and necessary to make
the statements therein not misleading. In particular, the
Registration Statement claimed that due to the Company's access to
significant customer data, it was able to maintain an efficient and
steady supply chain. The truth, however, was that the Company's
access to data did not allow it to mitigate supply chain problems
through predictable sales. Instead, FIGS had to increasingly rely
on air freight that costs materially more than the overseas
shipping it was previously reliant on, says the suit.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.21 per share,
approximately 25%, to just $9.64 per share. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
declines in the market value of the Company's shares alleged
herein, plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, the suit asserts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Craig W. Smith, Esq.
Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: brobbins@robbinsllp.com
csmith@robbinsllp.com
gdelgaizo@robbinsllp.com
FIRST STUDENT: Stewart Labor Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT STEWART, REBECCA HOWARD and PHILIP MCCALL,
for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
FIRST STUDENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02556, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on November 7, 2022.
The Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-02009-DCN to the proceeding.
The complaint is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law, challenging common work assignment, timekeeping and
compensation policies and practices that cause Defendants’
drivers to be denied both regular and overtime wage payments due
for work they performed with Defendant's knowledge and for
Defendant's benefit.
First Student, Inc. is a provider of home-to-school student
transportation in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. COHEN
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA
Telephone: (215) 873-4836
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Paige L. Smith, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS
100 North Riverside Plaza, Ste. 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: aceragioli@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Niloy Ray, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON - MINNEAPOLIS
1300 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 313-7641
E-mail: nray@littler.com
- and -
Alexander R. Frondorf, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
Key Tower
127 Public Square, Ste. 1600
Cleveland, OH 44114-9612
Telephone: (216) 623-6141
Facsimile: (216) 916-4935
E-mail: afrondorf@littler.com
- and -
Kimberly D. Saginario, Esq.
Matthew J. Hank, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON - PHILADELPHIA
1601 Cherry Street, Ste. 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 402-3000
E-mail: mhank@littler.com
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: McCollam Suit Parties Reach Confidential Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstSun Capital Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the parties
involved in the McCollam putative class suit reached agreement on a
confidential settlement that will result in the case being
dismissed with prejudice.
On September 10, 2021, Karen McCollam filed a putative class action
amended complaint against the Bank in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado. The amended complaint alleged
that the Bank improperly charged overdraft fees where a transaction
was initially authorized on sufficient funds but later settled
negative due to intervening transactions.
The complaint asserted a claim for breach of contract, which
incorporated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and a
claim for violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff sought to represent a proposed class of all the Bank’s
checking account customers who were allegedly charged overdraft
fees on transactions that did not overdraw their checking account.
Plaintiff sought unspecified restitution, actual and statutory
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and other
relief as the Court deemed proper for herself and the putative
class.
On September 24, 2021, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
The Bank's motion to dismiss was granted on April 15, 2022.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on May 16, 2022.
The parties thereafter reached agreement on a confidential
settlement that will result in the case being dismissed with
prejudice.
FirstSun Capital Bancorp, headquartered in Denver, Colorado, is the
financial holding company for Sunflower Bank, National Association,
which operates as Sunflower Bank, First National 1870 and Guardian
Mortgage.
FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Court Junks Class Suit with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flexsteel Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit was filed against the company and was
dismissed with prejudice in September 2022.
On March 22, 2021, the company received notice of a class action
lawsuit filed against Flexsteel Industries, Inc., and J.K. Dittmer
and D.P. Schmidt as individuals, by a number of employees who had
worked at the Dubuque Operations and Starkville plants prior to the
closure of the locations due to the impact of COVID-19 on the
business at that period of time.
The allegations with the claim include failure to pay employee
benefits as required by a plan governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), failure of J.K. Dittmer and D.P.
Schmidt to act with respect to the ERISA-governed severance plan,
and failure to provide 60-days' notice or the equivalent amount of
pay to the employees required by the WARN Act when the company
closed the Dubuque and Starkville locations.
The parties participated in a mediation and on December 3, 2021,
agreed to resolve the matter for $1.3 million. The matter was
dismissed with prejudice on September 1, 2022.
Flexsteel Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries is a manufacturer,
importer, and marketer of furniture products based in Iowa.
FOCUS CAMERA: Elmekies Sues Over Unlawful Termination Under FMLA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PENINAH ELMEKIES, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. FOCUS CAMERA LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06634 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022) seeks damages related to
Defendant's unlawful termination of Plaintiff's employment in
retaliation for taking legally-protected leave pursuant to the
Family Medical Leave Act.
The Plaintiff was hired as a warehouse assistant in Defendant's
North Brunswick, New Jersey warehouse, effective January 1, 2020.
In April 2021, she suffered injuries while at work including but
not limited to a concussion and loss of consciousness when she hit
her head on her desk. Her concussion prevented her from doing her
job since she fainted at work. As a result of her injuries,
Plaintiff was required to take, and indeed did take, legally
protected leave pursuant to the FMLA beginning April 28, 2021.
According to the complaint, when she returned to work from leave on
June 14, 2021, the Plaintiff discovered that Defendant had hired
another employee to fulfill her job duties. The Defendant
terminated Plaintiff's employment effective July 18, 2021, with no
explanation. The Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment
without a legitimate business reason to do so, asserts the
complaint. The Plaintiff had been an excellent employee and
Defendant had no need to eliminate her position, it adds.
Focus Camera LLC sells photography and musical equipment,
electronics, and audio devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank J. Tantone, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: ft@Belllg.com
FRESHWORKS INC: Sundaram Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
MOHAN R. SUNDARAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESHWORKS INC., RATHNA GIRISH
MATHRUBOOTHAM, TYLER SLOAT, ROXANNE S. AUSTIN, JOHANNA FLOWER,
SAMEER GANDHI, RANDY GOTTFRIED, ZACHARY NELSON, BARRY PADGETT,
JENNIFER TAYLOR, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., JEFFERIES LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.,
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, CANACCORD GENUITY LLC, JMP
SECURITIES LLC, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, NOMURA SECURITIES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., PIPER SANDLER & CO.,
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., AMERIVET SECURITIES, INC.,
CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., and
R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06750 (S.D.
Cal., Nov. 1, 2022) is a federal class action brought by the
Plaintiff under the Securities Act of 1933 against (i) Freshworks,
(ii) certain of the Company's senior executives and directors who
signed the Registration Statement, effective September 21, 2021,
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering,
and the underwriters of the Offering.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus (filed with the SEC on August 27, 2021 and September 22,
2021, respectively), including all amendments thereto, contained
materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted
material information that was required by law to be disclosed. The
Defendants are each strictly liable for such misstatements and
omissions therefrom (subject only to their ability to establish a
"due diligence" affirmative defense).
According to the Offering Documents, Freshworks' business had
"grown rapidly" in the lead up to the IPO and the Company observed
"broad appeal of [its] products to customers of all sizes and
geographies." Consequently, the Company's growth rates and
purportedly "healthy" net dollar retention rates reached levels not
previously achieved, and there was no indication that either was
decelerating. As these true facts emerged after the Offering, the
Company's shares fell sharply. By the commencement of this action,
Freshworks' shares traded as low as $10.51 per share, a decline of
nearly 70% from the Offering Price, says the suit.
By this action, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other members
of the Class who also acquired Freshworks' shares pursuant and
traceable to the Offering, now seeks to obtain a recovery for the
damages suffered as a result of Defendants' Securities Act
violations.
Freshworks, which is headquartered in San Mateo, California,
provides customer engagement software for businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
Hal Cunningham, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
hcunningham@scott-scott.com
- and -
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 233-6444
E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
- and -
Brian J. Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
GASBUDDY LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Eubanks Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CALEB EUBANKS, individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GASBUDDY, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 22-cv-10334-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D.
Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts grants GasBuddy's motion to compel arbitration, and
denies Eubanks' motion for leave to amend.
Eubanks brings the action against GasBuddy, alleging negligent
misrepresentation and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A.
Currently before the Court is GasBuddy's motion to compel
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and
alternatively to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), and Eubanks' motion for leave to file an amended
complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
GasBuddy is a Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of
Delaware, whose managers are domiciled in Massachusetts, Maryland,
and/or Georgia. It markets a mobile app and payment card system as
a way for consumers to save money on fuel costs. Eubanks is a
citizen and resident of Texas, seeking to represent a nationwide
putative class comprised of GasBuddy users.
GasBuddy advertises that its service is "like a debit card" which
"'effortlessly deducts' funds from linked checking accounts at the
time of purchase." Users do not pay to sign up for GasBuddy, though
users may opt to pay a monthly subscription fee of $4.99 for an
increased level of per-gallon discounts, which Eubanks did. When
sign-up is complete, GasBuddy ships the user a "Pay with GasBuddy"
card that can be used to pay at certain gas stations at a
discounted price per gallon. GasBuddy advertises that the payments
and discounts are "automatically applied."
Eubanks alleges, however, that GasBuddy fails to warn users of the
risks of using its service, particularly, that users can incur
significant overdraft ("OD") fees or non-sufficient funds fees on
the bank accounts linked to their GasBuddy cards. He avers that,
although he has "saved a few pennies per gallon" by using the card,
he has incurred at least $200 in OD fees from his bank. He contends
that GasBuddy has engaged in deceptive marketing practices that
fail to warn consumers of, and, further, conceals from them, the
significant risks of using its service despite its knowledge that
the service is likely to cause users to incur these bank fees. Had
he been adequately informed of the risk of these fees, Eubanks says
he would not have used GasBuddy.
The parties agree that during his sign-up process Eubanks was
presented with GasBuddy's Enrollment Terms and Conditions or a link
thereto. It is also undisputed that those Terms and Conditions
explicitly require users to arbitrate "any dispute, claim or
controversy arising out of or relating to" the parties' agreement.
While the parties agree that Eubanks was presented with at least a
hyperlink to the Terms and Conditions, they dispute whether the
sign-up process required him to affirmatively assent to them.
Eubanks filed his two-count complaint on March 2, 2022. GasBuddy
filed the instant motion to compel arbitration or alternatively
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on May 2, 2022.
The Court than granted leave for the parties to conduct limited
discovery related only to the enforceability of the Terms and
Conditions. On Aug. 22, 2022, Eubanks moved for leave to file an
amended complaint, seeking to add a second plaintiff and to clarify
his allegations in response to GasBuddy's motion, which GasBuddy
has opposed.
Eubanks has not opposed GasBuddy's motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss the complaint, but that does not absolve the Court of its
duty to review the substance of GasBuddy's request and consider
whether the relief sought is appropriate. This is especially true,
where, as in the case, Eubanks has partly responded to the
GasBuddy's arguments in his motion to amend.
Putting aside the reliability of the Wayback Machine archive, or
whether the Court may even take judicial notice of the website's
materials for their truth, Judge Burroughs holds that GasBuddy has
still adequately demonstrated, through this testimony and the
related exhibits, that the checkbox button was a part of the
sign-up process when Eubanks signed up for the service and that it
obtained his affirmative assent to the agreement. Further, though
Eubanks has argued that the checkbox button may not have been there
when he signed up, he has not supported that claim with any
specific evidence.
GasBuddy has, thus, satisfied its burden of demonstrating that
Eubanks had reasonable notice of the Terms and Conditions,
including the mandatory arbitration provision, and the motion to
compel arbitration is therefore granted. Having granted the motion
to compel arbitration, Judge Burooughs need not reach GasBuddy's
alternative motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Lastly, Judge Burroughs holds that the proposed amendment would be
futile because both Eubanks and Nwagwu were subject to the same
sign-up process and mandatory arbitration provision, which the
Court has already found to be enforceable.
For these reasons, GasBuddy's motion to compel arbitration is
granted and and Eubanks' motion for leave to file an amended
complaint is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4vw37wde from Leagle.com.
GEISINGER HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Freitas ERISA Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORI FREITAS and KAYLEE McWILLIAMS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEISINGER
HEALTH PLAN, and SOCRATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-01236
(M.D. Pa.), Chief District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania:
a. grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and
b. denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Discovery.
Freitas and McWilliams sued Defendants Geisinger Health Plan
("GHP") and its subrogation agent, Socrates, alleging various
causes of action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. Freitas received
insurance coverage from her employer, Mount Airy Casino Resort. As
did McWilliams from her father's employer, Big Heart Pet Brands, a
subsidiary of the J.M. Smucker Co.
Both employers had employee welfare benefit plans that included
health insurance from GHP. These plans were termed the Mount Airy
Wrap Plan and the J.M. Smucker Master Health Plan (collectively,
the "Employer Plans"). GHP set out its coverage of Mount Airy and
J.M. Smucker employees through a document known as the Group
Subscription Certificate.
Both Plaintiffs were injured by third-party tortfeasors. They both
sought and received compensation from GHP for their injuries.
Eventually, they both sued and later settled with the respective
tortfeasors who injured them.
After the settlements, the Defendants demanded reimbursement from
each Plaintiff, relying on a subrogation clause in the Certificate
that did not explicitly set out a right to reimbursement. The
Plaintiffs, under protest, paid a portion of what the Defendants
demanded. They subsequently filed a class-action complaint
asserting ERISA claims for both monetary relief for benefits due to
them under ERISA Section 502(a)(1) as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief for the Defendants' alleged violations of their
fiduciary duties under ERISA Section 502(a)(3).
The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint, claiming
they had an equitable right to reimbursement even though there was
no explicit right in the Certificate. The Court denied their
motion, largely because there was no explicit right in the
Certificate and the Defendants' arguments for an equitable right
were unavailing. It accordingly allowed the duplicative claims to
withstand the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Following the Court's denial of the Defendants' first Motion to
Dismiss, the parties began discovery. The Plaintiffs filed requests
for productions. The Defendants responded, producing some
documents, and objecting to several of the Plaintiffs' requests.
The Plaintiffs then moved to compel the Defendants to produce the
requested documents. After they filed the Motion to Compel but
before all briefing relevant to that motion was submitted, they
filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). They apparently did not
notify the Defendants that they would file the SAC, but the
Defendants consented to its filing.
The SAC is nearly identical to the Plaintiffs' earlier complaint.
Like they did in their earlier complaint, the Plaintiffs bring
several ERISA claims. Counts I and VII allege causes of action
under Section 502(a)(1) for recovery of benefits due to each
Plaintiff under their ERISA plans. Counts II through VI and VIII
through XII, raised under Section 502(a)(3), allege that the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in seeking reimbursement
from each Plaintiff.
After the Plaintiffs filed the SAC, the Defendants moved to dismiss
all Counts and to partially dismiss Count VII to the extent that it
seeks injunctive or declaratory relief. They alternatively move for
summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs in turn moved to strike the Defendants' second
Motion to Dismiss. After filing their brief in support of their
Motion to Strike but before the Defendants filed their response,
the Plaintiffs filed an amended Motion to Strike, to which the
Defendants then responded.
By order, Judge Brann converted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
into a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(d) and allowed the parties to submit additional
evidence.
The Court begins with the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the
Defendants' second Motion to Dismiss. They first argue that the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is untimely. They next argue that the
Defendants' second Motion to Dismiss is simply a second bite at the
apple.
Judge Brann finds that just as Rule 15 does not limit the
Plaintiffs' right to file the SAC, it does not limit the time in
which the Defendants may respond to the SAC. He considers the
Defendants' second Motion to Dismiss timely filed. Moreover, he
will not deny the Defendants an opportunity to defend themselves on
a more complete record, even if their arguments are similar to
those presented before. The Court's resources are not wasted as
long as it reaches a result that is just. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is denied.
Next, the parties vehemently disagree over what documents
constitute the ERISA plan. The Plaintiffs still contend that the
Certificate is the only document that constitutes their ERISA plan.
The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs' ERISA plan includes
both the Certificate and the Employer Plans.
Judge Brann concludes that the Plaintiffs' overall ERISA plan
contains both the Certificate and the Employer Plans. He finds that
the Plaintiffs advance several arguments, all of which are without
merit, as to why the Certificate should govern whether the
Defendants have any right to reimbursement from their personal
injury recoveries. Both Employer Plans also can be read in harmony
with the Certificate as parts of the Plaintiffs' overall ERISA
plan.
Having established the documents that constitute the Plaintiffs'
ERISA plans, Judge Brann now turns to their ERISA claims. At issue
are two Sections 502(a)(1) claims for benefits due under the
Plaintiffs' ERISA plans and several Section 502(a)(3) claims
alleging Defendants violated their fiduciary duties. He grants the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Judge Brann holds that (i) there are no disputes of material fact
that the Defendants' have an express right to reimbursement under
Freitas' ERISA plan and summary judgment on Count I is appropriate;
(ii) the SAC does not allege any conduct that gives rise to the
inference of willfulness, so Counts III and IX do not survive
summary judgment; (iii) the Defendants acted in accordance with the
reimbursement provisions in the Employer Plans and had no duty to
apply the make-whole doctrine, so Counts IV and X do not survive
summary judgment ; (iv) there is no evidence suggesting that the
Defendants' actions demonstrate that they did not view their
reimbursement demands as adverse benefit determinations, so Counts
VI and XII do not survive summary judgment; and (v) summary
judgment is appropriate on all of the Plaintiffs' demands for
injunctive relief because the Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the fact
that they are no longer insured by GHP, and therefore are not
likely to suffer future injury from the Defendants' conduct.
Finally, Judge Brann concludes that the Plaintiffs' demands for
information beyond the two employers at issue -- Mount Airy and the
J.M. Smucker -- are not relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) and
accordingly denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery.
An appropriate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3yczjpkf from Leagle.com.
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Faces Haak Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
Generac Holdings 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 on
October 28, 2022, Daniel Haak filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Generac Power in the Middle District of Florida.
The complaint alleges breaches of warranty, tort-based, and unjust
enrichment claims against Generac Power relating to the sale and
performance of certain clean energy products, and seeks to recover
damages, including consequential damages, that the plaintiff and
putative class allegedly incurred.
The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend against the claims in the complaint, including that
plaintiff and the putative class can seek consequential damages.
Generac Holdings Inc., commonly referred to as Generac, is a
Fortune 1000 American manufacturer of backup power generation
products for residential, light commercial and industrial markets.
Generac is based in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
GENERAL MOTORS: Miller Sues Over Defective Chevrolet Volt Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-12739 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 11, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant market and sell a defective 2016-2019 Chevrolet Volt
vehicle (the "Class Vehicle").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the class action
arises from the widespread defect causing an abrupt failure in the
electrical systems of the Class Vehicle. The defect can manifest in
various ways - including a complete loss of propulsion while
traveling at interstate speeds or entire failure to start. The
defect lies in the Volts' Battery Energy Control Module (the
"BECM"), a small but crucial component to the Volt's hybrid
propulsion system.
The BECM contains a fundamental defect which causes the module to
fail. The Class Vehicle BECM failure manifests in at least two
ways: (1) the vehicle fails to start; and (2) the vehicle, while in
motion and irrespective of the speed at which it is traveling,
loses propulsion, either temporarily or permanently. The BECM's
failure creates significant risk of collision, bodily injury, and
property damage - to say nothing of the inconvenience of being
stranded on the roadway.
The Defendant has wrongfully and intentionally concealed the true
nature of the BECM defect from consumers in pre-purchase/lease as
well as post-purchase/lease transactions. Despite the Defendant's
knowledge of the defect, it continued to market the Class Vehicles
as desirable cars and a cost-saving alternative to traditional
fuel-powered vehicles, says the suit.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts. The Company offers vehicle
protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and
automotive financing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany R. Ellis, Esq.
Paul F. Novak, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
24th Floor, The Fisher Building
3011 W. Grand Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48202
Telephone: (313) 800-4170
Email: tellis@weitzlux.com
pnovak@weitzlux.com
- and -
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
Tricia Herzfeld, Esq.
Anthony Orlandi, Esq.
Daniel P. Hull, Esq.
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
triciah@bsjfirm.com
aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
danielh@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Matthew D. Alison, Esq.
Jason B. Aamodt, Esq.
INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWGROUP, PLLC
406 S. Boulder Ave. Suite 830
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 347-6169
Email: matthew@iaelaw.com
jason@iaelaw.com
GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Ordered to Redefine Automatic Deduction Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES MEBANE and ANGELA WORSHAM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GKN
DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18CV892
(M.D.N.C.), Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina grants in part and denies in
part the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.
The Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order issued on
Aug. 2, 2022, certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class of employees.
On Nov. 5, 2020, the Court conditionally certified the Plaintiffs'
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and certified the
following North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) class under Rule
23: "Individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant
GKN's North Carolina facilities on the manufacturing floor in
non-managerial positions, were not compensated all promised,
earned, and accrued wages due to Defendant's rounding policy,
including, but not limited to, compensation for all hours worked up
to forty (40) in a week and for hours worked above forty (40) in a
week within two years prior to the commencement of this action,
through the present."
After the Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court
conditionally certified another Rule 23 class on Aug. 2, 2022,
including employees that worked during their scheduled lunch breaks
and were impacted by the Defendant's "Automatic Deduction Policy."
The Court defined that class as: "Individuals who were, are, or
will be employed at Defendant GKN's North Carolina facilities on
the manufacturing floor in non-managerial positions, were not
compensated all promised, earned, and accrued wages for hours
worked during unpaid meals due to Defendant's automatic deduction
policy, including, but not limited to, compensation for all hours
worked up to forty (40) in a week and for hours worked above forty
(40) in a week within two years prior to the commencement of this
action, through the present."
The Defendant now requests reconsideration of the Court's order
certifying the Automatic Deduction Class, arguing that (1) the
Court incorrectly certified the Automatic Deduction Class without
requiring the Plaintiff Mebane to establish that the class is
ascertainable, and (2) the Automatic Deduction Class is an improper
merits-based fail-safe class.
The Defendant first argues that the Court incorrectly certified the
Automatic Deduction Class without requiring Mebane to establish
that the class is ascertainable.
Given the nature of the Automatic Deduction Policy -- which did not
require employees to clock in and out for their lunch breaks and
deducted that time regardless of whether the employee took their
break -- Judge Biggs opines that establishing that an employee
worked through lunch would necessarily require some representative
testimony of employees. Through the Automatic Deduction Policy and
lack of recordkeeping around employees' lunch breaks, the Defendant
gained a considerable advantage in thwarting a potential class
action.
As the Defendant puts it, its lack of records around meal breaks
creates a gaping ascertainability void that the Plaintiffs cannot
fill without resorting to individualized fact-finding. However,
allowing this argument to defeat the Automatic Deduction Class
would be creating an incentive for employers not to keep records
and, thus, avoid potential lawsuits.
As mentioned, Judge Biggs does finds the Court would have to engage
in difficult individual inquiries to ascertain the Automatic
Deduction Class at some point in the proceedings. Accordingly, she
declines to reconsider the Order on the basis of ascertainability.
Next, the Defendant argues that even if the ascertainability issue
is overcome, the Automatic Deduction Class is an improper
merits-based fail-safe class.
Judge Biggs opines that the Automatic Deduction Class defines the
class in part as "Individuals who were not compensated all
promised, earned, and accrued wages for hours worked during unpaid
meals due to Defendant's automatic deduction policy." This appears
problematic because the class is defined so that "the class members
either win or are not in the class the Court cannot enter an
adverse judgment against the class." Thus, she finds that
modification of the Automatic Deduction Class definition is
necessary to avoid it being an impermissible fail-safe class.
In light of the Plaintiffs' reliance on the Court's Order
certifying the Automatic Deduction Class, Judge Biggs allows the
Plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing proposing a new class
definition to address the impermissible fail-safe issue outlined.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied
in part. Judge Biggs granted the motion to the extent that it seeks
reconsideration of its Order dated Aug. 2, 2022. She denied the
motion to the extent that it requests that the Court vacates the
Aug. 2, 2022, Order.
The Plaintiffs will submit supplemental briefing proposing a new
class definition of the Automatic Deduction Class consistent with
this Memorandum and Order within 14 days of the entry of the
present Order. The Defendant will have 14 days from the filing of
the Plaintiffs' proposed redefinition to file a response. Both
parties' briefs will not exceed 3,125 words.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5edeyasa from
Leagle.com.
GROUPON INC: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, 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 on October 28, 2022,
the District Court granted final approval of a $13.5 million
settlement in a securities fraud class action complaint in
Illinois, with no class members opting out and no objections.
On April 28, 2020, an individual plaintiff filed a securities fraud
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, and in July 2020, another individual
was appointed as lead plaintiff (the "Securities Lawsuit").
The lawsuit covers the time period from July 30, 2019 through
February 18, 2020. The lead plaintiff alleges that Groupon and
certain of its officers made materially false and/or misleading
statements or omissions regarding its business, operations and
prospects, specifically as it relates to reiterating its full year
guidance on November 4, 2019 and the Groupon Select program.
On May 6, 2022, the parties reached an agreement to settle this
matter in its entirety for $13.5 million and signed a term sheet
memorializing preliminary terms.
On June 27, 2022, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement.
On October 28, 2022, the District Court granted final approval of
the settlement class with no class members opting out and no
objections.
Now that the settlement class has been confirmed and the case is
fully resolved with no opt outs, all class members must follow a
claims process administered by a third party and will be barred
from filing future lawsuits based on these events.
The full amount of the $13.5 million settlement is covered under
Groupon's insurance policies and was paid into an escrow fund by
Groupon's insurance carriers on July 26, 2022.
The settlement accrual and insurance receivable are recorded in
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities and Accounts
receivable, net on the Groupon's Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of September 30, 2022.
Groupon, Inc., operates online local commerce marketplaces that
connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a
discount in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
internationally. The Company was formerly known as ThePoint.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Groupon, Inc. in October 2008. The
Company was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois. Groupon, Inc. is a subsidiary of The Point, LLC.
H&K ENGINEERING: Ledet Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE LEDET, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated, v. H&K ENGINEERING, LLC and
ORBITAL ENGINEERING, INC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01324-CRE (W.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting conditional certification of, and authorizing
notice to be sent to, the following collective of Straight
Time Workers:
"All current or former employees of H&K and/or Orbital who
were paid straight time for overtime in the past three
years"
2. approving the Notice and Consent forms
3. directing the Defendants to produce the contact
information for each of the Straight Time Workers within
10 days of the Court's order in a usable electronic
format, such as Excel.
H&K Engineering offers mechanical, piping, electrical, control
systems, civil and structural, marine, and model integration
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UO6bY2at
no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys in charge for the Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members
are:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
B RUCKNER B URCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412)766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
HADCO METAL: Perkins Balks at Unlawful Labor Policies
-----------------------------------------------------
QUINCY GRIFFIN PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HADCO METAL TRADING SANTA FE
SPRINGS CA dba RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS INC.; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV021674 (Cal., Super., Alameda
Cty., Nov. 14, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations
of the California Labor Code and the implementing rules 14 and
regulations of the IWC California Wage Orders, as well as the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to accurately pay overtime; failure to reimburse necessary
business expenses; failure to authorize and permit daily rest and
meal periods; failure to maintain accurate time records; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to provide the
class with stand-alone written disclosures before obtaining a
consumer report, credit or background report; and failure to
identify a specific basis for requesting a consumer credit report.
Plaintiff Perkins was employed by the Defendants on July 28, 2021,
as a non-exempt employee with the title of Truck Driver and worked
during the liability period for Defendants until Plaintiff's
separation from Defendants' employ in November 17, 2021.
Hadco Metal Trading Santa Fe Springs provides transportation
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaple.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaple.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaple.com
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Wagner Sues Over Unlawful Repair Restriction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01912-GMS (D. Ariz., Nov. 9, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent
omission, and violations of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
This is a class action against Defendant for the marketing,
manufacture, and/or sale of consumer products, including
motorcycles, parts, accessories, and other products sold under the
Harley-Davidson brand name, the warranties of which include
statements that condition the continued validity of the warranty on
the use of only an authorized repair service and/or authorized
replacement parts (a "tying arrangement" or "unlawful repair
restriction"). Tying arrangements that condition a consumer
product's warranty on the use of a specific repair service in this
manner allegedly violate state and federal law. Had Plaintiff - or
reasonable class members - been aware that the repair restriction
was unlawful, he would not have purchased the Product, or would
have paid significantly less for it, says the suit.
Mr. Wagner bought a Harley-Davidson Heritage Classic 114 from a
dealership in Arizona for $17,999. Mr. Wagner purchased the
Product, reasonably believing its warranty complied with state and
federal law.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC produces and sells
motorcycles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Barrett, Esq.
WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 279-1717
Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Ave
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Awaits Ruling on Initial OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition LTD disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that a
class action settlement preliminary approval hearing took place on
October 24, 2022 and has yet to issue a ruling.
On September 18, 2017, the company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled "Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al." and
filed in the U.S. District court for the Southern District of
Florida, which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes, unjust enrichment, and
negligent misrepresentation.
On August 23, 2018, the U.S. District court for the Southern
District of Florida issued an order transferring the action to the
U.S. District court for the Central District of California as to
four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering the remaining
four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating the company
defendants from the Florida action.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. While the
company continues to believe the lawsuit is without merit, and
without admitting liability or wrongdoing, the company and the
plaintiffs have reached a settlement. Under the principal terms of
the settlement, the company would pay $12.5 million into a fund to
be distributed to qualified claimants.
As of September 30, 2022, this amount has been adequately reserved
for within the company's condensed consolidated financial
statements. The settlement is subject to the preliminary and final
approval of the U.S. District court for the Central District of
California. The preliminary approval hearing took place on October
24, 2022, and the U.S. District court for the Central District of
California has not yet issued a ruling.
Herbalife Nutrition LTD global nutrition company based in the
Cayman Islands.
HONEST COMPANY: Continues to Defend Sida Mislabeling Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Honest Company 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 10, 2022, that the Company will
continue to defend itself in the Sida Mislabeling suit.
On August 10, 2022, Catrice Sida and Kris Yerby filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment related to
plant-based claims on certain of the Company's wipes products and
seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages,
punitive damages and statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss on October 17, 2022.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss on November 1, 2022 and the Company's reply was filed on
November 8, 2022.
The Company believes this complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Honest Company Inc. is an honestly safe baby and beauty store that
brings innovative formulas and thoughtful designs to beauty and
baby products.
JANUS HENDERSON: Faces Schissler Breach of Fiduciary Duties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that a
class action complaint was filed against the company alleging that
the company breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence.
On September 9, 2022, a purported class action complaint,
"Schissler v. Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc., et al.," was
filed by Sandra Schissler in the United States District court for
the District of Colorado. Named as defendants are Janus Henderson
US (Holdings) Inc. and the Advisory Committee to the Janus 401(k)
and Employee Stock Ownership Plan and its members.
Plaintiff purports to represent a class of all participants in the
Janus US Holdings 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan from
September 9, 2016, through September 9, 2022. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that all defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by (1) selecting
higher-cost Janus Henderson funds over less expensive investment
options; (2) retaining Janus Henderson funds despite their alleged
underperformance; and (3) failing to consider actively managed
funds outside of Janus Henderson to add as investment options.
The complaint alleges that Janus US Holdings failed to monitor the
Advisory Committee with respect to the foregoing. The complaint
seeks various declaratory, equitable and monetary relief in
unspecified amounts.
Janus Henderson Group PLC is an independent global asset manager,
specializing in active investment across all major asset classes
based in London, United Kingdom.
KEYSTONE RURAL: Brake Files Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA BRAKE, individually and on behalf of her son, T.B., and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH
CENTER, d/b/a/ KEYSTONE HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01784-CCC (M.D. Pa., Nov. 8, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff for damages against Keystone Health for
its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and
safeguarding sensitive patient's personally identifying information
or protected health information. The lawsuit asserts claims for
negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of
implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences,
and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of similarly situated
patients whose sensitive private information was stolen by
cybercriminals in a cyber-attack on Keystone Health's systems that
took place in July and August of 2022 and which resulted in the
access and exfiltration of private information.
According to the complaint, the exposure of a person's PII or PHI
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. As a result of the data breach,
Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and substantial risk of
experiencing various types of misuse of their private information
in the coming years, including but not limited to, unauthorized
access to email accounts, tax fraud, and identity theft—including
medical identity theft, says the suit.
Keystone Rural Health Center is a healthcare nonprofit based in
Franklin County, Pennsylvania, and the surrounding area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
KIA AMERICA: Faces Pearson Suit Over Defective Hyundai Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANASTASIA PEARSON; and JAYSON MCGUIRE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIA AMERICA, INC.,
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, and HYUNDAI KIA AMERICA TECHNICAL CENTER,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-02882 (D. Minn., Nov. 11, 2022)
is a class action claim arising from a defect in Kia vehicle models
from 2011-2021 and Hyundai vehicles from 2016-2021 that lack an
engine immobilizer (the "Defective Vehicles").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the defects in the
Defective Vehicles make the vehicles susceptible to theft, unsafe,
and worth less than they would be without the defect.
The Defendants manufactured, designed, and put the Defective
Vehicles into the stream of commerce, without disclosing the fact
these vehicles had a defect impacting the vehicles' security,
safety, and value. Despite admitting that there is a theft problem
with the vehicles, the Defendants are unwilling or unable to fix
the vehicles, compensate consumers, or otherwise take actions to
solve the problems their Defective Vehicles are causing, says the
suit.
KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. operates as an automobile dealer. The
Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson,Esq.
Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
kdennis@gustasongluek.com
- and -
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LLC
Cornerstone Building
One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
St. Michael, MN 55376
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Facsimile: (763) 226-2515
Email:pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
- and -
Simon B. Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, PC
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-3895
Email: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Wipes Aren't Plant-Based, Whiteside Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMER WHITESIDE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP, Case No. 5:22-cv-01988
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2022) alleges that the Defendant falsely and
misleadingly labels certain of its Huggies brand wipe products with
"Plant-based wipes" and "natural care" deliberately leading
reasonable consumers to incorrectly believe that the Products are
composed of only water, natural ingredients, and ingredients that
come from plants and that have not undergone substantial
processing.
The Products at issue are the Huggies Natural Care (TM) brand baby
wipes sold to consumers in the United States that contain the
Challenged Representations on the front labels and/or packaging,
regardless of the Products' size or variations—such as wipe count
or type of packaging.
Accordingly, the Defendant reinforces the Challenged
Representations on the Products' packaging by displaying images of
plants, including leaves and trees, and by using green/blue
coloring, further perpetuating the notion that the Products are
natural and plant-based. The Defendant has allegedly charged
consumers a premium for non-plant-based and non-natural products
falsely advertised and warranted as "plant-based" and "natural,"
while cutting costs and reaping the financial benefits of utilizing
cheaper- and easier-to-procure ingredients that are not water and
either do not come from plants or were artificially created,
synthesized, or subjected to substantial processing, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a monetary recovery of the price premium. She
also seeks injunctive relief to stop Defendant's unlawful
manufacture, marketing, and sale of the Products with the
Challenged Representations to avoid or mitigate the risk of
deceiving the public into believing that the Products conform to
the Challenged Representations, by requiring Defendant to change
its business practices including removal or modification of the
Challenged Representations from the Products' labels and/or
packaging.
Kimberly-Clark is an American multinational personal care
corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer products.
The company manufactures sanitary paper products and surgical &
medical instruments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Michael Crosner, Esq.
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
Chad Saunders, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
chad@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
KOBE JAPANESE: Fails to Pay Chefs' Proper Wages, Jiang Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHUN LIN JIANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. KOBE JAPANESE STEAKHOUSE, INC. f/k/a Tokyo
Steak Hose Inc d/b/a Tokyo Japanese Steak House; TOKYO II STEAK
HOUSE, INC. d/b/a Tokyo Japanese Steak House; TOKYO III STEAK
HOUSE, INC d/b/a Tokyo Japanese Steak House; and GUANGLONG LIN
a/k/a Guang Long Lin a/k/a David Lin, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-11867 (D. Mass., Nov. 2, 2022) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff against the Defendants for alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts General Law, arising
from Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime wages.
Mr. Jiang was employed by defendants from January 1, 2014 to June
3, 2021 to work as a Teriyaki Chef at one of defendant’s
restaurants named "Tokyo II Steak House" in Saugus, Massachusetts.
Kobe Japanese Steak House is a Massachusetts-based Japanese
steakhouse.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
LEON & ESPINOZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN GUTIERREZ; and YOSELIN A. MENDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEON & ESPINOZA,
INC.; CATARINO ESPINOZA; LILIANA JAMIE, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00325-TMR-PBS (S.D. OH. Nov. 14, 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.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders.
LEON & ESPINOZA, INC. owned and operated restaurants in the
Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio areas, including but not limited to,
restaurants doing business as Mi Cozumel, Dos Amigos, and Las
Piramides. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
Angela J. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON LAW, LLC
9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 834-8254
Facsimile: (513) 834-8253
Email: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
angela@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Summary Judgment Bids in Atlantic Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY and BCS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-0616-BJR (W.D. Wash.), Judge Barbara Jacobs
Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, grants in part and denies in part both BCS's
and Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
BCS seeks dismissal of the ASIC Complaint in its entirety. ASIC
seeks a declaration in its favor that: (1) BCS has a duty to
indemnify the parties' mutual insured, nonparty Premera Blue Cross
(Count I); ASIC has no duty to indemnify Premera pursuant to its
insuring agreements (Count II); and ASIC has no duty to indemnify
Premera pursuant to several exclusionary clauses in the policies
(Counts III-V). ASIC seeks judgment for contractual and equitable
subrogation against BCS (Count VI).
The insurance coverage dispute arose out of claims against the
parties' mutual insured, nonparty Premera Blue Cross. In early
2014, computer hackers were able to access Premera's computer
network, resulting in a massive data breach that compromised the
private financial and health information of over 10 million Premera
customers and employees. The breach led to the filing of a number
of lawsuits against Premera, including a multidistrict litigation
action (the "MDL lawsuit") and lawsuits brought by 30 state
attorneys general (the "AG lawsuits"). In sum, the lawsuits claimed
that Premera had breached a duty to protect consumers' confidential
data, resulting in damages totaling millions of dollars.
Premera turned to its insurance carriers for coverage. Premera's
coverage included two layers of cyber security insurance; a primary
comprehensive general liability (CGL) policy and general liability
umbrella policy, both issued by ASIC; and several layers of managed
care errors and omissions ("E&O") insurance, including a secondary
excess E&O policy issued by BCS.
In late 2015, ASIC filed a lawsuit in this Western District,
seeking a declaration that it was not liable for Premera's defense
costs or its ultimate liability, related to either the MDL or the
AG lawsuits -- Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Premera Blue Cross, No.
C15-1927TSZ. The Hon. Thomas Zilly, ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, held that ASIC had a duty to defend Premera in the MDL
action. The Court did not determine at that time whether ASIC had
an obligation to defend Premera in the AG action, or a duty to
indemnify Premera for the AG or MDL actions, and stayed the
coverage case pending resolution of the underlying lawsuits.
Premera ultimately settled the MDL lawsuit for $32 million, and the
30 AG lawsuits for a total of $10 million.
ASIC subsequently agreed to pay Premera a total of $14.7 million
under the CGL and umbrella policies: approximately $12 million
towards the MDL settlement and $2.7 million towards the AG
settlements. It made those payments subject to a reservation of the
right to seek subrogation against Premera's other insurers. It
later filed the instant lawsuit against two of Premera's E&O
insurers: former Defendant Lexington Insurance Co. (excess to a
primary E&O policy issued by nonparty Ironshore Insurance Co.), and
BCS (secondary to the Lexington policy). Both the BCS and Lexington
policies follow form to the Ironshore policy and are operatively
identical for purposes of this lawsuit.
Ruling on cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, the Court
ruled that the ASIC policies did not provide coverage for the AG
settlement, as those policies contained an exclusion for "fines and
penalties," and the AG settlement payments fit within the
commonsense definition of "fines and penalties." ASIC subsequently
settled with Lexington for $394,650, and as a result, Lexington has
now paid the $10 million limit of its policy, triggering BCS'
obligation for any remaining liability under its secondary excess
E&O policy.
ASIC seeks subrogation against BCS for the full $10 million limit
of the BCS policy, claiming it is entitled, as Premera's subrogee,
to indemnity for both the MDL and the AG lawsuits.
Judge Rothstein first examines whether ASIC is entitled to
subrogation against BCS related to the MDL settlement. She
concludes that (i) the MDL plaintiffs alleged, and ultimately
settled with Premera, a number of claims that fit within the
definition of "publication" under the ASIC policies' "personal and
advertising injury," covered under Coverage B; (ii) subpart (4)
cannot be read to include HIPAA, and coverage of the MDL settlement
was not excluded under the RDI exclusion; and (iii) the
Professional Services exclusion is not applicable to Premera's MDL
settlement liability.
Because she concludes that the ASIC primary CGL and umbrella
policies provided coverage for Premera's settlement of the MDL
lawsuit, Judge Rothstein need not decide whether the BCS policy
would have provided coverage for the MDL settlement. Subrogation is
available only when a party pays a debt that is not its own. ASIC
has made no attempt to amend the Complaint to add the contribution
claim, despite being irrefutably on notice that no such claim had
been made. Moreover, any claim by ASIC for equitable contribution
would fail. It is undisputed that BCS was not asked by Premera to
contribute to any of the settlements. To the extent ASIC is
attempting to make a late-stage claim for contribution, that claim
fails.
Judge Rothstein now determines whether ASIC is entitled to
subrogation against BCS related to the AG settlement. She holds
that equity favors BCS reimbursing ASIC for the amount ASIC paid to
Premera toward the AG settlements, if the BCS policy provides
coverage therefor. And, because it is indisputable that BCS's
policy covers at least some (likely large) portion of ASIC's
indemnity for the state AG settlements -- that is, those payments
attributable to HIPAA fines and penalties, implicated in nearly all
of the state AG complaints -- BCS is liable for the entire amount
that ASIC is seeking.
ASIC filed a Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Iliana
Peters. BCS filed the purported expert opinion in support of its
Motion for Summary Judgment. ASIC's motion is improvidently filed,
Judge Rothstein finds. In addition, the Court did not rely on the
Peters opinion in its holding; the motion is therefore also moot.
Hence, she strikes ASIC's Motion to Exclude.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rothstein grants in part and
denies in part both parties' Motions for Summary Judgment.
Specifically, BCS has a duty to indemnify Premera, and therefore
ASIC, for the $2,305,350 payment that ASIC made towards Premera's
settlement of the state AG lawsuits. ASIC also is not entitled to
subrogation against BCS for the approximate $12 million payment
ASIC made to Premera towards Premera's settlement of the MDL
lawsuit. The remaining claims in ASIC's Complaint are dismissed.
ASIC's Motion to Exclude is stricken.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9s5kzrp from Leagle.com.
LOANCARE LLC: Fails to Return Unearned Premiums, Kovachevich Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE KOVACHEVICH, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. LOANCARE, LLC and NATIONAL MORTGAGE
INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00468-AWA-DEM
(E.D. Va., Nov. 7, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to
return unearned premiums as the mortgage servicer of Plaintiff's
loan in violation of the Homeowners Protection Act and the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
According to the complaint, despite the HPA's straightforward
directives, Plaintiff has yet to receive nearly $4,000 in unearned
private mortgage insurance premiums that he paid upfront when he
purchased his home in July 2020. To be sure, Plaintiff's PMI
obligations were terminated on July 1, 2021 -- just 12 months after
he paid $4,582.80 for over six years of PMI. Thus, although
Plaintiff became entitled to all unearned PMI premiums within 45
days after his PMI obligations were terminated, that money was
instead pocketed by his then-mortgage servicer (LoanCare) and/or
his mortgage insurer (NMIC), says the suit.
By failing to return unearned premiums as the mortgage servicer of
Plaintiff's loan, LoanCare violated 12 U.S.C. Section 4902(f)(1).
Upon information and belief, LoanCare refuses to return unearned
PMI premiums as a matter of company policy. LoanCare further
violated RESPA when it failed to: (1) correct its failure to return
Plaintiff's unearned premiums following written notice from
Plaintiff; and (2) provide Plaintiff with documents so that he
could further explore LoanCare's and NMIC's respective
noncompliance with the HPA, the suit asserts.
LoanCare, LLC and National Mortgage Insurance Corporation are
American loan servicing solution providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
LOOMIS ARMORED: Underpays Armored Transport Staff, Gray Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY GRAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00702-JAG (E.D. Va., Nov. 2, 2022) is a representative
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for monetary damages and
penalties, to seek redress for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated persons for overtime compensation for
work performed in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt armored transport employee from approximately June 23,
2001, to March 11, 2022.
Loomis Armored US is a cash handling company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curtis Daniel Cannon, Esq.
GOLDBERG FINNEGAN CANNON, LLC
8401 Colesville Road, Suite 630
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 589-2999
Facsimile: (301) 589-2644
- and -
Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Pl, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5279
E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
ed.celiesius@jbtlawgroup.com
LUXURY BRAND: Dry Shampoo Has High Levels of Benzene, Henning Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELLA HENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUXURY BRAND PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-07011 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and for violations of
the State Consumer Fraud Acts, California's False Advertising Law,
Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
This is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendant's manufacturing,
distribution, advertising, marketing, and sale of IGK(R) branded
Dry Shampoo that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a
carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other
cancers. The presence of benzene in the Products renders them
adulterated, misbranded, and illegal to sell under federal and
state law, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and others similarly situated consumers reasonably
relied on Defendant's representations that the Products were safe,
unadulterated, and free of any carcinogens that are not listed on
the label. They purchased and used the Products and were therefore
exposed to, or risked being exposed to, the harmful presence of
benzene in the Products, the suit asserts.
Luxury Brand Partners, LLC develops and manufactures personal care
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
401 West C St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (714) 651-8845
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone: (919) 600-5009
E-mail: eruben@milberg.com
- and -
Zoe Aaron, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (630) 796-0903
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: zaaron@milberg.com
- and -
Alex Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
LYONS MAGNUS: Food Supplements Contains Cronobacter, Dixon Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDMOND DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC; and TRU ASEPTICS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04039-BHH (D.S.C., Nov. 14, 2022) is
an action alleging the Defendants' failure to ensure the quality of
their products labeled under the brands Oatly, Stumptown, Glucerna,
Intelligentsia, Aloha, Kate Farms, and Premier Protein. The
negligent oversight led to the recall of certain beverages, liquid
coffee, nutritional shakes, and other supplements due to
Cronobacter Sakazakii bacteria contamination concerns.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' packing and labeling
emphasize quality and safe ingredients that are suitable for
consumption by physically vulnerable persons, young children, and
those who have specific dietary restrictions or seek a healthier
lifestyle.
The Defendants knew or should have known that the Products
contained harmful bacteria, had a risk of containing harmful
bacteria, or were not sufficiently tested for the presence of
bacteria Cronobacter Sakazakii. The Defendants omitted any
reference to the presence or risk of presence of harmful bacteria,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the lesser
value of the Products had they known of the risk of sickness in the
absence of these false and misleading representations and
warranties, and/or if the true facts had been disclosed.
LYONS MAGNUS, INC. produces and markets food products. The Company
offers beverages, toppings and sauces, food ingredients, frozen
desserts, and nutritional products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
MAGNA SEATING: Duncan Seeks Manufacturing Workers' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
DARLA DUNCAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAGNA SEATING OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-12700-LVP-JJCG (E.D. Mich., Nov. 8, 2022) is a
collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a result of
Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its hourly,
non-exempt employees, including her and other similarly situated
employees, wages for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well
as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy
violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a manufacturing employee
at its plant located in Ridgeville Corners, Ohio from approximately
late April 2022 to June 13, 2022.
Magna Seating of America, Inc. is a manufacturer of automotive
seating, operates manufacturing plants at multiple locations in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
MAHARAJA FOOD: Fails to Provide Cooks Proper Wages, Capir Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO MORALES CAPIR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAHARAJA FOOD INC. d/b/a MAHARAJA
SWEETS, BAWAJI SWEETS, INC., and SUKHDEV BAWA, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06814 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2022) seeks
to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from
Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook from June
2018 until October 2022. He alleges the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide spread of hour compensation,
failure to furnish wage statements, and failure to provide written
wage notice.
Maharaja Food Inc. is an Indian restaurant based in 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
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
MDL 2913: Avoca Central School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avoca Central School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06826-WHO (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Avoca Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Avoca Central School District is a unified school
district organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State
of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Bath Central School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bath Central School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06819 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Bath Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Bath Central School is a unified school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New
York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Brockton Public Schools Balks at Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brockton Public Schools; and City of Brockton, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JUUL Labs, Inc.
F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker;
Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client
Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris
USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06845 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Brockton Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Brockton Public Schools is a unified school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
Plaintiff City of Brockton is a city in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts with a population of approximately 105,000.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Broome-Tioga Board Hits E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
Broome-Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL
Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen;
Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.;
Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and
Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06829 (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance
Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Broome-Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services case has
been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC.
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Broome-Tioga is an educational institution organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Coxsackie-Athens Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coxsackie-Athens Central School District, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A
PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker;
Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client
Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris
USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06834 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Coxsackie-Athens Central School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Coxsackie-Athens is a unified school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Dedham Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dedham Public Schools, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James
Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani;
Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group
Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-06820 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Dedham Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Dedham is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Downsville Central Balks at Youth E-Cigarette Promotion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Downsville Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-068999 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Downsville Central School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Downsville is a school district organized and operating
pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Canisteo-Greenwood Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A
PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker;
Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client
Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris
USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06952 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Canisteo-Greenwood is a school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Milford Central Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milford Central School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06902 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Milford Central School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Milford is a school district organized and operating
pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Oxford Academy Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford Academy and Central School District, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A
PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker;
Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client
Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris
USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06903 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Oxford Academy and Central School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Oxford is a school district organized and operating
pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Roscoe Central Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roscoe Central School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06905 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Roscoe Central School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Roscoe is a school district organized and operating
pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: East Greenbush Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
East Greenbush Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06943 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The East Greenbush Central School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff East Greenbush is a school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Elmira Heights Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Promotion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elmira Heights Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06910 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Elmira Heights Central School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Elmira Heights is a school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Fayetteville-Manlius Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fayetteville-Manlius School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06940 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Fayetteville-Manlius School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Fayetteville-Manlius is a school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Franklin Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06838 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Franklin Central School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Franklin Central is a unified school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Gilboa-Conesville Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gilboa-Conesville Central School, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06840 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Gilboa-Conesville Central School case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Gilboa-Conesville is a unified school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Jefferson Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06846 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Jefferson Central School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Jefferson Central is a unified school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Livingston Manor Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Promotion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Livingston Manor Central School District, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A
PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker;
Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client
Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris
USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06908 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Livingston Manor Central School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Livingston Manor is a school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Mashpee Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mashpee Public Schools, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06814 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Mashpee Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Mashpee Public Schools is a unified school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: McGraw Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McGraw Central School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06948 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The McGraw Central School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff McGraw Central is a school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Oneonta City School Sues Over E-Cig. Promotion to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oneonta City School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06837 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Oneonta City School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Oneonta is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Oswego City School Sues Over E-Cig. Promotion to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oswego City School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06963 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Oswego City School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Oswego is a school district organized and operating
pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Prattsburgh Central School Sues Over Youth E-Cig. Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prattsburgh Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06937 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Prattsburgh Central School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Prattsburgh Central is a school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Schenevus Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schenevus Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06878 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Schenevus Central School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Schenevus is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Stockbridge Valley Central Sues Over Youth E-Cig. Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockbridge Valley Central School District, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A
PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker;
Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client
Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris
USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06945 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Stockbridge Valley Central School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff Stockbridge Valley is a school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen;
Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.;
Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and
Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06951 (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance
Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services
case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC.
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff TST BOCES is an educational institution organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: West Genesee Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
West Genesee Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-068963 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and co-founder Adam Bowen designed
an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The West Genesee Central School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Plaintiff West Genesee is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Sutherland Sues Over Spam Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Raleigh Sutherland, Plaintiff v. National Republican Congressional
Committee, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00302-RH-ZCB (N.D. Fla.,
Nov. 6, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated people in Florida, to enjoin Defendant's
abusive practices and for damages under the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the NRCC has initiated tens of
thousands of similar text messages to people in Florida soliciting
the sale of books and other consumer goods using an autodialer. The
spam invades Plaintiff's and class members' substantive right to
privacy, namely the right to be free from unsolicited text
messages. The spam further causes Raleigh and class members to
avoid looking at their phones when it may be important or
interrupting other activities to respond to unwanted text messages.
In short, the spam invades their privacy, diminishes the value of
their phones and their enjoyment of life, and causes a nuisance, an
annoyance, and an intrusion into their seclusion, says the suit.
The National Republican Congressional Committee is the Republican
Hill committee which works to elect Republicans to the United
States House of Representatives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Kauffman, Esq.
LAWHQ, P.C.
299 S. Main St. #1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (385) 285-1090
E-mail: john.kauffman@lawhq.com
NATIONWIDE MOTOR: Court Refuses to Enforce Arbitration Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew R. Simpson, Esq., of Fisher Phillips, in an article for
Fisher & Philips LLP, Employers -- and, in particular, car
dealerships -- have relied on binding arbitration agreements to
resolve employment disputes for decades. Arbitration offers a
confidential setting in which businesses can efficiently litigate
delicate personnel matters, or so the thought went. But several
developments in the last year may prompt your dealership to revisit
your employment arbitration agreements.
The End of Mandatory Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claims
Many employers adopted binding arbitration agreements specifically
to resolve claims of sexual harassment. The arbitration setting
kept lurid details of alleged sexual misconduct off the public
docket, allowing both the accuser and the accused to maintain some
sense of privacy over highly sensitive personal matters.
But employers are no longer able to mandate arbitration of sexual
harassment claims. In February, Congress passed the "Ending Forced
Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act." This law
amended the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to prohibit employers
from unilaterally enforcing arbitration of sexual assault or sexual
harassment claims. As a result, any employee subject to an
arbitration agreement may now unilaterally choose to bypass the
agreement and file sexual harassment claims in federal or state
court.
This does not mean the end of employment arbitration – after all,
the Act only applies to claims of sexual assault and harassment. It
does, however, keep one of the more common employment claims out of
arbitration and poses interesting dilemmas for arbitrating other
claims.
For example, while the Act allows employees to opt-out of
arbitrating a sexual harassment claim, it does not preclude
employers from mandating arbitration of related sex discrimination
or retaliation claims. In theory, employers may end up litigating
the same facts in multiple forums with potentially contradictory
results.
We are therefore encouraging dealers to revisit their existing
arbitration agreements. Depending on the language of the agreement
and the definition of covered disputes, it could be open to
challenge. Some states - or judges - may not simply strike the
harassment provision of an agreement, but instead invalidate the
entire agreement based on substantive unconscionability. Dealers
may therefore choose to carve out harassment claims from
arbitration, include a jury trial waiver for such claims, or end
arbitration altogether.
Arbitration May Be Used to Avoid Class, Collective, and PAGA
Actions
For years, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that
parties may agree to resolve their disputes via individual
arbitration rather than class or collective actions. In 2011's AT&T
Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, the Court held that the FAA prevented
a state law that deemed class action waivers unenforceable from
being applied. Then, in 2018's Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the
Court reaffirmed that the FAA requires courts to enforce collective
action waivers in arbitration agreements. These decisions gave
employers a critical tool in defending costly class and collective
active lawsuits.
But there remained a work-around in California. There, employees
could bring representative actions under the state's Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that had a similar effect as a class
or collective action, but could not be made subject to arbitration.
However, this past June, the Supreme Court again stepped in to
reaffirm the right to enforce individualized arbitration. In Viking
River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, the Court held that an employer may
compel individualized arbitration of an underlying PAGA claim. It
also ruled that PAGA provides no mechanism for a court to
adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has
been committed to arbitration.
The decision confirms one of the primary benefits of employment
arbitration - particularly for large employers subject to class and
collective action claims. Again, dealers should review their
existing arbitration agreements to ensure that language requiring
individualized arbitration conforms with what was endorsed by the
Court in Viking River Cruises, and that the agreement includes a
severability clause that would allow the employer to preserve the
ability to arbitrate despite potentially problematic provisions.
Arbitration Agreements Should be Kept Separate from Employee
Handbooks
Those dealers that chose to utilize binding arbitration should also
keep in mind certain principles to ensure the agreement is
enforceable.
Just a few months ago, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals refused
to enforce an arbitration agreement that existed solely within a
dealership's employee handbook (Coady v. Nationwide Motor Sales
Corp.). Indeed, as is common with most employee manuals, this
dealer's handbook reserved the right to make and enforce new
policies and to enforce, change, abolish. or modify existing
policies as it determined necessary, with or without notice.
Because the handbook gave the dealer the absolute right to modify
its policies, the Fourth Circuit held that the arbitration
agreement contained within the handbook was "illusory" and thus
unenforceable.
Of course, there is a simple solution. While employers are free to
include dispute resolution policies that provide for mandatory
arbitration within their employee handbooks, they must also
maintain signed arbitration agreements which serve as a stand-alone
contract from which arbitration can be compelled.
In light of these developments, dealers are encouraged to revisit
their current employment arbitration agreements with their
workplace law counsel. Arbitration remains remain an efficient way
to litigate most employment disputes. However, as the law continues
to develop as to what is and is not subject to arbitration, dealers
must ensure their arbitration agreements are up to date and
enforceable. [GN]
NEONODE INC: Purported Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
Neonode 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 10, 2022, that the court dismissed
a purported class action suit with prejudice on November 4, 2021.
On September 2, 2020, a putative stockholder of Neonode filed a
purported class action lawsuit (Case No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA) in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware against
Neonode, the Board of Directors of Neonode, and the Chief Executive
Officer of Neonode for alleged violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in
connection with disclosure of information concerning Proposal 5 and
Proposal 6 in the proxy statement filed with the SEC by Neonode on
August 20, 2020 for the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of
Neonode (the "Proxy Statement"). These proposals for shareholder
approval related to the Private Placement by Neonode on August 5,
2020 in which two directors and the chief executive officer of
Neonode participated.
The relief sought by the plaintiff included a preliminary
injunction to enjoin the stockholder votes on Proposal 5 and
Proposal 6.
On October 20, 2020, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit in the United States District Court.
However, on February 11, 2021, the plaintiff's counsel informed
Neonode that they would file a fee petition as a result of Neonode
filing the definitive additional materials to the Proxy Statement
on September 18, 2020.
On September 9, 2021, the plaintiff's counsel filed a complaint in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to
recover plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
$400,000 incurred in connection with the Proceeding.
On November 3, 2021, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with plaintiff's counsel, which was accrued for as of
September 30, 2021.
On November 4, 2021, the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Neonode Inc. develops and licenses user interfaces and optical
multi-touch solutions for consumer brands. The Company is focused
on licensing its technology to Original Equipment Manufacturers and
and Original Design Manufacturers who embed their technology into
electronic devices.
NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Filing Bids Extended in Walker Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walker, v. The City of New
York, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03234 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Diane Gujarati entered an order on motion for extension of time to
file class certification motions as follows:
-- Defendants shall serve their December 22, 2022
response to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification on
Plaintiffs by:
-- Plaintiffs shall serve their February 2, 2023
reply on the Defendants by:
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
NEWREZ LLC: Files Bid to Seal Certain Documents in Yates Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE YATES, v. NEWREZ LLC
d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. 8:21-cv-03044-TDC (D.
Md.), the Defendant moves the Court for an order sealing certain
documents in connection with its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class.
Shellpoint seeks to seal the Declaration of Jean Knowles and
exhibits to the Opposition containing:
(i) documents that are marked Confidential and/or reference
information from documents marked Confidential, and
(ii) documents that contain Personal Identifying Information
(PII) and are otherwise not publicly available.
Specifically, Shellpoint seeks to seal the Declaration of Jean
Knowles, which references information derived from documents that
are marked "Confidential."
Newrez is a leading nationwide mortgage lender and servicer.
A copy of Defendant's motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ElW8CEat no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Melissa O. Martinez, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
500 East Pratt Street Suite 1000
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 659-4432
Facsimile: (410) 659-4482
E-mail: mmartinez@mcguirewoods.com
- and-
Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 775-7745
Facsimile: (804) 698-2018 Fax
E-mail: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Settlement Hearing in Medicaid Suit Set Jan. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE TO PERSONS WHO HAVE HAD OR MAY IN THE FUTURE HAVE THEIR
MEDICAID BENEFITS TERMINATED OR REDUCED IN NORTH CAROLINA:
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF FRANKLIN et al. v. KINSLEY.
United States District Court - Eastern District of North Carolina
Case No.: 5:17-CV-581
Franklin et al. v. Kinsley, formerly known as Hawkins et al. v.
Cohen, is a federal lawsuit filed in 2017. This case was certified
by the Court as a class action lawsuit on behalf of N.C. Medicaid
beneficiaries.
In this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that the N.C. Medicaid
agency, along with county Departments of Social Services (DSS), was
terminating and reducing Medicaid benefits without considering
eligibility under all Medicaid categories and without first
providing timely and adequate written notice, in violation of
federal Medicaid statute and the U.S. Constitution. The Defendant
denied those allegations.
The named Plaintiffs and the Defendant have reached a Settlement
Agreement to resolve the lawsuit. In reaching the Settlement
Agreement, the Defendant has not admitted any wrongdoing, but has
agreed to modify the procedures, forms, and notices for
redetermining Medicaid eligibility. The Court plans to approve the
Settlement Agreement unless a good reason is given not to do so.
The Settlement Agreement includes detailed descriptions of the
steps that have been or will be taken to:
-- Assure that Medicaid does not stop without notice because the
county DSS has not timely redetermined Medicaid eligibility;
-- Assure that all categories of Medicaid eligibility are
considered beforetermination or reduction of Medicaid;
-- Assure that persons receiving Medicaid in other categories are
given anopportunity to have their eligibility as a disabled person
considered prior totermination or reduction of their Medicaid
benefits;
-- Assure compliance with all federal regulations governing the
Medicaid eligibilityprocess;
-- Assure that the written notice provided before Medicaid is
reduced or terminatedclearly and specifically states what action
will be taken and the reason for thataction;
-- Assure that all county DSSs comply with the provisions of the
agreement.
The members of the class who would be bound by the settlement
include all current or future North Carolina Medicaid recipients
for whom Defendant or county DSSs reduced or terminated Medicaid
benefits without following the procedures set out above.
RIGHT TO OBJECT: Any class member has the right to object to this
proposed Settlement Agreement; however, a class member does not
have the ability to exclude himself or herself from being bound by
the settlement if it is approved.
You may review the proposed Settlement Agreement by visiting the
Civil Clerk's office at 413 Middle Street, New Bern, NC 28560.
The Settlement Agreement is also available at the following
websites:
www.healthlaw.org/Franklinsettlement;
www.charlottelegaladvocacy.org/Franklinsettlement.
You may file written objections to the dismissal by mailing your
reasons for objection to the Clerk of Court at the above address no
later than December 31, 2022. If you wish to file evidence to
support your objections, you must file the evidence in writing by
that date.
You also have the right to object to the Settlement Agreement in
person at a hearing that will be held at 11:00 a.m. on January 13,
2023. The hearing will take place at the United States District
Court, 413 Middle Street, New Bern, NC 28560.
To ask questions of Plaintiffs' attorneys about the case or the
procedure for objecting to the dismissal, call toll free at
1-800-936-4971. You can also email Plaintiffs' attorneys at
hawkinsinfo@charlottelegaladvocacy.org. [GN]
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in DeRosa Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, formerly known as VIACOMCBS INC., et al. are
taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
Sara DeRosa, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Paramount Global, formerly known as
ViacomCBS Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02965-MCS-GJS,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed this complaint against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for every hour worked over 40 per week,
unlawful deductions from wages, and failure to furnish wage
statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York labor laws.
On June 7, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification asking the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying,
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the proposed New York Wage and Hour Class of all persons who were
paid through Sessions Payroll for work as a background or stand-in
actor on CBS television shows in New York, at any time from March
30, 2014 through present; (2) certifying, pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3), the proposed Fraudulent Information Returns Class 2 all
persons who were paid through Sessions Payroll for work as a
background or stand-in actor on CBS television shows in New York or
California, at any time from March 30, 2014 through present; (3)
certifying, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), the proposed Accounting
Class of all persons who were paid through Sessions Payroll for
work as a background or stand in actor on CBS television shows in
New York or California, at any time from March 30, 2014 through
present; (4) appointing Plaintiff Sara DeRosa to serve as the class
representative of each certified class; (5) appointing Boucher LLP
to serve as class counsel; and (6) requiring the parties to confer
on and submit a proposed plan for class notice to be given at the
Defendants' expense.
On October 11, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's class
certification motion in part.
The appellate case is captioned Sara DeRosa v. Paramount Global, et
al., Case No. 22-80121, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 26, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent SARA DEROSA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq.
Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
Mallory Whitelaw, Esq.
BOUCHER LLP
21600 Oxnard St., Suite 600
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 340-5400
Facsimile: (818) 340-5401
E-mail: ray@boucher.la
bhujwala@boucher.la
weitz@boucher.la
whitelaw@boucher.la
Defendants-Petitioners PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, et al., are represented
by:
D. Chad Anderton, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 705-3000
Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
E-mail: canderton@littler.com
PARKWAY COFFEE: Faces Mendez Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARTIMIANO SANTIAGO MENDEZ, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKWAY COFFEE SHOP, INC.
doing business as THE PARKWAY CAFE, and NICOLAS CUCOLO and ANDREW
CUCOLO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09575 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 9, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook beginning in
or about 1997 through on or about November 1, 2022.
Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked
over 40 hours per week. However, despite working more than 40 hours
per week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants did not
also provide him with a wage statement detailing his hours worked,
his hourly rate of pay, the basis for his compensation, itemizing
any withholdings, and setting forth his net pay. The Defendants
allegedly disregarded and purposefully evaded record keeping
requirements of the NYLL by failing to maintain accurate timesheets
and payroll records.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees to recover unpaid wages and overtime
due, statutory damages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses associated with this action together
with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court
determines to be just and proper.
Parkway Coffee Shop, Inc. d/b/a The Parkway Cafe operates as a
restaurant. Nicolas Cucolo and Andrew Cucolo are the owners,
shareholders, officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing
agents of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
PERRIGO CO: Shah Hits Misleading Non-Drowsy GoodSense Product Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VISHAL SHAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERRIGO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-02006 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 1, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, fraud, and
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's
False Advertising Law, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
The Defendant makes, sells, and markets "GoodSense"
over-the-counter cough, cold and flu medicine (the "Non-Drowsy
GoodSense Products"), including generic GoodSense versions of
brands like DayQuil and Robitussin. Like the branded versions,
these medicines contain the active ingredient Dextromethorphan
Hydrobromide, an ingredient that causes drowsiness.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's Non-Drowsy GoodSense
Products state prominently on the front of their label that they
are "Non-Drowsy" and "Daytime" products. By prominently labeling
these products as "Non-Drowsy" and "Daytime," Defendant led
Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers to believe that the
Non-Drowsy GoodSense Products do not cause drowsiness, and that
drowsiness is not a side effect of those products. The Defendant
also led Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers to believe that
those products are for use during the day, and can be safely and
satisfactorily consumed during waking hours, at work, and while
driving and operating machinery. But the truth is that products
containing DXM do cause drowsiness, and that drowsiness is a known
side effect of DXM (a fact not known by the average consumer),
which in effect destroys the primary reason for purchasing the
"Daytime" Products in the first place, says the suit.
Accordingly, Defendant misled Plaintiff and other consumers about
the effects of the Non-Drowsy GoodSense Products. Had Defendant
been truthful, Plaintiff and other consumers would not have
purchased the products or would have paid less for them, the suit
asserts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
PFIZER INC: Chantix Drug Contains Nitrosamine, Fish Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CANDACE FISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00278 (E.D. Wa., Nov. 14, 2022) is an action arising from
adulterated, misbranded, or unapproved varenicline-containing drugs
("VCDs") that were designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed,
packaged, or sold by the Defendant Pfizer in the United States
under the brand name Chantix.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's VCDs
are non-merchantable and are not of the quality that the Defendant
Pfizer represented. On July 2, 2021, and July 19, 2021, Pfizer
began recalling its VCDs "because the product] may contain levels
of a nitrosamine impurity, called N-nitroso-varenicline, above
FDA's acceptable intake limit." The FDA has yet to release full
testing results for other nitrosamine impurities. On September 16,
2021, Pfizer extended its recall to all Chantix.
N-nitroso-varenicline contamination of Defendant's VCDs dates back
many years, at which point Defendant had actual or, at a minimum,
constructive notice of the contamination, says the Plaintiff.
Had the Plaintiff known the product was not the same, and rather
that it was contaminated, adulterated, and/or misbranded, the
Plaintiff would not have obtained the Defendant's VCDs. Likewise,
had the Defendant's deception about the impurities within their
products been made known earlier, the the Plaintiff would not have
obtained the Defendant's VCDs, the suit added.
PFIZER INC. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company
offers medicines, vaccines, medical devices, and consumer
healthcare products for oncology, inflammation, cardiovascular, and
other therapeutic areas. Pfizer serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deborah M. Nelson, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq.
NELSON BOYD, PLLC
601 Union Street, Ste 2600
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 971-7601
Facsimile: (206) 577-5035
Email: nelson@nelsonboydlaw.com
boyd@nelsonboydlaw.com
PHYSICIAN'S BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Morris Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MORRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PHYSICIAN'S BUSINESS OFFICE, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-00514 (S.D.W. Va., Nov. 10, 2022) arises out of the recent
targeted cyberattack and data breach on Physician's Business Office
(PBO's) network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly
sensitive patient data where information compromised in the Data
Breach includes names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security
Numbers, driver's license numbers, and medical treatment and
diagnosis information, disability codes, prescription information,
and health insurance information.
In April 2022, PBO became aware of unusual activity in its network
environment. Through its investigation, PBO determined that its
network and servers were subject to a cyber-attack that impacted
its network. While PBO stated in the notice letter that the unusual
activity occurred and was discovered in April 2022, and the
investigation concluded on June 30, 2022, PBO did not begin
notifying victims until September 16, 2022, or even later -
approximately five months after they discovered the Data Breach,
the suit says.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and hundreds of
thousands of Class Members, including at least 196,573 individuals,
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future
harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal
information. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class Members now face an
increased risk of fraud and identity theft. In addition, Plaintiff
and the Class Members also lost the benefit of the bargain they
made with Defendant, the suit asserts.
Physician's Business is a Parkersburg, West Virginia-based company
that provides medical practice management and administrative
services for healthcare providers around the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristina Thomas Whiteaker, Esq.
THE GRUBB LAW GROUP PLLC
1114 Kanawha Blvd. East
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-3356
E-mail: kwhiteaker@grubblawgroup.com
- and -
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
PIEPER ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Osowski Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS OSOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIEPER ELECTRIC, INC.; and PPC PARTNERS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-1339(E.D. Nov. 11, 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 Osowski was employed by the Defendants as automation
service engineer.
PIEPER ELECTRIC, INC. operates as an electrical contractor. The
Company offers high voltage maintenance, remodeling, emergency
power, and restoration, as well as provides automation and
mechanical services. Pieper Electric serves customers in the State
of Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
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
POLARITYTE INC: Filing of Opposition Brief Due Dec. 2
-----------------------------------------------------
Polarityte 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 10, 2022, that the deadline for
lead plaintiff to file brief in opposition is on December 2, 2022.
On September 24, 2021, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court, District of Utah, by Marc Richfield against the
Company and certain officers of the Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-00561-BSJ. The Court subsequently appointed a Lead
Plaintiff and ordered the Lead Plaintiff to file an amended
Complaint by February 7, 2022, which was extended to February 21,
2022.
The Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 21, 2022,
against the Company, two current officers of the Company, and three
former officers of the Company (the "Complaint").
The Complaint alleges that during the period from January 30, 2018,
through November 9, 2021, the defendants made or were responsible
for, disseminating information to the public through reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that
contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's product, SkinTE, was improperly
registered as a 361 HCT/P under Section 361 of the Public Health
Service Act and that, as a result, the Company's ability to
commercialize SkinTE as a 361 HCT/P was not sustainable because it
was inevitable SkinTE would need to be registered under Section 351
of the Public Health Service Act; (ii) the Company characterized
itself as a commercial stage company when it knew sales of SkinTE
as a 361 HCT/P were unsustainable and that, as a result, it would
need to file an IND and become a development stage company; (iii)
issues arising from an FDA inspection of the Company's facility in
July 2018, were not resolved even though the Company stated they
were resolved; and (iv) the IND for SkinTE was deficient with
respect to certain chemistry, manufacturing, and control items,
including items identified by the FDA in July 2018, and as a result
it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the IND in the form it
was originally filed.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, on April 22, 2022.
The Lead Plaintiff filed its memorandum in opposition to the
Company’s motion to dismiss on July 18, 2022.
The Company filed its reply memorandum to the Lead Plaintiff’s
opposition memorandum on August 11, 2022, and oral argument on the
motion to dismiss was held September 8, 2022.
At the hearing the judge issued a ruling from the bench dismissing
the Complaint without prejudice and granting the Lead Plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint.
The Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") on October 3, 2022, alleging additional facts.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim on November 2, 2022, and Lead Plaintiff is
required to file its brief in opposition to the Company's motion by
December 2, 2022.
The Company believes the allegations in the Amended Complaint are
without merit, and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. At
this early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to make any
prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation.
PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials
company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range
of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of
medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the
United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative
Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah.
PROSUPPS USA: Scheibe Alleges Deceptive Calories-Per-Serving Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SCHEIBE, on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. PROSUPPS USA, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Defendant,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01784-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2022) alleges
that the Defendant manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised,
distributed and sold dietary supplement products that are
misbranded and falsely advertised in violation of the California
Business & Professions Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
ProSupps' Products are dietary supplements that contain an amino
acid blend that purportedly support endurance during workouts and
aid in muscle repair. They are used to increase the efficiency of
workouts, which supports increases in muscle mass and losing weight
associated with fat.
According to the complaint, ProSupp's Hydro BCAA amino acid powder
reports zero calories. Based on FDA guidance and consistent with
the example label provided, the amino acid blend in the Defendant's
products alone constitutes approximately 30 calories per serving.
This estimate does not include the calories provided by other
ingredients. Consumers, including Plaintiff, would reasonably
expect that a dietary supplement that reports zero calories per
serving contains zero calories per serving. Here, the explicit
representation that the products contain zero calories per serving
is false and deceptive, says the suit.
ProSupps USA, LLC provides sports nutrition supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
REAL TIME: Arbitration & Claims Dismissal in Ramirez Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant v. REAL TIME
STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case
No. B313232 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Second District, Division Seven, affirms the trial court's order
compelling arbitration and dismissing the class allegations in
Ramirez's first amended complaint.
Ramirez filed a putative class action lawsuit against Real Time and
Cosway Co., Inc., alleging violations of Labor Code wage-and-hour
provisions and a cause of action for unfair business practices.
Ramirez applied for employment with Real Time, a staffing agency,
on Jan. 24, 2012. Real Time placed Ramirez with Cosway, a
manufacturer of personal care products for nationwide distribution,
in September 2012, where Ramirez worked on the production line
until September 2015.
Ramirez filed her initial complaint on July 24, 2018 and on Dec. 7,
2018 the operative first amended complaint, alleging wage-and-hour
causes of action against Real Time and Cosway, as her joint
employers, for failure to pay overtime and double time
compensation, to provide meal and rest periods and to provide
accurate itemized wage statements and also alleging causes of
action for Labor Code waiting time penalties and unfair competition
and unlawful business practices. Ramirez asserted her claims as an
individual and on behalf of a class consisting of all current and
former nonexempt employees who worked or had worked for Real Time
or Cosway at any time from July 23, 2014 to the present.
Real Time and Cosway on Aug. 31, 2020 moved to compel arbitration
of Ramirez's individual claims, to dismiss the putative class
claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. The trial court
granted Real Time and Cosway's motion to compel Ramirez to
arbitrate her individual claims, dismissed the class allegations
without prejudice and stayed the superior court proceedings pending
resolution of arbitration.
On appeal (under the death knell doctrine) Ramirez argues the
arbitration agreement signed by Ramirez as part of her application
for employment is unenforceable for lack of consideration and the
court erred in dismissing the class allegations because the
arbitration agreement, concededly governed by the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.), contained no
class action waiver.
The Court of Appeals opines that Ramirez's argument is
fundamentally flawed. As Ramirez explained in her declaration in
opposition to the motion to compel arbitration, she initialled and
signed the Spanish-language version of the Mutual Arbitration
Agreement as part of the employment application package with Real
Time. That is, in return for Ramirez agreeing to arbitrate
employment-related disputes, Real Time offered her a job. Whether
or not Real Time also agreed to arbitrate disputes with Ramirez,
the offer of employment, which Ramirez accepted, was adequate
consideration for her promise to do so. In any event, the Mutual
Arbitration Agreement, as its title denoted, was bilateral
notwithstanding its use of the "I agree" language emphasized by
Ramirez.
Moreover, not only was the agreement to arbitrate captioned
"Mutual" ("Mutuo"), but also the associate policy handbook made
available to Ramirez and which she acknowledged receiving on the
same day she applied for employment, although not incorporated by
reference and not claimed by Real Time and Cosway to be an
enforceable agreement to arbitrate, included a provision that
expressly stated "the Employer and I agree" to submit any
employment-related dispute to arbitration. Under these
circumstances there can be no question the Mutual Arbitration
Agreement was intended to be, and was in fact, mutual.
Finally, the Court of Appeals opines that Ramirez's argument fails
to mention that the trial court's order striking the class
allegations was "without prejudice." Because the court has retained
jurisdiction over the action, staying it pending resolution of the
arbitration (Code Civ. Proc., Section 1281.4), once arbitration has
been completed, she will be free to file a new pleading reasserting
any putative class claims, assuming she can still allege in good
faith, as she did in her first amended complaint, that she will
fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class she seeks
to represent. Requiring that the case progress in this manner was
well within the trial court's broad discretion to control the order
of proceedings.
For these reasons, the order compelling arbitration and dismissing
the class allegations in Ramirez's first amended complaint is
affirmed. Real Time and Cosway are to recover their costs on
appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/34xajbjr from Leagle.com.
Gutierrez Law Group, Rolando Gutierrez --
rgutierrez@brownwhitelaw.com; Matthew J. Kita; Arias Sanguinetti
Wang & Torrijos, Mike Arias -- mike@aswtlawyers.com -- Craig S.
Momita -- craig@aswtlawyers.com -- and Robert M. Partain --
robert@aswtlawyers.com -- for the Plaintiff and Appellant.
CDF Labor Law, David G. Hagopian -- dhagopian@cdflitigation.com --
Robyn E. Frick -- rfrick@cdflaborlaw.com -- and Jeffrey Sikkema --
jsikkema@cdflitigation.com -- for Real Time Staffing Services,
LLC.
Krieger & Krieger and Lawrence R. Cagney -- LRC@KriegerLaw.com --
for Defendant and Respondent Cosway Company, Inc.
REALPAGE INC: Artificially Inflates Housing Prices, Navarro Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; PINNACLE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CAMPUS
ADVANTAGE, INC.; CARDINAL GROUP HOLDINGS LLC; CA VENTURES GLOBAL
SERVICES, LLC; D.P. PREISS COMPANY, INC.; THE MICHAELS
ORGANIZATION, LLC and INTERSTATE REALTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01552 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 2, 2022)
challenges an unlawful agreement among lessors of student housing
properties to artificially inflate the prices of student housing
across the United States, in violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, RealPage and lessors have successfully
driven rents higher for students across the country. In a press
release, RealPage stated its revenue management software yielded a
2% to 7% revenue outperformance in the market. One Lessor Defendant
stated in a video testimonial on RealPage's website that "over the
last 10 years, spanning about 150 projects, the services that
[RealPage] provided have equated to a return on investment of about
300% on about 90% of those projects." The conspiracy that Plaintiff
and members of the Class challenge is unlawful under the law, says
the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action to
recover damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other
appropriate relief, detailed infra, on behalf of all others
similarly situated.
Plaintiff Gabriel Navarro is a resident of the State of Washington
and a student at the University of Washington.
RealPage provides software and services to the residential real
estate industry, including the revenue management software
described herein.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
breannav@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
Hannah K. Song, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: riop@hbsslaw.com
hannahso@hbsslaw.com
S.C. JOHNSON: Shampoo Products Contains Benzene, Evans Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. and SUN BUM, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06363 (N.D. Il., Nov. 14, 2022) is a
class action lawsuit regarding Defendants' manufacturing,
distribution, and sale of Sun Bum brand dry shampoo products (the
"Products") that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a
carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other
cancers.
The presence of benzene renders the Products adulterated and
misbranded. As alleged above, benzene is a poisonous and
deleterious substance that has been linked to cancer and is
dangerous at any level. The Products were also manufactured in such
an insanitary way that they became contaminated with benzene. Thus,
the Products are adulterated, says the suit.
The Products' labeling also failed to disclose the existence of
benzene in the Products, and the ingredients section of the
Products' labeling does not list "benzene" as an ingredient.
Further, the Products' labeling does not disclose the presence of
benzene, even though a warning statement concerning benzene is
necessary or appropriate to prevent a health hazard, the suit
added.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
jwolloch@bursor.com
SESEN BIO: Court Sets Jan. 23 Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sesen Bio, 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 the court has set a
final settlement approval hearing for January 23, 2023, at 10:00
a.m. local time in the consolidated securities class action
captioned In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 1:21-cv-07025-AKH (the "Securities Litigation").
On August 19, 2021, August 31, 2021, and October 7, 2021, three
substantially identical securities class action lawsuits captioned
Bibb v. Sesen Bio, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07025, Cizek v.
Sesen Bio, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07309, and Markman v.
Sesen Bio, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08308 were filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
The three complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on
statements made by the Company concerning its BLA for Vicineum for
the treatment of BCG-unresponsive NMIBC. The three complaints
sought compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.
On October 29, 2021, the court consolidated the three cases under
the caption In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 1:21-cv-07025-AKH (the "Securities Litigation"), and
appointed Ryan Bibb, Rodney Samaan, Lionel Dreshaj and Benjamin
Dreshaj (collectively, the "Lead Plaintiffs") collectively as the
lead plaintiffs under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
On November 1, 2021, two stockholders filed motions to reconsider
asking the court to appoint a different lead plaintiff.
On November 24, 2021, defendants filed a motion to transfer venue
to the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. That
motion was fully briefed as of December 13, 2021, but the court has
not ruled on that motion.
On December 6, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class
action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint
alleges the same violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on the same
theory as the prior complaints. The defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on March 7, 2022, and that motion was fully
briefed on May 6, 2022.
On June 3, 2022, before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss,
the parties requested that the court hold any decision on the
motion to dismiss in abeyance to provide the parties with an
opportunity to engage in mediation.
On June 30, 2022 and July 6, 2022, the Company and the plaintiffs
engaged in mediation sessions in an attempt to resolve the
Securities Litigation and continued to discuss a potential
settlement over the following weeks.
On July 19, 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the Securities Litigation. Pursuant to that agreement, the
Company and the individual defendants will pay or cause to be paid
to members of the class who submit timely and valid proofs of
claims. In exchange, the Lead Plaintiffs will dismiss the action
and all class members who do not timely and validly opt-out of the
settlement will provide broad customary releases to the Company and
the individual defendants.
On August 3, 2022, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement to settle the Securities Litigation, which
was filed with the court on August 17, 2022. The Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement related to the Securities Litigation
provides for a settlement payment of $21.0 million to the class and
the dismissal of all claims against the Company and the other
defendants. The settlement payment is being funded by the Company
and its insurance carriers.
On September 1, 2022, the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order denying the motions to appoint
a different lead plaintiff.
On September 28, 2022, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of the Securities
Litigation.
The court has set a final settlement approval hearing for January
23, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. local time.
Sesen Bio, Inc. is a late-stage clinical company advancing
targeted
fusion protein therapeutics ("TFPTs") for the treatment of
patients
with cancer.
SOMNIA INC: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Carrasco Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO CARRASCO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOMNIA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-09535-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2022) is a class action
against Somnia for its failure to secure and safeguard the
personally identifiable information and personal health information
of approximately 428,853 individuals, including Plaintiff's.
On July 11, 2022, Somnia determined that unauthorized individuals
had gained access to its network systems and accessed the PII/PHI
of Plaintiff and Class members. Somnia breached its duty by, among
other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices to protect its patients' PII/PHI from
unauthorized access and disclosure, says the suit. As a result of
Somnia's inadequate security and breach of its duties and
obligations, the data breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class
members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed.
This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the data breach,
which Somnia learned of on July 11, 2022, and first publicly
acknowledged on September 23, 2022, the suit alleges.
Somnia, Inc. is a healthcare company with its principal place of
business in Harrison, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
Andrew C. White, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3284
Facsimile: (914) 908-6722
E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
awhite@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
Riley W. Prince, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
rprince@barnowlaw.com
SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Files Appeal in Mullins Suit
------------------------------------------------
SOUTHERN FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from
a court order in the lawsuit entitled Roger Mullins, administrator
of the estate of Valerie Mullins, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Southern Financial Life Insurance
Company.
The case type is stated as Civil.
The appellate case is captioned Southern Financial Life Insurance
Company v. Roger Mullins, administrator of the estate of Valerie
Mullins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. 2022-CA-1253, in the Kentucky Court of Appeals,
filed on October 26, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee ROGER MULLINS, administrator of the estate of
Valerie Mullins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Robert Earl Salyer, Esq.
Miller Kent Carter, Esq.
WILKES & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
200 Second Street, Suite 101
Lexington, KY 40588
Telephone: (859) 455-3356
Facsimile: (859) 455-3362
Defendant-Appellant SOUTHERN FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Chadwick Aaron McTighe, Esq.
Marjorie Ann Farris, Esq.
STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
Aegon Center
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 587-3400
Facsimile: (502) 587-6391
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Annuity Benefits, McFadden Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MCFADDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; THE SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02464 (D. Kan., Nov. 11, 2022) alleges
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to pay joint and survivor annuity ("JSA") benefits under the Sprint
Retirement Pension Plan (the "Plan") in amounts that satisfy the
actuarial equivalence requirements in the ERISA. By failing to pay
JSA benefits in amounts that are actuarially equivalent to the
single life annuities offered to participants under the Plan, the
Defendants have and will continue to cause retirees to lose part of
their vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA, says the
sut.
In sum, the Defendants are causing the Plaintiff and Class Members
to receive less than they should in pension benefits each month,
which will continue to affect them throughout their retirements.
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS LLC provides wireless telecom services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP
7500 College Blvd, Ste 1400
Overland Park, KS 66210
Telephone: (913) 253-2144
Facsimile: (913) 498-2101
Email: snehrbass@foulston.com
- and -
Jeff P. DeGraffenreid, Esq.
Boyd Byers, Esq
FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP
1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Telephone: 316.291.9788
Facsimile: 316.267.6345
Email: jdegraffenreid@foulston.com
bbyers@foulston.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
dneedham@ikrlaw.com
ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com
SPROUT FOODS: Davidson Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
GILLIAN DAVIDSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Gillian Davidson, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Sprout Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01050-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Gillian and Samuel Davidson brought this putative class action
against Sprout, which sells baby and toddler food products. The
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint ("FAC") alleged violations of
California law based on statements made on various Sprout products
that tout the nutrients included in them, such as "3g of Protein"
or "4g of Fiber." The Plaintiffs presented five claims for relief:
(1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); (2) violation of the California False Advertising Act
("FAL"); (3) common law fraud; (4) violation of the "unlawful" and
"fraudulent" prongs of the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); and (5) unjust enrichment.
On August 24, 2022, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
FAC, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Richard Seeborg on Oct. 21, 2022. Judge Seeborg determined that the
Plaintiffs have still not plausibly claimed that the Defendant's
labeling is misleading, and thus their claims under FAL, CLRA,
common law fraud, and the "fraudulent" prong of UCL must be
dismissed, though with leave to amend. Without any other viable
claims, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim must also be
dismissed, the Court ruled.
The appellate case is captioned Gillian Davidson, et al. v. Sprout
Foods, Inc., Case No. 22-16656, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 26, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Gillian Davidson and Samuel Davidson Mediation
Questionnaire was due on November 2, 2022;
-- Appellants Gillian Davidson and Samuel Davidson opening brief
is due on December 27, 2022;
-- Appellee Sprout Foods, Inc. answering brief is due on January
26, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants GILLIAN DAVIDSON, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
835 Douglass Street
San Francisco, CA 94114
Defendant-Appellee SPROUT FOODS, INC., is represented by:
Joshua D. Cools, Esq.
EVANS FEARS & SCHUTTERT, LLP
6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Telephone: (702) 805-0290
- and -
Elizabeth McNulty, Esq.
EVANS FEARS & SCHUTTERT, LLP
4440 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 339-5026
STANLEY INDUSTRIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Streedharan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY INDUSTRIAL & AUTOMOTIVE, LLC is taking an appeal from a
court order denying its motion for judgment or alternatively, to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Vijayan Streedharan,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Stanley Industrial & Automotive, LLC, doing business as Mac
Tools, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00322-MEMF-KS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleged seven causes of action: (1) failure to reimburse expenses;
(2) unlawful deductions from wages; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to provide meal breaks; (5) failure to provide rest
breaks; (6) failure to pay wages when due; and (7) unfair
competition. On February 21, 2022, this case was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
On Apr. 8, 2022, Stanley Industrial & Automotive filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to the pleadings or alternatively, to
compel arbitration.
On Sept. 27, 2022, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong denied the
Defendant's motion. Judge Frimpong ruled that (i) Streedharan has
established that the arbitration agreement within the Franchise
Agreement has some degree of procedural unconscionability because
it is a contract of adhesion; (ii) many of Streedharan's claims
arising from the California labor code have longer statute of
limitations and it is unfairly one-sided in that Mac Tools is free
to sue Streedharan at any time for money damages arising from any
security agreements between them; (iii) the agreement calls for
JAMS' Comprehensive Arbitration Rules & Procedures; (iv) the clause
designating New York as the forum for arbitration is
unconscionable; and (v) the existence of these multiple defects
"indicate a systemic effort to impose arbitration" as an inferior
forum that works to Mac Tools' advantage.
The appellate case is captioned Vijayan Streedharan v. Stanley
Industrial & Automotive, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-55999, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
October 27, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Stanley Industrial & Automotive, LLC Mediation
Questionnaire was due November 3, 2022;
-- Appellant Stanley Industrial & Automotive, LLC opening brief
is due on February 3, 2023;
-- Appellee Vijayan Streedharan answering brief is due on March
6, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee VIJAYAN STREEDHARAN, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, is represented by:
Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE, LLP
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 526-7904
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Vasquez Sues Over Unpaid Uniform Maintenance Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
IVONNE VASQUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-09596 (S.D.N.Y., November 9, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a barista at one of
the Defendant's coffee shop located at 684 6th Avenue, New York,
New York 10010 beginning in April 2019 until April 2020, and then
again at 1 Fordham Plaza, Bronx, New York 10458 from September 6,
2022 to the present.
According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to
wear a uniform at all times to work every shift in a clean
condition while employed by the Defendant. The Defendant's
supervisors and shift leaders did not permit the Plaintiff or her
coworkers to wear visibly dirty aprons to work, nor did they offer
to clean them or provide them in sufficient numbers to cover every
shift that they worked. Accordingly, the Defendant threatened to
write-up or otherwise discipline them for wearing dirty aprons to
work. Additionally, the Defendant never paid them any uniform
maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining the
uniform. Thus, they were entitled to additional pay for the time
spent off the clock and money spent in laundering and maintaining
the Defendant's uniform.
Starbucks Coffee Company operates coffee shops. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
SWANTON WELDING: Reed Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLINT REED & RYAN FREDERICK, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWANTON WELDING & MACHINING CO.,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01984 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 2, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's failure to pay employees overtime
wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.
Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as weld fabricators at Defendant's
primarily facility in Swanton, Ohio.
Swanton Welding & Machining Co., Inc. offers custom welding and
fabrication services throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
SWEETGREEN INC: Gabriel et al. Sue Over Untimely Payment of Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GABRIEL; GEORGE SANTIAGO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWEETGREEN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-09588 (S.D.N.Y., November 9, 2022) is a
class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the New York State Labor
Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and the New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Plaintiff Gabriel was hired on or around May 4, 2018 until November
30, 2018, while Plaintiff Santiago was hired on or around January
2015 until on or around December 1, 2018. The Plaintiffs duties
consisted of ensuring all foods meet good safety and quality
standards, washing dishes, cleaning surfaces, maintaining a clean
and organized dish and sink area, restocking clean dishes and
equipment, and taking out the trash at the dish station.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant failed to compensate them
and other similarly situated employees on a timely basis as
required by NYLL. Instead, they were paid on a bi-weekly basis.
Additionally, the Defendant required them to wear a uniform at all
times five days per week while employed by the Defendant. However,
the Defendant did not reimburse them for the cost of maintaining
their uniforms, and failed to provide uniforms in sufficient
quantity for the number of shifts worked each week by them
throughout their employment with the Defendant, says the
Plaintiff.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment
practices, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees
suffered actual and acute injuries. Thus, on behalf of themselves
and all othe similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs seek to
recover compensatory damages in an amount to be determined in this
action, liquidated damages, civil penalties for the wage notice and
wage statement violations, pre- and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and other
relief as the Court deem just and proper.
Sweetgreen, Inc. is a fast casual restaurant chain that serves
salads in New York State. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
TD AMERITRADE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ford Suit to 8th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from
a court order granting Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled Roderick Ford, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 8:14-cv-00396-JFB, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties on behalf
of the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated customers of TD
Ameritrade in connection with alleged self-interested routing of
the Company's clients' orders to venues, which paid the maximum
liquidity rebate or paid for order flow, irrespective of whether
the routing would optimize execution quality.
According to the complaint, TD Ameritrade's order routing practices
violate the company's 'duty of best execution' by systematically
sending customer orders to trading venues that pay the company the
most money, rather than to venues that provide the best outcome for
customers.
The Court certified a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
consisting of "all clients of TD Ameritrade between Sept. 15, 2011
and Sept. 15, 2014 who placed orders that did not receive best
execution, in connection with which TD Ameritrade received either
liquidity rebates or payment for order flow, and who were thereby
damaged." The Eighth Circuit reversed the class certification
order, finding that the class failed to satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 requirement that common issues predominate over individual
questions with respect to the economic loss class members suffered
as a result of the defendant's alleged violation of its duty of
best execution in making stock trades.
On July 1, 2021, Lead Plaintiff Roderick C. Ford filed a renewed
motion for certification of the following class of similarly
situated persons pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): (1) all clients of TD
Ameritrade between Sept. 15, 2011 and Sept. 15, 2014; (2) who
placed orders that were electronically routed by TD Ameritrade
without manual review; (3) in connection with which TD Ameritrade
received either liquidity rebates or payment for order flow; and
(4) who paid a commission to TD Ameritrade for execution of the
order (the Class).
The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a class for injunctive
relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) as follows: "all clients of TD
Ameritrade between Sept. 15, 2011 and Sept. 15, 2014 who placed
orders in connection with which TD Ameritrade received either
liquidity rebates or payment for order flow and who continue to be
clients of TD Ameritrade (the "Injunctive Class")."
On Sept. 20, 2022, Judge Joseph F. Bataillon granted the
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Judge Bataillon
found the revised Class definition solved the infirmities the
Eighth Circuit identified in its ruling on the earlier class
certification.
Judge Bataillon pointed out that absent certification, TD
Ameritrade's routing practices would have to be proved individually
by each TD Ameritrade customer. This would most likely involve
expert analysis in each case, which would be a substantial waste of
judicial resources and could result in inconsistent verdicts. The
alleged misconduct at issue is a uniform policy, practice, or
procedure applied to all members of the class. Because the cost of
prosecuting such individual cases would be prohibitive in view of
small recoveries, those harmed by TD Ameritrade's alleged
misconduct would have no recourse unless a class is certified.
The appellate case is captioned Roderick Ford v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 22-3232, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 26, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript is due on or before December 5, 2022;
-- Appendix is due on December 15, 2022;
-- Appellants TD Ameritrade, TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation
and Frederic J. Tomczyk's brief is due on December 15, 2022; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Roderick Ford, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
LITE & DEPALMA
12th Floor
Two Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY
24th Floor
30 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 546-0100
- and -
Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
878 Old Field Road
Fairfield, CT 06824
Telephone: (860) 869-5525
- and -
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
FIELDS & KUPKA
Suite 6161
1441 Broadway
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
- and -
Patrice D. Ott, Esq.
Gregory Carl Scaglione, Esq.
KOLEY & JESSEN
800 One Pacific Place
1125 S. 103rd Street
Omaha, NE 68124
Telephone: (320) 654-4100
- and -
Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY
10th Floor
55 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Defendants-Appellants TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, et al.,
are represented by:
Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
Thomas Harlan Dahlk, Esq.
KUTAK & ROCK
The Omaha Building
1650 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68102
Telephone: (402) 346-6000
- and -
Daniel J. Hay, Esq.
SIDLEY & AUSTIN
1501 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-8000
- and -
Robert N. Hochman, Esq.
SIDLEY & AUSTIN
Suite 2800
1 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 853-7000
- and -
Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
Alex J. Kaplan, Esq.
Jonathan Warren Muenz, Esq.
SIDLEY & AUSTIN
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (202) 839-5300
TRIM-LINE HITECH: Chua Appeals Ruling in Wage-and-Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILFRED CHUA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Wilfred Chua, et al., individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Trim-Line Hitech
Construction Corp. et al., Defendants, Case No. 156384/2019, in the
Supreme Court of New York, New York County.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this suit against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime
wages and prevailing wages and benefits that the Plaintiffs contend
they were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for
work that they performed on publicly-financed projects with such
government entities including but not limited to the Metropolitan
Transit Authority, New York City Transit Authority, City University
of New York, State University of New York, Dormitory Authority of
the State of New York, Clinton Housing Development Corporation and
the New York Housing Development Corporation (Government Entities).
The action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs who worked as
sheet metal workers and in other construction-related trades for
the Trim-Line Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Prime Contractors entered into
contracts with the Government Entities to perform work on the
Public Works Projects. The Trim Line Defendants paid the Named
Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class less than the
prevailing rates of wages and supplements to which the Plaintiffs
and other members of the putative class were entitled.
The appellate case is captioned Wilfred Chua, et al. vs. Trim-Line
Hitech Construction Corp. et al., Case No. 22-04780, in the
Appellate Division of New York, filed on October 26, 2022. [BN]
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Seeks to Amend Class Definition in Bickerstaff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Truist Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that the
company filed a motion to amend the class definition in the case
captioned "Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank" to which the court found
premature. The trial court entered a scheduling order in September
2022.
The "Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank" class action was filed in the
Fulton County State court on July 12, 2010, and an amended
complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all
overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card
and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore
subject to the usury laws of Georgia.
Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal
usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and seeks
damages on a class-wide basis, including refunds of challenged
overdraft fees and pre-judgment interest. On October 6, 2017, the
trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and
defined the class as "Every Georgia citizen who had or has one or
more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who, from July 12, 2006, to
October 6, 2017 (i) had at least one overdraft of $500.00 or less
resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction; (ii) paid any
Overdraft Fees as a result of the Transaction; and (iii) did not
receive a refund of those Fees" and the granting of a certified
class was affirmed on appeal.
The company previously filed a motion to amend the class definition
in which it sought to narrow the scope of the class and renewed
motions to compel arbitration against certain class members, which
the court found premature. On September 22, 2022, the trial court
entered a scheduling order holding that the court will consider
such motions after discovery is completed.
Truist Financial Corporation is a bank holding company based in
North Carolina.
TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Faces Woldanski Suit Over $2.88 Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK WOLDANSKI, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS, INC.; CHENG LU; PATRICK
DILLON; ERIC TAPIA; XIAODI HOU; MO CHEN; JAMES MULLEN; MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC; OPPENHEIMER
& CO. INC.; PIPER SANDLER & CO.; ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO.
INCORPORATED; and VALUABLE CAPITAL LIMITED, Case No. 1:22-cv-09625
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2022) is a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired TuSimple securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with TuSimple's April 15, 2021
initial public offering (IPO); and/or that purchased or otherwise
acquired TuSimple securities between April 15, 2021 and October 31,
2022, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Act
of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On April 15, 2021, TuSimple effected its IPO, selling 33.8 million
class A common shares at $40.00 per share, generating $1.031
billion in gross proceeds. The Registration Statement contained
materially false and misleading statements of fact and/or failed to
disclose facts required to be disclosed therein regarding
TuSimple's business, operations, and prospects.
On Sunday, October 30, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published an
article titled, "TuSimple Probed by FBI, SEC Over Its Ties to a
Chinese Startup". According to the article, TuSimple was being
investigated "into whether it improperly financed and transferred
technology to a Chinese startup".
On October 31, 2022, TuSimple filed a Form 8-K with the SEC.
Attached to the Form 8-K was a press release announcing that the
Board of Directors of TuSimple had terminated defendant Xiaodi Hou
from his position "as the Chief Executive Officer, President and
Chief Technology Officer of the Company and removed Dr. Hou from
his position as Chairman of the Board, in each case, effective as
of October 30, 2022."
On this news, TuSimple share prices fell $2.88, or over 45%, to
close on October 31, 2022, at $3.43 per share.
Accordingly, the Defendants allegedly made materially false or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, inter alia, that:
-- TuSimple was engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions with Hydron, a company founded by Defendant
Chen;
-- TuSimple shared confidential information and/or proprietary
technology with Hydron without Board approval or informing
regulators or TuSimple shareholders; and
-- TuSimple failed to disclose the Board's internal
investigation, which commenced in July 2022, into TuSimple's
ties to Hydron.
TuSimple develops autonomous technology specifically designed for
semi-trucks in the United States and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
UNILEVER UNITED: Dry Shampoos Contain Benzene, Rullo Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT RULLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-06422-SDW-CLW (D.N.J., Nov. 2, 2022) is a class
action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff on behalf of a national class
of all persons who purchased certain Unilever-produced Dove,
Nexxus, Suave, TIGI, and TRESemme dry shampoo aerosol products
which have now been recalled by Unilever due to benzene
contamination.
In 2021, Plaintiff purchased a Recalled Product, Bedhead Oh Bee
Hive Volumizing Dry Shampoo, after reviewing product labeling. The
Plaintiff purchased and used the Recalled Product without any
knowledge that it contained benzene or that benzene could cause
cancer and other adverse health effects. The Plaintiff would not
have purchased the Recalled Product had he known of the presence of
benzene, says the suit.
The complaint further alleges Unilever's sale of adulterated and
misbranded products containing benzene, a cancer-causing chemical,
and the material non-disclosure constitutes an unconscionable
commercial practice, deception, fraud, false promise,
misrepresentation and/or omission of material facts as to the
nature of the goods, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.
Unilever United States, Inc. manufactures personal care
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
stephen@sfclasslaw.com
- and -
Joseph R. Santoli, Esq.
340 Devon Court
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
Telephone: (201) 926-9200
E-mail: josephsantoli002@gmail.com
UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Mint Ice Cream
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that Spencer Sheehan, a well-known class-action attorney,
has filed a pair of class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that mint
flavored products which do not contain mint are deceptively
labeled.
The first lawsuit alleged that a "mint chocolate chip ice cream"
statement of identity is misleading to consumers where the
product's flavor is derived from "natural flavor" and not any mint
or mint-containing ingredient. The product also contains images of
mint leaves on the front panel. As support for the allegation that
the lack of mint is deceptive, the complaint cites to the ice cream
flavoring regulation (21 CFR 135.110(f)(2)), which requires that
the term "flavored" (e.g., mint flavored) be used where a product
contains a natural flavor which predominates.
Dianna Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, - against - Unilever United States, Inc.,
Defendant
The second lawsuit alleged that consumers are misled by a gum
product which is labeled as "original flavor" with a backdrop of
what appears to be a blue mint leaf, but which only contains
"natural and artificial flavor," and no mint-based ingredients.
Plaintiff, citing to the general flavoring regulation (21 CFR
101.22), alleged that the product should have been labeled as
"naturally and artificially flavored mint" and that the failure to
disclose the flavor or include the other qualifiers is misleading.
Kristen Lesorgen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, - against - Mondelēz Global LLC,
Defendant
Although Plaintiffs have alleged technical violations of FDA's
labeling regulations, courts have consistently held that a
reasonable consumer may not be aware of the intricacies of FDA's
labeling regulations and that therefore a technical labeling
violation is not in itself sufficient to show that a reasonable
consumer would be misled. [GN]
UPFIELD US: Redmond Sues Over Mislabeled Vegetable Oil Spreads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casanova Redmond, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Upfield US Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06334 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated consumers, against the Defendant for negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
State Consumer Fraud Acts.
Upfield US Inc. manufactures, labels, markets, and sells vegetable
oil spreads made with alternative vegetable oils, i.e., "Made With
Avocado Oil" with a picture of an avocado and avocado pit with
light green colors under its Plant Butter brand.
According to the complaint, even though the product claims to be
"Made With Avocado Oil" with a picture of an avocado and green
packaging, it contains a de minimis amount of avocado oil. The
ingredient list shows avocado oil is the smallest part of the
vegetable oil blend, less than palm fruit oil, palm kernel oil, and
canola oil. As a result of the false and misleading representations
and omissions, the product is sold for a price premium,
approximately no less than $4.89 per 16 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 suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
VENUS CONCEPT: Wong Fails to File Review Petition on Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Concept 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 10, 2022, that
plaintiff-appellant Wong failed to file review petition on the
deadline set by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 25, 2022.
In 2018 and 2019, four putative shareholder class action complaints
were filed against Restoration Robotics, Inc., certain of its
former officers and directors, certain of its venture capital
investors, and the underwriters of the initial public offering
("IPO"). Two claims, captioned Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc.,
et al., No. 18CIV02609, and Li v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et
al., No. 19CIV08173 (together, the "State Actions"), were filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo,
and assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the 1933
Act. Two additional claims, captioned Guerrini v. Restoration
Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF
(together, the "Federal Actions"), were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and assert
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act.
The complaints in both the State Actions and Federal Actions
alleged, among other things, that the Restoration Robotics'
Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and
the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection
with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading,
contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs. A settlement in the Federal
Actions was granted final approval in the District Court on
September 9, 2021.
In the State Actions, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on January 17, 2020 seeking unspecified monetary damages,
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
Following the Delaware Supreme Court reversal of the Chancery
Court's decision in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg which held that
exclusive federal forum provisions are valid under Delaware law,
the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss based on its federal
forum selection clause on March 30, 2020, which was granted as to
the Company and the individual defendants on September 1, 2020 and
a judgement of dismissal was entered by the Court on September 22,
2020. On November 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of
the Court’s order granting the renewed motion to dismiss.
The court of appeal heard oral argument related to the appeal on
April 20, 2022, and on April 28, 2022, issued its opinion affirming
the trial court's dismissal of the State Actions based on the
federal forum selection clause.
On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff-Appellant Wong petitioned the California
Supreme Court to review the appellate court's opinion. The Company
filed its Response to Plaintiff-Appellant Wong's petition on June
27, 2022, and Plaintiff-Appellant Wong filed a Reply in Support of
the Petition For Review on July 7, 2022.
On July 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court denied
Plaintiff-Appellant Wong’s petition for review.
Plaintiff-Appellant Wong’s deadline to seek review in the United
States Supreme Court was October 25, 2022, but no petition for
review has been filed.
Venus Concept Inc. global medical technology company based in
Ontario.
VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Vertiv Holdings Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit was filed against the company asserting claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of
1933.
On May 3, 2022, a putative securities class action, "In re Vertiv
Holdings Co Securities Litigation," No. 22-cv-3572, was filed
against Vertiv, certain of the company's officers and directors,
and other defendants in the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2022.
The amended complaint alleges that certain of the company's public
statements were materially false and/or misleading with respect to
inflationary and supply chain pressures and pricing issues, and
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
These claims are asserted on behalf of a putative class of all
persons and entities that (i) purchased Vertiv securities between
February 24, 2021, and February 22, 2022; and/or (ii) purchased
Vertiv securities in or traceable to November 4, 2021, a secondary
public offering by a selling stockholder pursuant to a resale
registration statement.
Vertiv Holdings Co. is into design, manufacturing, and servicing
critical digital infrastructure technology based in Ohio.
VINTAGE WINE: Faces Ezzes Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARILYN EZZES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VINTAGE WINE ESTATES, INC.; PATRICK RONEY;
KATHERINE DEVILLERS; and KRISTINA JOHNSTON, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01915 (D. Nev., Nov. 14, 2022) is a class action on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Vintage Wine securities between October 13, 2021 and September 13,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that,
due to a material weakness related to its inventory controls and
procedures, the Company lacked a reasonable basis to report
inventory metrics; (2) that the Company understated its overhead
burden in certain quarters, thereby overstating its adjusted
EBITDA; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Vintage Wine was
reasonably likely to incur significant charges to restate prior
reporting; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
On September 13, 2022, Vintage Wine announced its financial results
for fiscal year 2022. In its press release, the Company stated that
it "recorded $19.1 million in non-cash inventory adjustments
identified through efforts t[o] improve and strengthen inventory
management, processes and reporting." The Company also stated that
"the [fourth] quarter included approximately $6.8 million in
overhead burden that was related to the first and second quarter of
fiscal 2022, but not material to the respective periods."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.23, or 40.3%, to
close at $3.30 per share on September 14, 2022, on unusually high
trading volume, says the suit.
VINTAGE WINE ESTATES, INC. manufactures alcohol products. The
Company produces wines and other alcoholic products. Vintage Wine
Estates serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
7915 West Sahara Ave., Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: (702) 330-4505
Facsimile: (702) 825-0141
Email: andrew@mlolegal.com
- and -
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance & Annuity Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that
the Company continues to defend itself in the Ravarino Class Suit.
Ravarino, et al. v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al. (USDC District of
Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-01658)(filed December 14, 2021). In this
putative class action, the plaintiffs allege that the named
defendants, which include the Company, breached their fiduciary
duties of prudence and loyalty in the administration of the Voya
401(k) Savings Plan.
The plaintiffs claim that the named defendants did not exercise
proper prudence in their management of allegedly poorly performing
investment options, including proprietary funds, and passed
excessive investment-management and other administrative fees for
proprietary and non-proprietary funds onto plan participants.
The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in
self-dealing through the inclusion of the Voya Stable Value Option
into the plan offerings and by setting the "crediting rate" for
participants' investment in the Stable Value Fund artificially low
in relation to Voya's general account investment returns in order
to maximize the spread and Voya’s profits at the participants'
expense. The complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust profits as well
as costs incurred.
The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the
United States. The company was formerly known as ING Life Insurance
and Annuity Company and changed its name to Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company in September 2014. The company is
based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company operates as a subsidiary of Voya Institutional Plan
Services, LLC.
WALMART INC: Merck Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MERCK, individually
and as a representative of the class, v. WALMART INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02908-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the Class:
"The 110,527 individuals to whom Sterling Infosystems
applied an R3 code and sent pre-adverse action notice on
Walmart’s behalf from June 3, 2015 through January 8,
2019;" and
2. appointing him as Class Representative and his counsel as
Class Counsel.
Walmart sent Plaintiff Thomas Merck a version of his report the
company never received, while withholding from him the actual
report upon which the company relied when it decided not to hire
him.
Neither Walmart's failure to send the Plaintiff the report on which
it relied nor its decision not to hire the Plaintiff based on his
purported failure to disclose were one-off occurrences. Rather,
these were the intended outcomes of Walmart’s automated
processes.
Walmart set up its automated processes to exclude from hire those
applicants whose reports indicated they failed to disclose
certain convictions and to send those individuals a report
different than the one on which Walmart relied to make its
decision.
On the contrary, since this case involves job applicants for low
wage positions who are spread across the country, it is unlikely
that they would bring individual actions on their own, and highly
desirable that they be represented in a single action by class
counsel.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3U6Mry1at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
jhashmall@bm.net
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
enusser@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Michael J Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
MEYER WILSON LAW FIRM
1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
mwilson@meyerwilson.com
WELLS FARGO: Settlement in Mackmin Suit Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, that the
class action settlement in the case captioned "Mackmin, et al. v.
Visa, Inc. et al.," has been approved by the court in August 2022.
In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action,
"Mackmin, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.," against Wells Fargo &
company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several
other banks in the United States District court for the District of
Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard
requirement that if an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa
and MasterCard transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than
the access fee charged for transactions on other networks, violates
antitrust rules.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees were available under federal and state law. Two
other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed in
the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a
defendant.
On February 13, 2013, the district court granted the defendant's
motions to dismiss the three actions. The plaintiffs appealed the
dismissals, and, on August 4, 2015, the United States court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district
court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the district
court for further proceedings.
On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme court granted
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the
decisions of the United States court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme court
dismissed the petitions as improvidently granted, and the three
cases returned to the district court for further proceedings.
In November 2021, the district court granted preliminary approval
of an agreement pursuant to which the company will pay $20.8
million in order to resolve the cases. In August 2022, the district
court granted final approval of the settlement.
Wells Fargo & company is a financial services company based in
California.
WOLVERINE WORLD: Suit Over Property Damage Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine World Wide Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that only one of the
Litigation Matters suits remain pending in court and in discovery.
Beginning in late 2017, individual lawsuits and three putative
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company that raise a
variety of claims, including claims related to property,
remediation, and human health effects.
The three putative class action lawsuits were subsequently refiled
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan as
a single consolidated putative class action lawsuit. 3M Company has
been named as a co-defendant in the individual lawsuits and
consolidated putative class action lawsuit.
In addition, the current owner of a former landfill and gravel
mining operation sued the Company seeking damages and cost recovery
for property damage allegedly caused by the Company's disposal of
tannery waste containing PFAS (this suit collectively with the
individual lawsuits and putative class action, the "Litigation
Matters").
On September 27, 2021, the Company and 3M Company entered into a
non-binding term sheet outlining proposed settlement terms with the
law firm representing certain of the plaintiffs in the individual
lawsuits included in the Litigation Matters, and on January 11,
2022, the Company and 3M Company entered into a master settlement
agreement with the law firm representing certain of the plaintiffs
in the individual lawsuits included in the Litigation Matters, and
each of these plaintiffs subsequently agreed to participate in the
settlement. Such plaintiffs' lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice
on or around April 25, 2022.
On December 9, 2021, the Company and 3M Company reached a
settlement in principle to resolve certain of the remaining
individual lawsuits included in the Litigation Matters, and the
parties entered into definitive settlement agreements in March
2022. These plaintiffs' lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice on
June 14, 2022. The last remaining individual action was dismissed
without prejudice on June 24, 2022.
In addition, in September 2022, the parties to the putative class
action filed a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class
action settlement seeking to resolve the putative class action
plaintiffs' claims (the "Motion for Preliminary Approval").
On September 19, 2022, the court granted the Motion for Preliminary
Approval and scheduled a final approval hearing regarding the
settlement for March 29, 2023.
Only one of the Litigation Matters, the lawsuit filed by the
current owner of a former landfill and gravel mining operations,
remains pending in Michigan state court, and it is in the discovery
and motions stages of litigation.
Headquartered in Rockford, Michigan, Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
manufactures and markets branded footwear and performance leathers.
WW.COM LLC: Discloses Users' Info to Third Parties, Cantu Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE CANTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WW.COM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; WW INTERNATIONAL INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-07977 (C.D.
Cal., Nov. 1, 2022) arises from the Defendants' conduct of
disclosing Plaintiff's personally identifiable information to a
third-party in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Facebook, a social networking company, enables advertisers to
identify "people who have already shown interest in [their]
business," which Facebook calls "Custom Audiences." The Custom
Audiences tool requires advertisers to supply user data to
Facebook, and most do so via the Facebook Tracking Pixel. The
Facebook Tracking Pixel is a device included programming code that
advertisers can integrate into their website. Once activated, the
Facebook Tracking Pixel "tracks the people and type of actions they
take." Advertisers control what actions -- or, as Facebook calls
it, "events" -- the Facebook Tracking Pixel will collect, including
the website's metadata, along with what pages a visitor views.
The complaint alleges that Weightwatchers.com hosts the Facebook
tracking Pixel and transmits numerous distinct events to Facebook.
By disclosing Plaintiff's event data and identifiers, Defendant
disclosed his personally identifiable information to a third-party.
The Plaintiff discovered that Defendants surreptitiously collected
and transmitted his personally identifiable information in October
2022.
The Plaintiff is a consumer privacy advocate with dual motivations
for watching a video on Defendants' Website.
WW.COM, LLC hosts and delivers content including videos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
[*] 2022 U.S. Class-Action Decisions, Settlements Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------
This Greenberg Traurig, LLP Newsletter summarizes recent
class-action decisions from across the United States.
Highlights from this issue include:
* Southern District of New York decertifies "All Natural" class
action following deposition testimony showing each plaintiff held a
different understanding of the phrase on product label.
* Third Circuit clarifies courts should not deny certification
on ascertainabilty grounds based on volume of records to be
reviewed.
* Fifth Circuit vacates FDCPA class certification order for lack
of Article III standing.
* Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of class action based on
"price premium" theory for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
* Eighth Circuit rules district court retains jurisdiction under
CAFA after severing claims on which jurisdiction was predicated.
* Eastern District of California finds attorneys' fees must be
proven with summary judgment-type evidence in assessing CAFA's $5
million amount-in-controversy requirement.
* Eleventh Circuit vacates certification of settlement class and
approval of class settlement holding Rule 23(e) requires every
member of the class have Article III standing.
First Circuit
Wilkins v. Genzyme Corp., No. 21-10023-DPW, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
165678(D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2022)
District court declines to extend American Pipe tolling to untimely
putative class allegations.
Defendant moved to dismiss a putative class action complaint under
Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that the individual claims and class
allegations were untimely. In response, plaintiffs cited the
Supreme Court's American Pipe tolling doctrine. The district court,
however, noted that American Pipe does not apply when a court sits
in diversity. Thus, the court needed to consider whether the
relevant state courts had adopted the doctrine and whether the
doctrine "fits with the facts" of this case.
The district court ultimately concluded that American Pipe tolling
was a "poor fit" for the case, even if the doctrine applied. While
recognizing that First Circuit authority was not binding as to
state law, the court noted the First Circuit's recent conclusion
that, while "a putative class member may join an existing suit or
file an individual action upon denial of class certification, a
putative class member may not commence a class action anew beyond
the time allowed by the untolled statute of limitations." This
clarification, according to the First Circuit, means that "the
tolling effect of a motion to certify a class applies only to
individual claims, no matter how the motion is ultimately
resolved."
The district court also explained that most states following
American Pipe's reasoning "have adopted a rule allowing tolling
during the pendency of a class action filed in their own courts."
Federal courts also have been "disinclined to import
cross-jurisdictional tolling into the law of a state that has not
ruled on the issue" based on forum-shopping concerns. Because the
relevant state courts had not explicitly adopted
cross-jurisdictional tolling, the court found that American Pipe
tolling was not available.
Wortman v. Logmein, Inc., No. 218-11475-GAO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
154807 (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2022)
District court denies class certification of Massachusetts Consumer
Protect Act claims based on inability to prove injury through
common proof.
Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against defendants for
allegedly renewing plaintiffs' subscriptions to cloud-based
document-sharing services at higher prices than plaintiffs
initially agreed. Plaintiffs alleged they would not have subscribed
to the services had they known their subscriptions would be renewed
at higher prices. Defendants' conduct, according to plaintiffs,
violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 93A.
The district court considered and denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. In doing so, the court concluded that
plaintiffs did not satisfy the commonality or typicality
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
According to the district court, the record showed that (1)
defendants' policies and practices regarding renewal notifications
and refunds differed from customer to customer, and (2) the
putative class members' alleged injuries varied significantly. For
example, some putative class members, like plaintiffs, were
dissatisfied when their subscriptions renewed at a higher price,
but others continued using the products without complaint. As to
those who complained, some did so immediately after receiving
notice of the first renewal, and some waited until after multiple
renewal periods before contacting customer service. Also, some
customers received full refunds, some received partial refunds, and
some received no refund at all. According to the district court,
absent a "painstaking" individualized inquiry, there was no
manageable way to determine which consumers were like plaintiffs
and which were not.
According to the district court, it would be inappropriate "to
impute injury" to putative class members "by inference." Although
plaintiffs argued their "common injury" was inherent in defendants'
conduct (i.e., that all consumers paid a higher price than the
initial contract price), Chapter 93A requires proof "of an
identifiable injury that is distinct from the alleged unfair or
deceptive practice itself." Here, there was no basis "to assume
that the renewal price paid by each individual consumer was not a
good value to that consumer or commensurate with a competitive
price." As the court explained, "a critical inquiry when evaluating
injury in Chapter 93A cases is whether the allegedly unlawful
practice harmed buyers 'in any material respect.'" Thus,
materiality would differ between consumers, and because some
consumers "were not bothered by the price increase," the increase
was not "material" to the "renewal decisions by class members
generally."
The court also found plaintiffs failed to satisfy the predominance
and superiority requirements. Among other things, the court ruled
that, "absent . . . some other mechanism that can manageably remove
uninjured persons from the class in a manner that protects the
parties' rights," the court "would be forced to conduct a detailed
inquiry into each proposed class member." Finally, the court noted
that, although Chapter 93A contained more lenient standards for
class certification, Rule 23, a procedural rule, governed
certification in federal court.
Costa v. Dvinci Energy, Inc., No. 21-11501-NMG, 2022 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 130208 (D. Mass. July 22, 2022)
District court denies defendant's request to strike class
allegations based on alleged fail-safe class definition.
Plaintiff alleged she received telemarketing calls from defendant
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227 (based on plaintiff allegedly being on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry). Plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide
class of all persons who received similar calls and also were on
the Do-Not-Call Registry. Defendant moved to strike the class
allegations because the proposed class definition created a "fail
safe" class where putative class members either won or were
excluded from the class. Although recognizing that striking class
allegations at the pleading stage is a "drastic remedy," the
district court explained a court may rightfully do so when the
class definition is pleaded as a "fail-safe" class. A "fail-safe"
class occurs when class membership is defined in terms of the
underlying legal injury, i.e., when the definition includes those
persons to whom a defendant's liability already is established.
Such a definition is impermissible because it makes it virtually
impossible for a defendant to "win" the case, as any class member
against whom the defendant succeeds is excluded from the class.
Here, the proposed class (those persons who received telephone
calls and who were listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry) included
persons to whom defendant would and would not be liable, and
membership in the class could be determined without reaching any
legal conclusions as to defendant's liability. The court denied
defendant's motion as a result.
Second Circuit
Williams v. Block One, No. 20-cv-2809, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171550
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2022)
District court denies motion for approval of class settlement,
finding lead plaintiff was not an adequate representative because
he may have been incentivized to accept a lower settlement amount
than other members of the proposed class.
This putative class action concernslBlock One's initial coin
offering (ICO), whereby ERC-20 tokens were sold to investors to
fund software development relating to novel EOS blockchain
technologies, with the expectation that those tokens could later be
exchanged for tokens produced on a forthcoming EOS blockchain.
Block One never registered its sale of the ERC-20 tokens with the
SEC and attempted to prevent token purchases by U.S. investors, a
prohibition which "was easily circumvented," including by resale on
U.S. cryptocurrency exchanges. In its lawsuit, Crypto Assets
Opportunity Fund LLC (the "Lead Plaintiff"), which did not purchase
tokens directly from Block One in the ICO, alleged that the ERC-20
tokens were securities and Block One violated the securities laws
by failing to register its ICO. Lead Plaintiff also alleged certain
public statements and omissions by Block One and its founders were
materially false and misleading.
The parties ultimately reached a proposed settlement, purporting to
settle on behalf of all purchasers of Block One tokens over an
approximate two-year period, irrespective of whether they were
located within the United States. The court granted an unopposed
motion for conditional certification of the proposed class, but
then requested more information given its concerns about the
potential inadequacy of the Lead Plaintiff to serve as class
representative. The material the court requested included, among
other things, information about Lead Counsel's costs in pursuing
this case, support for the contention that the majority of the
proposed class members were foreign, and support for the assumption
that purchasers of only 25% of the tokens were likely eligible to
recover as part of the settlement. According to the court, whether
the Lead Plaintiff will adequately represent the interests of
absent class members "depends upon whether the proportion of the
[Lead P]laintiff's purchases that were subject to the federal
securities laws is the same as, or representative of, the
proportion of such purchases by absent class members." The court
reasoned that if the Lead Plaintiff's "proportion of purchases
covered by the securities laws was lower than the proportion of
such purchases by other class members, plaintiff could have had a
financial interest in accepting a settlement at a price lower than
the price that would have been demanded by adequately represented
class members."
Ultimately, the court found that Lead Plaintiff failed to provide
sufficient information regarding the proportion of its transactions
that were domestic as compared to those of the absent class members
and declined to approve the proposed settlement. The court also
noted the "structural conflict" that "has had a detrimental effect
on absent class members," in that "Lead Plaintiff already has
accepted a settlement offer that is 75 percent less than the total
alleged loss to class members largely because of the presence of
foreign purchasers."
In re KIND LLC "Healthy & All Nat." Litig, 15-MD-2645, 2022 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 163207 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2022)
Southern District of New York decertifies class when common
questions of law or fact no longer predominate because each
plaintiff held a different theory of the phrase "All Natural" on
product label.
Plaintiffs challenged the labeling of KIND products that contained
the "All Natural/Non GMO" description. In January 2020, plaintiffs
moved to certify three Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes for certain
time periods—a New York class, California class, and Florida
class. The court certified those classes but denied a motion to
certify an injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2). After
certification, the parties completed discovery, and defendants
moved for summary judgment and to decertify.
When deciding the motion to decertify, the court noted that it must
"reassess . . . class rulings as the case develops" in order to
"ensure continued compliance with Rule 23's requirements." When the
class was certified, the judge focused on the fact that "All
Natural" and "Non GMO" claims were subject to common proof because
KIND always coupled the "All Natural" statement with the "Non GMO"
statement on its labeling, and so the question of whether labels
with "All Natural" and "Non GMO" were true was a binary question.
But this theory of common proof was eliminated after plaintiffs
abandoned their "Non GMO" claims.
The court then explained how each named plaintiff had a different
understanding of "All Natural," such that common questions no
longer predominated. One plaintiff testified she believed that
"natural" meant "the Products were made from whole nuts, fruits,
and whole grains." Another testified that "All Natural" means that
the "ingredients were not synthetic, not chemicals, [but were]
natural ingredients." Another plaintiff testified she thought "an
all natural product would be one without GMO ingredients and one
that would be 'good for' her," and a fourth plaintiff testified a
natural product "would be one that is 'pull[ed] out of the Earth'
or 'dirt,' or 'untouched.'" Based on this testimony, the court
concluded that plaintiffs failed to articulate a workable
definition of "All Natural" held by a reasonable consumer and
decertified.
Third Circuit
Artem Gelis v. BMW Of North America, LLC, 49 F.4th 371 (3d Cir.
2022)
Third Circuit Reverses Fee Award Due to Insufficient Proofs.
In the context of settling a class action, the parties agreed that
defendant would not object to an award of attorneys' fees up to
$1.5 million and class counsel would not request an award above
$3.7 million. Defendant appealed a fee award at the upper end of
that range. The Third Circuit reversed the award and remanded for
further proceedings.
The panel first addressed plaintiff's argument that defendant had
waived its right to appeal by agreeing to submit the issue of
attorneys' fees to the district court "for final evaluation and
decision" while not explicitly reserving the right to appeal in the
settlement agreement. The panel rejected plaintiff's argument,
finding that a party must expressly waive its right to appeal a fee
award, which defendant did not do.
Next, the panel addressed defendant's argument that the district
court's lodestar calculation was based upon an insufficient record.
Class counsel submitted summary charts outlining the aggregate
number of hours incurred by each attorney in each phase of the
case, but did not describe the tasks each attorney undertook. The
panel found the summary charts insufficient because they did not
allow the court to determine whether hours were duplicative or
reasonable for the work performed. The panel reiterated prior
precedent that the submission of contemporaneously recorded time
sheets is the preferred practice.
Kelly v. Realpage Inc., 47 F.4th 202 (3d Cir. 2022)
Third Circuit clarifies courts should not deny certification on
ascertainability grounds based simply on the volume of records to
be reviewed.
Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Realpage – a
consumer reporting agency – for violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) after their rental applications were denied
due to false information in their consumer reports. The district
court found plaintiffs failed to establish superiority and
predominance due to individual questions regarding whether putative
class members directly requested their files or reports. The
district court also concluded that the class was not ascertainable
because determining who was in the class would require a review of
each individual file, which was not "administratively feasible."
The Third Circuit reversed.
As to predominance and superiority, the panel observed that it had
never addressed whether Section 1681g(a)'s disclosure obligations
could be triggered by an indirect request from a third-party for a
"report." After analyzing the text, context and structure of FCRA,
the panel agreed with the district court that Section 1681g's
disclosure obligation was triggered only by a direct request, not
an indirect request. The panel came to a different conclusion with
respect to requests for a "file," which could be requested
indirectly. Nevertheless, because the evidence demonstrated that
Realpage did not distinguish between requests for "files" and
"reports," no individualized inquiry was necessary, and
predominance was satisfied.
The Third Circuit also reversed the ascertainability ruling. The
panel analyzed recent precedent and observed that "a
straightforward 'yes-or-no' review of existing records to identify
class members is administratively feasible even if it requires
review of individual records with cross-referencing of voluminous
data from multiple sources." The panel found the volume of records
that needs to be reviewed is not a valid objection to
ascertainability, reasoning that "[t]o hold otherwise would be to
categorically preclude class actions where defendants purportedly
harmed too many people."
Duncan v. Governor of the Virgin Islands, 48 F.4th 195 (3d Cir.
2022)
Third Circuit clarifies the type of evidence needed to establish
adequacy of representation.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against high-ranking
officials of the Virgin Islands, challenging the practice of
delaying tax refunds for most taxpayers but expediting refunds for
others. During the lawsuit, the Territory sent plaintiff a refund
check, but plaintiff challenged the amount. The district court held
that receipt of the refund check called into question plaintiff's
standing, denied class certification because plaintiff's claims
were now atypical of putative class members, and rendered plaintiff
an inadequate class representative. The Third Circuit accepted
plaintiff's interlocutory appeal and reversed.
Initially, the panel found plaintiff had a justiciable claim
notwithstanding her receipt of a refund check. Plaintiff's claim
was not moot because the refund check was not in the amount
plaintiff claimed she was owed, rendering it a "partial remedy."
Even if the check was in the amount plaintiff claimed she was owed,
the panel found the "picking-off exception" to mootness would
apply. Because plaintiff had a "small claim for cash" and moved for
class certification weeks after filing her complaint, plaintiff's
claims would relate back to the date she filed her complaint –
before she received the refund check.
The panel also reversed the district court's finding on adequacy of
representation, that plaintiff had not put forth any evidence that
intra-class conflicts were lacking. The panel stated it had not
found any authority requiring such evidence, and case law supported
the discretion of a district court to find adequacy of
representation without such evidence. To satisfy her burden, a
plaintiff need not present the type of evidence one might expect on
summary judgment. Rather, the class definition, the factual
allegations in the complaint, and the relief sought are "highly
indicative" of whether the putative class representative is
adequate. The panel disclaimed that it was reverting to a pleading
standard, stating that the court also should review any documents
or evidence that questions a plaintiff's allegations. The panel
remanded for further consideration.
Fourth Circuit
Jonathan R. v. Justice, 41 F.4th 316 (4th Cir. 2022)
Fourth Circuit considers mootness and abstention in challenge to
West Virginia's child welfare system.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of thousands of
foster children in West Virginia, challenging the state's
administration of the child welfare system. The district court
abstained from hearing the case in deference to parallel state
court proceedings, reasoning that federal intervention would
undermine notions of comity and federalism and reflect negatively
on the state court's ability to enforce constitutional principles.
The Fourth Circuit reversed.
The panel initially addressed justiciability. Since the filing of
the complaint, no plaintiff was part of the class or subclasses
because the named plaintiffs all had aged out or had been adopted.
The panel rejected plaintiff's argument that the "capable of
repetition yet evading review" exception applied because there was
a 7.5% chance the adopted children would return to the system. But
the panel accepted plaintiff's argument that the
class-action-specific "relation back" exception to mootness applied
because the claims became moot before the district court had an
opportunity to certify the class, and other class members would
continue to be subject to the challenged conduct.
The Fourth Circuit also reversed the district court's abstention
ruling. The panel reasoned that plaintiffs did not seek to pause or
end any state administrative proceedings. Rather, they asked the
federal court to bring the child welfare system into compliance
with federal law. While the federal court may find a violation
where the state court did not, res judicata principles would apply
to such a situation. Thus, Younger abstention was not implicated.
Fifth Circuit
Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C., 45 F.4th 816 (5th
Cir. 2022)
Fifth Circuit vacates class-certification order sua sponte for lack
of Article III standing.
Plaintiff sued a law firm that specializes in debt collection for
local governments in Texas, claiming the law firm violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by trying to collect a debt
for which the statute of limitations had run. Plaintiff also asked
to certify a state class of individuals who received the same form
letter. The district court certified the class, and defendant
appealed the certification ruling under Rule 23(f).
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit considered plaintiff's standing sua
sponte and found that plaintiff lacked standing. The court began
with the requirement that every plaintiff have a concrete
injury-in-fact. Applying the Supreme Court's TransUnion decision,
the court considered whether plaintiff's alleged injury had a
"close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as providing
a basis for a lawsuit in American courts." Under this
consideration, the Fifth Circuit concluded that plaintiff had
failed to make such a connection. Plaintiff alleged her injury from
defendant's conduct took the form of a statutory violation alone, a
material risk of financial harm, confusion, a waste of time, and an
intrusion upon seclusion. But the court rejected each of these
arguments, explaining that "Congress didn't elevate the receipt of
a single, unwanted message to the status of a legally cognizable
injury in the FDCPA." Rather, Congress was concerned with "economic
harms that consumers suffered due to aggressive and unfair attempts
to collect their debts," and plaintiff had not alleged any such
injury here. The Fifth Circuit thus vacated the district court's
class certification order and remanded the case for dismissal.
Sixth Circuit
Askew v. Inter-Cont'l Hotels Corp., No. 5:19-cv-24-BJB, 2022 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 140459 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 8, 2022)
District court rules Fair Labor Standards Act not an "applicable
federal statute" that limits a party's ability to dismiss an action
under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
A group of tip-earning bartenders sued restaurant operators in a
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The district
court conditionally certified the class, and after plaintiffs'
counsel notified putative class members, 14 people opted in. The
named plaintiffs then filed stipulations of dismissal. One of the
stipulations voluntarily dismissed six of the opt-in plaintiffs
because "they were not employed in a tipped employee capacity and
paid at or above minimum wage"; the other was a notice of dismissal
with prejudice and without explanation.
The district court considered whether it was required to approve
the stipulations of dismissal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff, subject to "any applicable
federal statute," to "dismiss an action without a court order by
filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who
have appeared." The court thus considered whether the FLSA is an
"applicable federal statute" that requires judicial approval before
dismissal. Considering the advisory notes to Rule 41, along with
the statutory text, the court ruled that the FLSA is not such a
statute. This decision, the court recognized, follows a decision
reached by the Fifth Circuit but conflicts with decisions from the
Second and Eleventh Circuits, and at least one other district
court, on this same issue. The court considered the rationale of
these contrary opinions but determined it was bound by the FLSA's
language. The court stated, "If Congress, presumably out of concern
over the adequacy of plaintiffs' representation, wishes to limit
the voluntariness of a dismissal, it knows how to do so."
Seventh Circuit
Johnson v. Diakon Logistics, Inc., 44 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2022)
Seventh Circuit rules that choice-of-law provides does not govern
action for wages under Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
This appeal arose from the district court's grant of summary
judgment. The court had granted class certification, but on summary
judgment determined that contractual choice-of-law provisions
opting for Virginia law applied. Applying Virginia law, the court
found that plaintiffs were independent contractors, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) did not govern.
The Seventh Circuit, however, noted that courts in Illinois
generally disregard language in the contract classifying workers as
independent contractors versus employees and instead rely on the
definition included in the IWPCA itself. Similarly, Illinois law
would not honor the choice-of-law provision for determining a
worker's rights under the IWPCA. Based on this, the Seventh Circuit
reversed summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings
finding that the worker's contract did not apply to a claim under
the IWPCA.
Flynn v. FCA US LLC, 39 F.4th 946 (7th Cir. 2022)
Seventh Circuit affirms trial court rulings dismissing class action
based on "price premium" theory for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs brought claims on behalf of every consumer who had
purchased or leased a Chrysler vehicle with a uConnect infotainment
system from 2013-2015, alleging a security risk that could
potentially allow a hacker to take control of the vehicle.
Defendant unsuccessfully challenged plaintiffs' standing at the
motion to dismiss stage, when the court found injury based on
allegations that plaintiffs paid more for the vehicles than they
would have if they had known about the vulnerability. Ultimately,
classes in Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri were certified.
Following discovery, defendant brought another motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction raising a factual
challenge: that plaintiffs had no competent evidence to support
their "price premium" theory. Responding to the dismissal motion,
plaintiffs failed to cite any evidence supporting their overpayment
theory. On that basis, the district court found that plaintiffs
lacked standing and dismissed.
On appeal, Plaintiffs cited evidence in their expert reports, but
the Seventh Circuit noted that plaintiffs raised this evidence for
the first time on appeal. Because plaintiffs failed to cite any
evidence supporting their alleged injury, the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision and found the case was
properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Koehler v. Infosys Technologies Limited Inc., No. 13-cv-885-pp,
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165646 (E.D. Wis. 2022)
District Court holds it must conduct a full Daubert analysis of
expert opinions before deciding motions for class certification or
summary judgment.
Plaintiffs claimed that defendant made adverse hiring or employment
decisions based on their Caucasian race and their American national
origin. Plaintiffs sought to represent classes of individuals who
were not of South Asian race or Indian national origin who: (a)
sought a position with defendant but were not hired; (b) were
employed by defendant for at least 18 months and were not promoted;
and (c) were employed by defendant and were terminated. In both
their motion for partial summary judgment and their motion for
class certification, plaintiffs attached and relied on an expert
report.
The court found that, when a party relies on an expert report in a
motion for class certification or a motion for summary judgment,
the court must conduct a full Daubert analysis of that expert's
qualifications and opinions. The court then engaged in such a
Daubert analysis and found plaintiffs' expert was not qualified to
analyze the data and categorize individuals as of South Asian race
or Indian national origin on the basis of name recognition and that
his methodology for identifying the race and national origin of
incumbent employees and applicants was unreliable. On this basis,
the court granted defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert.
Because plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and motion
for class certification were based upon their expert's analysis,
the court denied both motions.
Eighth Circuit
Fochtman v. Hendren Plastics, Inc., 47 F.4th 638 (8th Cir., Aug.
25, 2022)
Eighth Circuit rules district court retains jurisdiction under
Class Action Fairness Act after severing claims.
Plaintiffs were participants in a drug and alcohol recovery
program, who could avoid imprisonment by participating in the
program. As part of the program, plaintiffs were provided with room
and board, clothing, and other necessities and were not charged a
fee for their participation. The program also required plaintiffs
to work for local for-profit businesses to build work ethic. Rather
than compensating plaintiffs for the work, the businesses provided
funds to the program for each hour plaintiffs worked, which were
the program's only source of revenue. After not receiving
compensation, plaintiffs filed a class action against two recovery
programs and two participating local for-profit businesses for
failure to pay minimum wage.
Because plaintiffs alleged only state-law wage and hour claims, the
suit was originally filed in Arkansas state court. A local business
removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA). The district court ultimately severed the claims against
two of the four defendants and ordered plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint addressing only those claims against one recovery
program and one local business. The district court then ruled in
plaintiffs' favor on summary judgment, and defendants appealed.
On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's subject
matter jurisdiction, arguing the amount-in-controversy requirement
under CAFA could not be met after the district court severed the
claims against two of the defendants. The Eighth Circuit rejected
this argument because "'jurisdiction is determined at the time of
removal, even though subsequent events may remove from the case the
facts on which jurisdiction was predicated.'" Jurisdiction did not
need to be reestablished for each action following the severance.
Ninth Circuit
Ramos v. TDB Communications, Inc., et al., No.
2:22-cv-00479-KJM-CKD, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130446 (E.D. Cal. July
22, 2022)
In assessing CAFA's $5 million in controversy requirement,
attorneys' fees must be proven with summary judgment-type
evidence.
Defendant removed this class action to federal court, arguing the
district court had jurisdiction under CAFA. In estimating the
amount of attorneys' fees at stake, defendant argued that
"attorneys' fees will be 25 percent of plaintiff's potential
damages" because "this [c]ourt has previously found this precise
figure permissible in the context of evaluating CAFA jurisdiction."
The court found the showing insufficient, ruling that the
evidentiary burden of proving attorneys' fees for purposes of
showing the amount in controversy must meet a "preponderance of the
evidence" standard and must be shown using "summary-judgment-type
evidence." Parties could not simply state that "the [c]ourt has
done this before."
Rogers v. Lyft, Inc., No. A160182, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4522
(Cal. App. July 21, 2022)
Request for injunctive relief rendered moot by Proposition 22,
passed while appeal was pending, and court declines to allow
plaintiffs to maintain appeal of a moot preliminary public
injunction by asserting claims for ancillary restitution.
Plaintiffs brought a class action against defendant for allegedly
misclassifying them as independent contractors. The trial court
compelled arbitration of a claim for injunctive relief and denied
plaintiffs' application for an emergency preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs appealed both orders, but while the appeal was pending,
California passed Proposition 22, which generally classified
app-based drivers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs argued
that 1) notwithstanding Proposition 22, an actual controversy
remained because they would have been entitled to incidental relief
(paid sick leave during COVID-19) and attorneys' fees had the
injunction been granted, and 2) the injunction sought public
injunctive relief, which is not subject to arbitration. The court
dismissed the appeal, rejecting both arguments. First, the court
held that orders compelling arbitration are non-appealable, and the
action did not fall within two existing exceptions to that rule.
Second, the court held that Proposition 22 rendered any claim for
injunctive relief moot, and "no California case holds that
plaintiffs can maintain an appeal from the denial of a moot
preliminary public injunction by asserting claims for 'ancillary
restitution.'" The court also declined to exercise its
discretionary authority to decide moot issues involving, for
instance, a matter of continuing public interest that is likely to
recur.
Turman v. Parent, Jr., No. G060330, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS
4236 (Cal. App. July 6, 2022)
Trial court not required to explain its reasoning for reducing
attorneys' fees or enhancement awards or rejecting cy pres
designations in class action settlements.
The trial court preliminarily approved the parties' class action
settlement that provided for a non-reversionary settlement payment
totaling $2.2 million, including $1,040,000 in attorneys' fees and
$100,000 in enhancement awards. The agreement also provided that
unclaimed settlement payments would be allocated to a designated cy
pres recipient. The trial court's final order provided for a
reduced attorneys' fee award in the amount of $880,000 and reduced
enhancements to $55,500. The final order did not approve the
designated cy pres recipient and instead tendered unclaimed
payments to the State Controller's Office under the Unclaimed
Property Law. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial court abused
its discretion by reducing the awards and rejecting the proposed cy
pres recipient. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the
trial court was not required to explain 1) its reduction of the fee
awards because there was no analogue to Code of Civil Procedure
section 632 (requiring courts to explain reasoning in a statement
of a decision) in the attorneys' fee context; or 2) its reasoning
for not approving the cy pres provision because "trial courts
should have the full range of alternatives at their disposal" when
selecting the appropriate method for fluid recovery in any case.
Eleventh Circuit
Drazen v. Pinto, 41 F.4th 1354 (11th Cir. 2022)
Eleventh Circuit vacates approval of class action settlement,
holding that approval of class certification and settlement
pursuant to Rule 23(e) requires that every member of the class have
Article III standing.
Plaintiff sued in the Southern District of Alabama,
assertinglGodaddy.com violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) by calling and texting plaintiff through a prohibited
automatic telephone dialing system. The initial case was
consolidated with two cases filed in the District of Arizona, one
by Jason Bennett and the other by John Herrick. The three class
representatives purported to represent a class of "persons within
the United States who received a call or text message to his or her
cellular telephone from Defendant . . . ." Plaintiff Herrick had
received a single text message from defendant.
The parties proposed a settlement, making available $35 million for
the class and its counsel. The district court, after review, held
that class representative Herrick must be excluded from the class
definition under the Eleventh Circuit's 2019 holding in Salcedo v.
Hanna: "receipt of a single unwanted text message was not a
sufficiently concrete injury to give rise to Article III standing."
The district court also concluded that, as to "absent class
members" that may have received only one text message, they
comprised only seven percent of the class and thus the class could
be certified, and the settlement approved. The district court noted
that, while the "absent class members" had no claim in the Eleventh
Circuit, they did have such a claim in their respective circuits
and thus would remain a member of the settlement class. A putative
class member objected to the settlement raising issues about the
notice and violations of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit first reviewed whether it had
subject matter jurisdiction, holding that "the class definition
does not meet Article III standing requirements . . . and
remand[ed] to give the parties an opportunity to revise the class
definition." The court also examined whether a trial court could
approve a class settlement where only some of the class members had
standing, concluding that, under TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, "[t]o
recover individual damages, all plaintiffs within the class
definition must have standing." Rejecting the district court's
rationale, the court held that "when a class seeks certification
for the sole purpose of a damages settlement under Rule 23(e), the
class definition must be limited to those individuals who have
Article III standing." Every member of a class must have Article
III standing in order for the class to be certified for settlement
purposes under 23(e).
The Eleventh Circuit did leave unanswered one question under the
TCPA: whether, consistent with Eleventh Circuit precedent, the
receipt of a single cellphone call is sufficient to establish
Article III standing. The court left the issue open for subsequent
briefing after remand. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argonaut Has Liabilities from Issued Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., through its subsidiary,
Argonaut Insurance Company ("Argonaut"), is exposed to asbestos
liability at the primary level through claims filed against its
direct insureds, as well as through its position as a reinsurer of
other primary carriers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Argonaut has direct liability arising
primarily from policies issued from the 1960s to the early 1980s,
which pre-dated policy contract wording that excluded asbestos
exposure. The majority of the direct policies were issued on behalf
of small contractors or construction companies. We believe that the
frequency and severity of asbestos claims for such insureds is
typically less than that experienced for large, industrial
manufacturing and distribution concerns.
"Argonaut also assumed risk as a reinsurer, primarily for the
period from 1970 to 1975, a portion of which was assumed from the
London market. Argonaut also reinsured risks on policies written by
domestic carriers. Such reinsurance typically provided coverage for
limits attaching at a relatively high level, which are payable only
after other layers of reinsurance are exhausted. Some of the claims
now being filed on policies reinsured by Argonaut are on behalf of
claimants who may have been exposed at some time to asbestos
incorporated into buildings they occupied, but have no apparent
medical problems resulting from such exposure. Additionally,
lawsuits are being brought against businesses that were not
directly involved in the manufacture or installation of materials
containing asbestos. We believe that a significant portion of
claims generated out of this population of claimants may result in
incurred losses generally lower than the asbestos claims filed over
the past decade and could be below the attachment level of
Argonaut."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3gxRn11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Strong Faces Product Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne Strong, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are named
as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure
to asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product
liability claims based principally on allegations of past
distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that
may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate
defendants in addition to the Company. In the Company's experience,
a large percentage of these types of claims have never been
substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company
has not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding
related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these
lawsuits. During 2021, the Company recorded a loss contingency
reserve of approximately $0.3 million, which represents the
Company’s estimate of its potential losses related to the
resolution of open cases. There have been no changes to this loss
contingency reserve during 2022. When appropriate, the Company may
settle certain claims. The Company does not expect the resolution
of these cases to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3AGXBCx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 46 Pending Claims as of Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub,
has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through
September 30, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than
100 defendants. There remained approximately 46 pending asbestos
claims as of September 30, 2022. BNS Sub believes it has
significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the
merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related
claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually
receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance
carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims
are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate
settlement costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of
both September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, BNS Sub has accrued
$1,465 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This
accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive billings
submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and also the
Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle
these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance. There can be
no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs
of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the
experience to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not
need to significantly increase its estimated liability for the
costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a
material effect on the consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3grJOJk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Has Pending Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF) is party to asbestos
claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
BNSF's personal injury liability includes the cost of claims for
employee work-related injuries, third-party claims, and asbestos
claims. BNSF records a liability for asserted and unasserted claims
when the expected loss is both probable and reasonably estimable.
Because of the uncertainty of the timing of future payments, the
liability is undiscounted. Defense and processing costs, which are
recorded on an as-reported basis, are not included in the recorded
liability. Expense accruals and adjustments are classified as
materials and other in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to the
provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) rather
than state workers' compensation laws. Resolution of these cases
under the FELA's fault-based system requires either a finding of
fault by a jury or an out of court settlement. Third-party claims
include claims by non-employees for compensatory damages and may,
from time to time, include requests for punitive damages or
treatment of the claim as a class action.
BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries. The Company monitors actual experience against
the forecasted number of claims to be received, the forecasted
number of claims closing with payment, and expected claim payments
and records adjustments as new events or changes in estimates
develop.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3OsdC53
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated, over the years, has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold
predominantly discontinued Motion Control business between the
late-1940s and the mid-1980s, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and
defense costs associated with these lawsuits. The Company has
recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs associated with
pending and future asbestos claims. As of September 30, 2022, the
Company believes that its accrual for these costs is not material
to the Company's financial position, results of operations, or
operating cash flows.
The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with
asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred.
The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to
asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company
records the insurance coverage as a long-term receivable in an
amount it reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending
and future asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company’s
insurance policies contain various coverage exclusions, limits of
coverage and self-insured retentions and may be subject to
insurance coverage disputes, the Company may recognize expenses for
indemnity and defense costs in particular periods if and when it
becomes probable that such costs will not be covered by insurance.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Tptw0I
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Has $97MM Injury Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Corporation, at September 30, 2022 and
December 31, 2021, has recorded estimated liabilities of
approximately $97 million and $81 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "As of September 30, 2022, approximately $24
million of this amount related to 257 open claims presented to us,
while the remaining $73 million is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual
experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received
and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the
estimated liabilities are necessary."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3i8kWXb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Faces Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc., has been sued, together with approximately
90 other defendants, alleging that indirect exposure to asbestos at
a plant in North Carolina contributed to the wrongful death of Mr.
Bostian, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In a lawsuit styled: Brenda E. Bostian, individually and as
representative of the Estate of Hoyle Steven Bostian, deceased,
case number 2021-CP-40-04877 South Carolina Court of Common Please,
fifth Judicial Circuit- Richland County (Columbia SC. The complaint
alleges that Mr. Hoyle Bostian's father worked at a facility in
North Carolina where he was exposed to asbestos and that Mr.
Bostian's exposure indirectly caused Mr. Bostian (the decedent) to
be exposed to asbestos. The plaintiff's "secondary" exposure
allegedly occurred in the 1950s - prior to the Company's 1987
acquisition of China Grove Cotton Mills, the company that owned the
facility. No damage amount has been alleged. The Company has denied
liability and is vigorously defending the matter. The trial date
for the case has been rescheduled to February 20, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3EVI3NK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $467MM Reserves at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These claims relate to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos
in connection with construction and maintenance activities
conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.
"Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$467 million at September 30, 2022, and $501 million at December
31, 2021. These reserves are classified in Other within Other
Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based
upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future
asbestos claims through 2041 and are recorded on an undiscounted
basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term
forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate
the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2041
related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.
"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $595 million at September 30, 2022, and $644
million at December 31, 2021. These amounts are classified in Other
within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current
Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future
payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the
third-party insurance carrier. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware
of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance
claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset
is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have
a strong financial strength rating.
"The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables is $12
million for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas as of September
30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. The insurance receivable is
evaluated based on the risk of default and the historical losses,
current conditions and expected conditions around collectability.
Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment
history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from
credit agencies."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3tVRBCi
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
ESAB Corporation's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in
a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain entities that became subsidiaries of
ESAB Corporation in connection with the Separation are the legal
obligor for certain asbestos obligations including long-term
asbestos insurance assets, long-term asbestos insurance
receivables, accrued asbestos liabilities, long-term asbestos
liabilities, asbestos indemnity expenses, asbestos-related defense
costs and asbestos insurance recoveries related to the asbestos
obligations from the Former Parent's other legacy industrial
businesses. As a result, the Company holds certain asbestos-related
contingencies and insurance coverages.
"The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company
considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each
claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant
has fluctuated during the past several years while the number of
cases has steadily declined. The Company expects such fluctuations
to continue in the future based upon, among other things, the
number and type of claims settled in a particular period and the
jurisdictions in which such claims arise. To date, the majority of
settled claims have been dismissed for no payment."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GK7zH4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Reports $125MM Loss Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, had net
asbestos loss reserves of $125 million, or 101.0%, of total net A&E
reserves at September 30, 2022, all of which was for assumed
business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos and Environmental ("A&E") exposures
represent a separateexposure group for monitoring and evaluating
reserve adequacy. The following table summarizes theoutstanding
loss reserves with respect to A&E reserves on both a gross and net
of retrocessions basis for theperiods indicated.
"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. Webelieve that
our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, therecan be no assurance that ultimate
loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.
"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average ofannual paid losses. Hence, the
survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to
exhaust thecurrent reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our netthree
year asbestos survival ratio was 3.5 years at September 30, 2022.
These metrics can be skewed byindividual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timingof future payments."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GE37JW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in or accompanying its products, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "We are a co-defendant with numerous other
defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims. The claims in our current lawsuits
are similar to those made in previous asbestos lawsuits that named
us as a defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed
when it was shown that we had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work, or were settled by us for immaterial
amounts.
"As of September 30, 2022, we are subject to the claims noted
above, as well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that
have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Although the
outcome of the lawsuits, legal proceedings or potential claims to
which we are or may become a party cannot be determined and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be
made for the majority of the claims, we do not believe that the
outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Xjtlau
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Defends Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Huntington Ingalls states, "In some instances, partial or full
insurance coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The
costs to resolve cases during the nine months ended September 30,
2022 and 2021, were not material individually or in the aggregate.
The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject
to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by many variables
that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company
believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a
material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, and cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised
claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might
come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the
ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3VhEI1v
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $130.3MM Reserves at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand Inc. has reported a total litigation reserve of
$130.3 million and $136.9 million as of September 30, 2022 and
December 31, 2021, respectively, with regards to potential
liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of
its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has an insurance recovery
receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately $143.5 million and $145.1 million as of September 30,
2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively, which was included in
"Other assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The
amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities
and insurance recoveries are based on currently available
information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3V0hQTV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner
of the product line involved. In the remaining cases the plaintiff
has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the
plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with
respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any
material liability with respect to these claims.
On May 5, 2011, Company entered into two separate settlement
agreements with two plaintiffs. As of September 30, 2022, the
Company has a remaining obligation under these agreements to pay
the plaintiffs $855 without interest in 9 annual installments of
$95 on or before May 22 of each year. The Company has recorded a
liability for the net present value of the liability. The
difference between the net present value and the total payment will
be charged to interest expense over the payment period.
It is reasonably possible that the estimated reserve for product
liability claims may change within the next 12 months. A change in
estimate could occur if a case is settled for more or less than
anticipated, or if additional information becomes known to the
Company.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3i6ihNQ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Paid $5.9MM Settlement as of Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, has been named in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies
including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling
industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague,
general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the
numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing
products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries
(including death) and loss to the plaintiffs
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through September 30, 2022
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $5.9 million, of
which, together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, $5.8 million has been paid by the Company's insurers. The
average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately $43,000.
Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 259 cases pending
against the Company as of September 30, 2022 (with Illinois, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 223 cases that were pending as of December
31, 2021. During the nine months ended September 30, 2022, 108 new
cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed
from 51 cases and settled 21 cases. Most of the pending cases have
not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a
number of cases are on schedules leading to or scheduled for trial.
The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for
the cases currently pending against the Company and for the
foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume,
nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no
control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against
it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their
position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that
none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon
the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3i8kwA8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,962 New Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, MLIC, for the nine months
ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, has received approximately 1,962
and 2,156 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business
of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has
MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing or selling
asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused
on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and
other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the
period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege
that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC.
MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC;
(iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries;
and (iv) plaintiffs’ exposure occurred after the dangers of
asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain
trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC,
while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be
no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions
in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3EWvyBB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 1,136 Claims as of Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., as of September 30, 2022, is a named defendant in
approximately 571 lawsuits involving approximately 1,136 claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has
resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being
settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party
insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance
should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and
legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3XEs1zp
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 99 Personal Injury Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. is a co-defendant in 99 cases asserting
claims on behalf of 162 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3.0 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3.0 million
compensatory and $1.0 million punitive damages; one count at $1.0
million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for
three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory
damages for the fifth cause of action. In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of $10.0 million, for ten separate causes of action.
"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Xpg6Fo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 99 PI Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in 99 cases asserting
claims on behalf of 162 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3.0 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3.0 million
compensatory and $1.0 million punitive damages; one count at $1.0
million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for
three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory
damages for the fifth cause of action. In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of $10.0 million, for ten separate causes of action."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ox0prE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer & Subsidiaries Defends Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., American Optical, and certain of its previously owned
subsidiaries, are parties to numerous lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal
injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and
other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of
its previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "There also are a small number of lawsuits
pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for
alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned
by Pfizer or its subsidiaries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3EXsWDJ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $10.7MM Accrued Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers, L.P., as of September 30, 2022, had accrued
liabilities of $10.7 million for its Pro-rata share of
environmental remediation, including its Investments in real estate
partnerships, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are subject to numerous environmental laws
and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining
primarily to specific chemicals historically used by certain
current and former dry cleaning and gas station tenants and the
existence of asbestos in older shopping centers. We believe that
the few tenants who currently operate dry cleaning plants or gas
stations do so in accordance with current laws and regulations.
Generally, we endeavor to require tenants to remove dry cleaning
plants from our shopping centers or convert them to more
environmentally friendly systems, in accordance with the terms of
our leases. We carry an environmental insurance policy for certain
third-party liabilities and remediation costs on shopping centers
that currently have no known environmental contamination. We have
also secured environmental insurance policies, where appropriate,
on a relatively small number of specific properties with known
contamination, in order to mitigate our environmental risk. We
monitor the shopping centers containing environmental issues and in
certain cases voluntarily remediate the sites. We also have legal
obligations to remediate certain sites and we are in the process of
doing so."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3hUAoGn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Defends Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. was involved in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts,
including certain cases involving multiple defendants, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses, which may not be covered in
whole or in part by our insurance coverage. However, unfavorable
rulings, judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these
matters are scheduled to occur in the next twelve months."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3V2NPms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Has $14.3MM Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. has asbestos liabilities, net of related
insurance coverage of $14.3 million and $6.2 million as of
September 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which we have agreed to defend and indemnify claims.
Currently there are lawsuits that name us as defendants, together
with hundreds of other companies. But in all cases, for those
claimants who do show that they worked with our products or
products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we
nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition caused by our products. We defend those
cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the
vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants.
"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements
will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity
costs for these asbestos claims for many years into the future. The
uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to
predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That
uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or
new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the
settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our
experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these
lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial
condition, or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3V0KcNR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 537 Outstanding PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation has reported 537 asbestos claims outstanding as
of September 30, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "For the nine months ended September 30, 2022,
94 claims were dismissed and 13 claims were settled. Settlements
totaled approximately $1.7 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2022.
"We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a
defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the
country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to
products containing asbestos. We have never mined, milled,
manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to
industrial users a limited number of products that contained
encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products
in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us involve
numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3gsnqPZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part
of the merger of EFH, were defendants in personal injury lawsuits
brought in state courts throughout the U.S., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These cases alleged illness or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or
built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor
entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for
product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.
They sought compensatory and punitive damages. As of October 31,
2022, two lawsuits are pending. Additionally, in connection with a
December 2015 deadline in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding,
approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed on behalf of
persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances
and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. None of
these claims or lawsuits were discharged in the EFH bankruptcy
proceeding. The costs to defend or resolve these lawsuits and the
amount of damages that may be imposed or incurred could have a
material adverse effect on Sempra’s results of operations,
financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3VDBrt9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean's Subsidiary Faces 231 Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiary was named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the
subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and
involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of September 30, 2022, the subsidiary was a
defendant in approximately 231 lawsuits with a corresponding number
of plaintiffs.
"As of September 30, 2022, eight plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana and 11 plaintiffs in the aggregate have claims pending in
either Illinois or Missouri, in which we have or may have an
interest. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although
we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have
maintained broad liability insurance, although we can provide no
assurance as to whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if
any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the
exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting
from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our
condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3AEbYaV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Records $73.8MM in Future Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vontier Corporation has recorded gross liabilities associated with
known and future expected asbestos claims of $73.8 million and
$79.0 million as of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Known and future expected asbestos claims of
$14.2 million and $21.5 million are included in Accrued expenses
and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Condensed Balance
Sheets as of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021,
respectively. Known and future expected asbestos claims of $59.6
million and $57.5 million are included in Other long-term
liabilities on the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets as of both
September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021.
"In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos
related matters, the Company records insurance recoveries that are
deemed probable and estimable. In assessing the probability of
insurance recovery, we make judgments concerning insurance coverage
that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical
dealings, our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues
surrounding insurers, and litigation and court rulings potentially
impacting coverage. While the substantial majority of our insurance
carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are
insolvent, which has been considered in the analysis of probable
recoveries. Projecting future events is subject to various
uncertainties, including litigation and court rulings potentially
impacting coverage, that could cause insurance recoveries on
asbestos related liabilities to be higher or lower than those
projected and recorded. Given the inherent uncertainty in making
future projections, the Company reevaluates projections concerning
the Company's probable insurance recoveries considering any changes
to the projected liabilities, the Company's recovery experience or
other relevant factors that may impact future insurance
recoveries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3B1zlvh
*********
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 ***