/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221130.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 30, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 233
Headlines
66 MEAT CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges
A-1 REALTY: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
ADVOCATE AURORA: Wis. App. Affirms in Part Dismissal of Reetz Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Policyholders Class Certified in Hilario Suit
APPLE INC: Court Compels Sleighter to Arbitration in Foreman Suit
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Sidhu Class Suit Granted in Part
BED BATH: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Munday Suit Alleges
BP WEST: Persian Gulf Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir.
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Appeals Attorneys' Fee Award in Franco Suit
CHARTSWAP LLC: Cook Hits Overcharging for Copies of Medical Records
DEALER LOYALTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Webb Class Suit
DECORATIVE PANEL: Burcar Allowed to File First Amended Complaint
DEDICATED NURSING: Court Approves $250K Settlement in Fortin Suit
GRANDE COSMETICS: Nixon Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Perry Sues Over Replacement Motor Parts' Monopoly
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Order Dismissing Huston Class Suit Affirmed
HOLY SEE: Blecher Appeals Sexual Abuse Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
IRVINE CO: Artificially Inflates Real Estate Prices, Suit Alleges
ISS FACILITY: N.D. Cal. Refuses Bid to Certify Class in Garcia Suit
JOHN HIESTER: Beard Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in TCPA Suit
KRAFT HEINZ: Tatum Sues Over Mislabeled Flavored Drink Mixes
LYONS MAGNUS: Sinico Sues Over Beverages' Bacterial Contamination
MARK CUBAN: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Response
MARTINO CARTIER: Grazioli FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
MASTEC SERVICES: Smart Suit Removed to E.D. California
MBX LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly Files Motion to Quash Subpoena
MDL 2836: Parties Directed to Proceed with Class Discovery
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Arthur Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Atwood Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Bedell Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Clayton Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Cohen Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Duranko Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Estes Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Faszczewski
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Gignac Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Glasper Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Graifman Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Imhof Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Jobe Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Lofton Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mandel Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mesa Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mitchell Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Roth Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Sheth Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Simkins Suit
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Zielinski
MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois
MERRIMACK MUTUAL: Lovisa Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
META PLATFORMS: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Klein Suit
METZ CULINARY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perta Suit Alleges
MG BILLING: Joint Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Vandiver
MICHIGAN: Sanders Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit
MINISO GROUP: Ashraf Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Chen Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit
MY JOURNEY TRANSPORT: Kaestner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NATURAL SAPPHIRE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NELSON AND NELSON: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW HORIZONS: Summary Judgment in Brockington Class Suit Reversed
NEW YORK, NY: WOCEJ Bid for Preliminary Injunction Denied
NORTH STAR INSURANCE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Reimer Suit Alleges
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Extension of Time to File Response OK'd
OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Derivative Suit
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Spoto
OPW FUELING COMPONENTS: Canales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PACTIV PACKAGING: Yanez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PANADERIA CONTRERAS: Parties File FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid
PAPA JOHN: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Schnur Class Suit Alleges
PAPARAZZI LLC: Loses Bids to Consolidate Teske and 4 Other Suits
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Parker Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
PC CONNECTION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Boyuk Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Employees Get Conditional Certification
RAPID ARMORED: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
REMINGTON ARMS: Bids in Limine in Teague Suit Granted in Part
RIPPLE LABS: Zakinov Seeks Certification of Two Classes
ROVER GROUP: Continues to Defend Rainey Labor Class Suit
RUBY'S FAST FOOD: Miranda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SAFEMOON LLC: Merewhuader Suit Removed to D. Utah
SAVE ADVISERS: Fitzpatrick Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Kaios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SNAP INC: Sbroglio Sues Over Failure to Provide Class Vote
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Ampt Class Suit
SOPHIE RATNER: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SPACE EXPLORATION: Cornejo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SPRING HOMECARE: Rasoli Files Bid for Conditional Certification
STATE FARM: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to March 10, 2023
STK SAN FRANCISCO: Burroughs Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET: Fuller Sues Over Misleading Labeling
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Faces Stock Price Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
SUNRUN INC: Dekker Seeks Certification of a Class of Customers
SUTTER VALLEY: Court Resets Renewed Bid to Certify Collective
SUTTER VALLEY: Tinnin Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Initially Approves Class Settlement in Lucas
SYNGENTA CROP: Chuck Day Farms Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations
SYNGENTA CROP: Danny Day Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations
SYNGENTA CROP: M and M Farms Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations
TAVISTOCK RESTAURANTS: Dudley Sues Over Unprotected PII
TBK BANK SSB: Luckey Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
TELADOC HEALTH: Tentative Settlement in Thomas Suit Initially OK'd
TEXAS CUSTOM BUILDERS: Hardin Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
TIC INTERNATIONAL: Krupa Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
TOP IT OFF: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOURANCE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court
TWITTER INC: Borodaenko Sues Over Termination of Disabled Employees
U.S.A. SILO SERVICE: Knowlton Sues to Recover Compensation
UNDER ARMOUR: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Labor Suits in State and Federal Courts
UNITED STATES: Grimes Files Suit in U.S. Dist. Ct.
UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over RICO Violations
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Rojas' Breach of Contract Claim Dismissed
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Sherman Sues Over Gender-Based Discrimination
VALDEZ PAINTING: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VIA QUADRONNO: Court Strikes Collective Action Allegations
VISION SERVICE PLAN: Vergara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VOLTA INC: Chau Sues Over WARN Act Violation
VRC COMPANIES: Overcharge Medical Records' Expense, Anderson Says
WALMART INC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Toblesky Suit Says
WALMART INC: Merck FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WALT DISNEY: Biddle Sues Over Anticompetitive Agreements
WATERBEAN COFFEE: Conner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WEXFORD HEALTH: Swearingen Seeks Health Technicians' Unpaid Wages
WHAT COMES AROUND: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Byars Suit Removed to C.D. California
WILCO LIFE: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 20, 2023
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Discrimination-Related Class Suit Ongoing
WORLDWIDE COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
XPO LOGISTICS: Labul Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
ZEBIT INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
*********
66 MEAT CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL PEREZ, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 66 MEAT CORP.; 50-01 MEAT CORP.; 205 MEAT
CORP.; 509 MEAT CORP.; AMEED MUJALLI, and MOHAMMAD MUJALLI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07003 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Perez was employed by the Defendants as a butcher.
66 MEAT CORP. owns, operates and controls grocery stores in New
York, known as Urban Market and Dumbo Market. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
A-1 REALTY: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------
EDDIE SOTO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, Plaintiff v. A-1 REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., JMA BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION & REHAB, LLC, PETER J. ALIZIO, and PAUL ALIZIO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06956 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2022)
alleges, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, that Plaintiff and others similarly situated are
entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including
overtime, due to time shaving; statutory penalties; liquidated
damages; and attorneys' fees and costs, and to recover economic
damages and punitive damages due to Defendants' unlawful
retaliation.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a laborman
from May 2019. During his employment, he was stationed at various
homes and residences throughout New York. The Plaintiff's
employment with Defendants terminated in March 2022 after filing a
worker's compensation lawsuit against Defendants.
A-1 Realty Management, Inc. is real estate management company based
in Mineola, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ADVOCATE AURORA: Wis. App. Affirms in Part Dismissal of Reetz Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANET REETZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ADVOCATE AURORA
HEALTH, INC., Defendant-Respondent, Appeal No. 2021AP520 (Wis.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, affirms in
part and reverses in part the order dismissing Reetz's class action
against Aurora with prejudice.
Reetz alleged negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
declaratory relief for Aurora's actions related to a data breach of
personal information from Aurora's systems.
On Feb. 20, 2020, Aurora sent a notice of a security incident that
occurred in January 2020 during which an unauthorized person gained
temporary access through a phishing scheme to an Aurora human
resources system that housed personal information for current and
former Aurora employees. When Aurora became aware of the issue on
Jan. 9, 2020, it locked out the intruder. Its internal
investigation showed that the personal information of current and
former Aurora employees at Wisconsin locations was at risk,
including employees' Social Security numbers, bank accounts used
for direct deposit, birth dates, and home addresses.
Aurora discovered that sixty-three employees had their direct
deposit information changed to deposit paychecks into the
intruder's account(s). It offered complimentary one-year
memberships in an identity theft protection service to all former
and current employees whose information was contained in the
affected system. Reetz, a former Aurora employee, had her personal
information contained in the affected HR system; however, her
account's direct deposit instructions were not among the
sixty-three accounts discovered as compromised.
Reetz first filed a class action suit against Aurora in March 2020,
pursuing claims against Aurora for herself and as a representative
of other similarly situated individuals. Aurora moved to dismiss
Reetz's action in June 2020. In response, Reetz amended her
complaint in July 2020. Aurora again moved to dismiss in September
2020. After argument before the circuit court in December 2020, the
circuit court dismissed Reetz's action with prejudice in a written
decision on Feb. 18, 2021.
Reetz appeals arguing that the circuit court erred when it
dismissed her complaint with prejudice.
Upon review, the Court of Appeals concludes that Reetz had standing
to pursue her claims, adequately pleaded sufficient damages, and
adequately pleaded a cause of action for negligence. Therefore, it
reverses that part of the order dismissing the negligence claim and
remands the same to the circuit court for further proceedings
consistent with this decision. However, Reetz failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted for her other four claims:
invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief. Therefore,
the Court of Appeals affirms the parts of the circuit court order
dismissing those claims.
The Court of Appeals' Decision is recommended for publication in
the official reports.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Decision is available
at https://tinyurl.com/8yy6zkym from Leagle.com.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Policyholders Class Certified in Hilario Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TISHA HILARIO, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California narrows Hilario's proposed class definition
and grants her motion for certification.
The case is about how Allstate calculates the square footage of
houses for homeowners' insurance, specifically its alleged double
counting of built-in garage space due to a faulty transition to new
insurance software. The dispute arises from homeowners' insurance
policies covering houses in California, including the home that
Hilario owns in San Francisco.
In the First Amendment Complaint ("FAC"), Hilario alleges she has
held homeowners' insurance through Allstate since 2004. She alleges
that in 2019, she received "a purposefully vague form letter" from
Allstate that her policy information might be changing. She asserts
that she discovered that this change ended up double counting the
square footage of her garage, causing her to pay more in insurance
premiums. She says that this "double-counting" affected 43,265
people holding homeowners' insurance policies through Allstate.
Allstate uses a third-party tool called Residential Component
Technology ("RCT") to determine the cost to completely rebuild a
home (estimated replacement cost, "ERC"). The ERC is the minimum
coverage amount that Allstate will offer, but customers can elect
higher coverage. Allstate agents write policies using RCT,
determining square footage from sources such as inspections,
appraisals, homeowners' estimates, third-party vendors, and public
records, including websites like Zillow. Allstate says that "nearly
every customer" has a policy that exceeds the limits provided in
their initial square footage estimate.
RCT 3, used before June 13, 2016, had one field for agents to input
square footage. Into that field, agents inputted the Furnished
Living Area ("FLA"), which is the square footage of a home without
including built-in garage space. But Allstate switched to a system
known as RCT4 in 2016, which used two fields -- one for FLA, and
one for Total Living Area ("TLA"), which is FLA plus built-in
garage square footage.
As stated in the discovery documents, the square footage inputted
into prior policies was transferred to the TLA field of RCT4, and
the program then assumed that number was the correct TLA. That new
FLA number was then carried over to policy records, making the
"finished living area lower than it should have been." Allstate
estimated that at least 20,000 homes had incorrect FLA due to the
conversion from RCT3 to RCT4.
Allstate realized the issue with RCT4 in part because of reports
from agents, who noticed the repeated issue when renewing their
customers' policies. In response, around March 2019 the company
implemented Project UIN, which was supposed to add back the
deducted 288 square feet (or relevant multiplier, depending on how
many garage spaces the insured had) to policies' TLA.
The problem with Project UIN, according to Hilario, is that it was
applied "across the board" without confirming whether the
underlying policies had already been adjusted. She asserts that in
cases where the insurance policy was manually corrected, which
subsequently triggered the software to process the FLA and add the
288 square feet for TLA, Project UIN unfairly double counted the
garage space. And in 2019, Allstate applied Project UIN to
Hilario's policy and increased both the FLA and TLA by an
additional 288 square feet. Hilario allegedly paid an extra $141
for the 288 square foot increase.
Hilario says that even if policy holders had the responsibility to
correct square footage numbers, Project UIN was not properly
communicated to the policy holders and so they could not know what
to check for. Mot. 9:6-21, 10:9-11:4.
Hilario filed her initial complaint and Allstate moved to dismiss,
which Judge Orrick granted with leave to amend. Hilario filed her
FAC on Jan. 22, 2021, alleging negligence and breach of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Allstate filed an
answer on Feb. 19, 2021, and pre-certification discovery ensued.
Hilario filed her motion for class certification on July 1, 2022,
and after briefing was completed, Judge Orrick held a hearing on
Nov. 16, 2022.
Hilario seeks certification of the following class: "All Allstate
California policyholders from 2019 to the present with at least one
built-in garage who paid premiums for homeowners or renters
insurance to Allstate."
Judge Orrick states that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs
class actions. Plaintiffs must make two showings to certify its
purported class. First, the plaintiffs must establish there are
questions of law or fact in common to the class, as well as
demonstrate numerosity, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
Second, they must show that the class fits into one of three
categories" as provided in Rule 23(b). Hilario seeks certification
under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), as well as 23(c)(4).
Judge Orrick agrees with the Defendants that the proposed class
definition is overly broad for three reasons. First, Hilario does
not plead facts showing that policyholders with renters' insurance
were subjected to the issues caused by Project UIN. Second, she
concedes that Project UIN did not negatively affect all holders of
homeowners insurance policies during the relevant time period, but
rather only those whose policies had already been adjusted. Third,
Allstate points out that Project UIN applied to all policyholders
with at least one built-in garage space as of March 2019.
For those reasons, Judge Orrick narrows the class definition to the
following: "All Allstate California homeowners' insurance
policyholders as of March 2019, who paid premiums and had at least
one built-in garage, and whose garage square footage was counted
twice in calculating insured square footage and premiums."
Judge Orrick then examines Allstate's remaining arguments
concerning the class definition. He finds that (i) even if the
ultimate number is determined to be lower than 20,000, it is
certainly high enough to meet the numerosity requirement; (ii) the
"common answers" about whether Allstate implemented this policy,
and breached any duty or violated the UCL, will "drive the
resolution of litigation" in te case; (iii) Hilario's claims are
"substantially identical" to those of the other purported class
members; (iv) Hilario is an adequate class representative, and she
has no conflicts of interest with other class members; and (v) the
lass counsel is competent and qualified, and has no conflicts of
interest with any class members.
Judge Orrick also finds that common questions predominate. Because
the questions of law and fact are so similar for each Plaintiff,
the allegations of wrongful conduct are so consistent and
universal, and the relevant injuries occurred in California, the
proposed class members' interests are best served by prosecuting
the action together in this forum. Additionally, it does not appear
there is any other litigation concerning this controversy. For
those reasons, this class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).
Hilario also seeks certification of her proposed class under Rule
23(b)(2). Because Hilario seeks money damages as a fundamental
remedy in the case, and because she can still receive her desired
injunctive relief via certification under Rule 23(b)(3), Judge
Orrick declines to certify the class separately under Rule
23(b)(2).
Finally, Hilario seeks certification under Rule 23(c)(4) for any
issues that can be resolved on a class-wide basis. Because this
class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3), Hilario need not
"isolate the common issues" in the case to "proceed with class
treatment of these particular issues" under Rule 23(c)(4). Judge
Orrick declines to certify a class under this rule.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Orrick grants Hilario's motion for
class certification. A Case Management Conference is set at 2 p.m.
on Jan. 10, 2023, during which the remaining trial calendar will be
determined. The parties' Joint Case Management Statement, which
should propose dates for the remaining events and the trial, should
be filed by Jan. 3, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr29hkft from Leagle.com.
APPLE INC: Court Compels Sleighter to Arbitration in Foreman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY P. FOREMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03902-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince
Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California enters an order compelling arbitration as to Plaintiff
Connor Sleighter.
Sleighter agreed to arbitrate "all disputes related in any manner
to his employment relationship" with Apple. He now makes various
arguments why he should not be compelled to arbitrate his wage
claims. However, Judge Chhabria finds those arguments meritless.
Sleighter's primary argument is that his arbitration agreement
contained an opt-out provision, and that he is now opting out of
it. His evidence for this provision is a testimony that an Apple
executive gave to Congress three years later. The executive claimed
that Apple began including an opt-out provision "starting in June
2016." Sleighter signed his arbitration agreement early in June
2016, but no such provision is to be found. Presumably Apple
changed its standard arbitration agreement later in the month. Or
perhaps the Apple executive's testimony was inaccurate or
imprecise. What one cannot conclude from the testimony, though, is
that Sleighter's agreement contained a secret opt-out provision.
The same goes for the argument that the agreement does not "exist"
because it does not contain such a provision.
Sleighter's backup argument is that the arbitration agreement is
unconscionable. But this theory, according to Judge Chhabria,
reprises the absurd idea of an undisclosed opt-out provision.
Sleighter says the unconscionability "derives primarily" from the
absence of this "required" clause. In terms of substantive
unconscionability, he states that the cost of arbitration would
exceed the cost of filing a complaint in court. He turns to a
provision that apportions arbitration fees "in accordance with
applicable law." Judge Chhabria says it's hard to fathom how
following applicable law could be substantive unconscionability.
Judge Chhabria concludes that Sleighter's claims are compelled to
arbitration. Since there is no other named plaintiff for the class
action claims, those claims are dismissed. The FLSA collective
action will go forward on the schedule previously set. As this
litigation continues, the counsel for the Plaintiffs must be
mindful of their Rule 11 obligation not to make frivolous
contentions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5ae63s6z from Leagle.com.
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Sidhu Class Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PRIYA SIDHU, Plaintiff v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-01603-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants in part
and denies in part Bayer's motion to dismiss with leave to amend in
part and without leave to amend in part.
Sidhu alleges that Bayer markets and sells an IUD that
significantly increases the risk of breast cancer in users. As
alleged in the Complaint, Bayer markets and sells the Mirena
intrauterine device. Mirena is a hormonal IUD, and specifically a
levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Bayer markets the
device as birth control.
Sidhu alleges that Mirena significantly increases the risk of
breast cancer in users, and that this information is not disclosed
on the packaging, the list of "safety considerations" on the
website, or in any other materials that Bayer distributes to
doctors or consumers. She further alleges that Bayer has long known
that the Product significantly increases the risk of breast cancer.
The Plaintiff cites to several studies, which she alleges show a
"significantly increased" risk of breast cancer.
Sidhu was prescribed and used Mirena between February 2019 and
February 2022 in California. She paid $50 out-of-pocket for the
device. She alleges that she reviewed the patient brochure upon
first using Mirena, and she further alleges that she would not have
purchased Mirena, or would have "paid significantly less," if Bayer
had disclosed that Mirena carried with it a significantly elevated
risk of developing breast cancer. She finally alleges that Bayer
never warned her or her doctor about the elevated breast cancer
risk.
This lawsuit was filed on March 14, 2022. The Complaint asserts
claims for (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability;
(2) unjust enrichment; (3) fraud; (4) negligence; (5) violation of
all three prongs of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (6) violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1750 et seq.; and (7) violation of the California False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et
seq. Sidhu seeks to represent a California and nationwide class.
Now before the Court is Bayer's motion to dismiss under Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court held a hearing on Oct. 27, 2022.
The Defendants request that the Court takes judicial notice of 12
exhibits. These include several scientific studies, FDA
information, and several websites. The Plaintiff did not address
the request. Judge Freeman denies without prejudice the Defendant's
request for judicial notice. If Bayer requests judicial notice
again, she orders it to identify the specific facts within the
provided documents that it would like the Court to notice.
Judge Freeman now turns to Bayer's motion to dismiss.
In its motion, Bayer makes three arguments as to standing. First,
it argues that Sidhu does not have standing because she has not
suffered an injury. Sidhu counters that the Court should not get to
this question at the pleading stage and further argues that her
allegations make plausible that Mirena causes an increased risk of
breast cancer, and that she would have found this information
material.
Judge Freeman holds that the Court is not in the position to
evaluate the scientific evidence at the pleadings stage. But, she
notes that the phrase "significantly elevated risk" is not defined
in the Complaint. In an Amended Complaint, Sidhu is advised to
provide more concrete allegations to support her claims regarding
the undisclosed or minimized risk of breast cancer for Mirena
users. So, Bayer's motion to dismiss for lack of standing based on
lack of injury is denied.
Second, Bayer argues that Sidhu lacks standing to assert claims on
behalf of a nationwide class. Sidhu argues that it is premature to
address these issues now. Judge Freeman holds that the issues that
Bayer raises are properly addressed at the motion to dismiss stage.
She states, courts in this district have held that, due to
variances among state laws, failure to allege which state law
governs a common law claim is grounds for dismissal. Sidhu did not
do so. She therefore dismisses the common law claims. In amending
these claims, the Plaintiff will need to address the issue whether
California law can be asserted for class members outside of
California. Hence, the motion to dismiss the common law claims for
failure to identify which state law applies is granted with leave
to amend.
Third, Bayer argues that Sidhu lacks standing to pursue injunctive
relief because she fails to allege an intent or willingness to
purchase Mirena in the future. Sidhu does not dispute this. Hence,
Bayer's motion to dismiss all claims for injunctive relief is thus
granted without leave to amend.
In its motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, Bayer raises nine
arguments.
First, Bayer argues that the learned intermediary doctrine bars all
of Sidhu's claims. Judge Freeman holds that (i) for any claims to
which the learned intermediary doctrine applies, Sidhu must make
allegations as to her physician and she has not adequately done so;
and (ii) the cause of action for negligence does suggest a design
defect claim, but there are no factual allegations elsewhere in the
Complaint to form a basis for this claim. Bayer's motion to dismiss
all counts under the learned intermediary doctrine is with leave to
amend.
Second, Bayer argues that Sidhu's claims are preempted by the
federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"). Judge Freeman looks
to Holley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., which laid out an analysis for
impossibility preemption in the drug manufacturing context. The
court in Holley chose not to apply preemption to design defect
claims based on drug composition. Judge Freeman holds that (i)
Sidhu has not alleged what information was provided to the FDA and
when, and the Court therefore cannot determine whether the
post-2010 studies cited by Sidhu constituted "newly acquired
information"; and (ii) Sidhu has not adequately alleged a design
defect claim. Bayer's motion to dismiss all failure to warn claims
as preempted is granted with leave to amend.
Third, as to fraud, Judge Freeman finds that (i) Sidhu has
adequately pled Bayer's knowledge based on the identified
scientific publications; and (ii) the learned intermediary doctrine
does apply and Sidhu must therefore plead reliance as to her
physician. Hence, Bayer's motion to dismiss Sidhu's common law
fraud claim, as well as her claims under the fraud prong of the
UCL, the CLRA, and the FAL, is granted with leave to amend.
Fourth, with respect to Sidhu's claims under the unlawful and
unfair prongs of the UCL, Judge Freeman grants Bayer's motion to
dismiss the unfair claim under the UCL with leave to amend. She
determines that (i) because she dismisses the predicate claims for
Sidhu's unlawful UCL claim, she grants Bayer's motion to dismiss
the unlawful claim under the UCL with leave to amend; and (ii)
despite Sidhu's arguments to the contrary in the Opposition, the
unfair UCL claim as pled in the Complaint is based on the same
conduct underlying the other two UCL claims, and it must therefore
be dismissed.
Fifth, Bayer argues that the unjust enrichment claim must be
dismissed because Sidhu does not allege an inadequate remedy at
law. Judge Freeman denies Bayer's motion to dismiss the unjust
enrichment claim, rejecting its argument that the claim for unjust
enrichment fails because Sidhu did not state claims under the
consumer protection statutes.
Sixth, Bayer argues that the Court should dismiss the claim
alleging that it breached the implied warranty of merchantability.
While the claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability
is not a model of clarity, Sidhu does allege that Mirena is "not
fit for its intended purpose" and causes a "significantly elevated
risk of breast cancer."Such a risk, if proven, would constitute a
safety hazard. Therefore, Judge Freeman denies Bayer's motion to
dismiss this claim.
Seventh, Bayer argues that Sidhu's negligence claim should be
dismissed under the economic loss rule. Judge Freeman finds that
Sidhu does not dispute that the economic loss rule applies.
Instead, she argues that an exception may apply. But Sidhu must
allege facts supporting such an exception. As noted by Bayer, Sidhu
has not done so. So, Bayer's motion to dismiss the negligence claim
is granted with leave to amend.
Eighth, Bayer argues that Sidhu does not adequately plead punitive
damages because she does not plead oppression, fraud, or malice.
Sidhu, noting that courts often decline to address this question at
the motion to dismiss stage, also argues that she has pled
oppression, fraud, or malice. Judge Freeman holds that although
there is no pleading deficiency as to punitive damages, because she
has dismissed the predicate fraud claims, she dismisses the request
for punitive damages as well. Bayer's motion to dismiss the request
for punitive damages is granted with leave to amend.
Last, Bayer argues that the UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims
should be dismissed because they are equitable claims, and the
Plaintiff has not established that she lacks an adequate remedy at
law. Sidhu argues that she has alleged that she lacks an equitable
remedy at law and has no adequate remedy at law to rectify Bayer's
violations of the Sherman Act. Judge Freeman grants Bayer's motion
to dismiss the UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims for lack of
equitable jurisdiction with leave to amend. She refuses to consider
the Plaintiff's arguments as to the Sherman Act, as they are not
mentioned anywhere in the Complaint.
In its motion to strike Bayer argues that the Court should strike
the request for punitive damages. However, according to Judge
Freeman, this request fails on the merits. Sidhu may be able to
properly plead punitive damages in an Amended Complaint. The motion
to strike the request for punitive damages is denied.
Bayer also seeks to strike Sidhu's class allegations, arguing that
because the learned intermediary doctrine applies, individual
issues will necessarily predominate over class issues, and
therefore the class allegations should be stricken. Sidhu asserts
that Bayer's arguments are premature. Judge Freeman grants Sidhu
leave to amend on all of her claims. She cannot say that a class
action could not be maintained under the facts alleged in an
Amended Complaint. Therefore, Bayer's motion to strike the class
allegations is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckznmh4 from Leagle.com.
BED BATH: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Munday Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JANICE MUNDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-04567 (E.D.
Pa., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that the Defendant unlawfully
intercepts Plaintiff's and Class members' electronic communications
through the use of "session replay" spyware that allowed Defendant
to watch and record Plaintiff's and the Class members' visits to
its website, in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act.
Accordingly, the Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware,
namely Quantum Metric, to intercept Plaintiff's and the Class
members' electronic computer-to-computer data communications with
Defendant's website, including how they interacted with the
website, their mouse movements and clicks, keystrokes, search
terms, information inputted into the website, and pages and content
viewed while visiting the website.
The Defendant intercepted the electronic communications at issue
without the knowledge or prior consent of Plaintiff or the Class
members, the Plaintiff says.
Unlike typical website analytics services that provide aggregate
statistics, the session replay technology utilized by Defendant is
intended to record and playback individual browsing sessions, as if
someone is looking over a Class members' shoulder when visiting
Defendant's website. The technology also permits companies like
Defendant to view the interactions of visitors on their website in
live in real-time. The Defendant's use of a session replay spyware
to intercept Plaintiff's electronic communications was not
instrumental or necessary to Defendant's provision of any of its
goods or services. Rather, the level and detail of information
surreptitiously collected by Defendant indicates that the only
purpose was to gain an unlawful understanding of the habits and
preferences of users to its website, and the information collected
was solely for Defendant's own benefit, the suit says.
Bed Bath is an American chain of domestic merchandise retail
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Fascimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Ari@marcuszelman.com
BP WEST: Persian Gulf Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PERSIAN GULF, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Persian Gulf, Inc., Plaintiff, v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01749-JO-AGS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, alleges violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law
(UCL). The Plaintiff contends the Defendants conspired to
manipulate the wholesale gasoline market in California, causing
historically high wholesale prices in 2012 and 2015.
The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the Court
granted through an Order entered by Judge Jinsook Ohta on Sept. 30,
2022. The Court also granted the Defendants' motion to exclude the
expert testimony of Dr. Michael Williams and Dr. Paul Hanouna. The
remaining motions to exclude expert testimony were dismissed as
moot.
The appellate case is captioned Persian Gulf, Inc. v. BP West Coast
Products, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-56010, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 28, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Persian Gulf, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due
on November 4, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on December 27, 2022;
-- Appellant Persian Gulf, Inc. opening brief is due on February
6, 2023;
-- Appellees Alon USA Energy, Inc., Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Equilon
Enterprises, LLC, ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company, Phillips
66, Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC and Valero Marketing
and Supply Company answering brief is due on March 7, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant PERSIAN GULF, INC., individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, is represented by:
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
Steven Francis Hubachek, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Defendants-Appellees BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC, et al., are
represented by:
Robert A. Sacks, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP
1888 Century Park, E., Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 712-6600
- and -
Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
- and -
David Craig Kiernan, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 626-3939
- and -
Kent Michael Roger, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
One Market Street
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1140
- and -
Dawn Sestito, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
400 S. Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-6352
- and -
Robin A. Wofford, Esq.
WILSON TURNER KOSMO, LLP
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-9600
- and -
Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, Esq.
HAWXHURST HARRIS LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 620
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 893-5151
- and -
Carl Hittinger, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 564-2898
- and -
Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq.
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Appeals Attorneys' Fee Award in Franco Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled MANUEL FRANCO; JOSE RIOS; and LUIS RIOS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC; and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-01464-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Riverside.
The lawsuit was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVDS1902553) and
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on August 7, 2019.
The Plaintiffs brought this class action over Defendants' alleged
employment discrimination practices.
On October 27, 2022, Judge Jesus G. Bernal released an Order (1)
granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees; and (2)
vacating the October 31, 2022 Hearing. The Court granted in part
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and awarded Plaintiffs
$161,918.25 in attorneys' fees.
The Defendants seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Manuel Franco, et al. v. Central
Transport LLC, Case No. 22-56048, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Nov. 14, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Central Transport LLC Mediation Questionnaire was
due on November 21, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by December 12, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on January 9, 2023;
-- Appellant Central Transport LLC opening brief is due onm
February 21, 2023;
-- Appellees Manuel Franco, Jose Rios and Luis Rios answering
brief is due on March 23, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC is represented by:
Christian J. Keeney, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-7900
- and -
Jack Steven Sholkoff, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Plaintiffs-Appellees MANUEL FRANCO, JOSE RIOS, and LUIS RIOS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
Brian D. Chase, Esq.
BISNAR CHASE
1301 Dove Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 752-2999
- and -
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
CHARTSWAP LLC: Cook Hits Overcharging for Copies of Medical Records
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VAUGHN COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTSWAP, LLC; CHARLESTON RADIOLOGISTS,
P.A.; and ACS PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS SOUTHEAST, P.C., Defendant,
Case No. 2022CP1005274 (S.C. Com. Pl., 9th Judicial, Charleston
Cty., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that Defendants systemically charge
more for copies of patients' records than is permitted by South
Carolina law when patients' medical records are requested by their
attorneys.
The Defendant is one of the largest medical records service
providers in the U.S., copying and producing patient records for
most of the nation's healthcare providers. The complaint asserts
that the Defendants have taken the fees that healthcare providers
may charge for copies of patient records and created a
multi-billion-dollar industry which primarily profits from the fees
charged to third parties, such as patients' attorneys.
Throughout the state of South Carolina, Defendants have taken
patients' attorneys' rights to access their medical records and
unlawfully profited at patients' expense, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are individuals who have suffered and/or will
continue to suffer the expense of Defendants' overcharging of their
attorneys' copies of their own medical records.[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
E-mail: blake@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
DEALER LOYALTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Webb Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEAN WEBB, et al. v.
DEALER LOYALTY PROTECTION, INC. , et al. Case No.
8:22-cv-00699-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered an scheduling order as follows:
-- All discovery, including discovery February 22, 2024
motions, shall be completed by:
-- The parties shall have until April 22, 2024
to file and have heard all other
motions, including motions to
join or amend the pleadings:
-- A pretrial conference will be June 24, 2024.
held on:
-- The case is set for a jury trial: July 2, 2024
-- The parties are referred to ADR
Procedure No. 3 – Private
Mediation:
-- The parties shall have until March 7, 2024
to conduct settlement
proceedings:
-- Plaintiff shall have until September 25, 2023
to file and have heard any
class certification motion:
Dealer Loyalty is a provider of aftermarket protection products
serving automotive agents, dealers, and consumers throughout the
United States.
A copy of the Court's order ated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AyFyhLat no extra charge.[CC]
DECORATIVE PANEL: Burcar Allowed to File First Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATT BURCAR AND JOHN BUREK, Plaintiffs v. DECORATIVE
PANEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-12054 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the
Plaintiffs chance to file a First Amended Complaint.
On Aug. 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
against Decorative Panel International ("DPI"). They allege, among
other things, that DPI has released, and on frequent separate,
distinct, and additional occasions continues to release, noxious
odors onto their property, which has caused property damage by
private nuisance and negligence.
On No. 18, 2022, DPI filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). One of bases for dismissal is
that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to state
viable claims under the Supreme Court's decisions in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Without expressing any view regarding the merits of the motion to
dismiss, Judge Leitman grants the Plaintiffs the opportunity to
file a FAC in order to remedy the alleged deficiencies in their
allegations identified by DPI in the motion to dismiss. He does not
anticipate allowing them another opportunity to amend to add
factual allegations that they could now include in their FAC.
Simply put, this is the Plaintiffs' opportunity to amend their
allegations to cure the alleged deficiencies in their claims.
By Dec. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs will file a notice on the docket
in this action notifying the Court and DPI whether they will amend
the Complaint. If they provide notice that they will be filing a
FAC, they will file that amended pleading by no later than Jan. 16,
2023. If the Plaintiffs provide notice that they will not be filing
a FAC, they will respond to the motion to dismiss by no later than
Jan. 16, 2023.
Finally, if the Plaintiffs provide notice that they will be filing
a FAC, the Court will terminate without prejudice DPI's
currently-pending motion to dismiss as moot.
DPI may re-file a motion to dismiss directed at the FAC if it
believes that such a motion is appropriate after reviewing that
pleading.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ynpw2jua from Leagle.com.
DEDICATED NURSING: Court Approves $250K Settlement in Fortin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amanda Fortin, V.
Dedicated Nursing Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02836-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order
granting the parties motion to certify a collective for settlement
purposes and expect that approximately 1,300 individuals will be
eligible to participate in the settlement.
The total settlement amount is $250,000. From this amount, each
individual settlement payment reflects:
(1) a potential payment for 100% of the damages related to
the alleged improper deductions for rest breaks of twenty
minutes or fewer during qualifying weeks; and
(2) a potential pro rata payment for the meal period claim,
calculated assuming all eligible participants had one
missed meal break per qualifying week.
The Representative Plaintiff Ms. Fortin will receive a $5, 000
service award in addition to her individual payment; the currently
opted-in plaintiffs who release their claims will receive service
awards of $1, 000. 00.
The parties' joint motion is granted, including its request for
attorney's fees and costs, to settle Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. The
settlement agreement and proposed notice and claim forms are
approved.
The court dismisses the case with prejudice but retains
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
The Representative Plaintiff sued Dedicated Nursing for unpaid
overtime wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and analogous state laws.
The Representative Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to
properly pay her and other similarly situated healthcare employees
for overtime hours worked due to its meal break policies and
practices. Representative Plaintiff also alleges
that Defendant improperly deducted time for rest breaks of less
than twenty minutes.
Dedicated Nursing Associates is a professional medical staffing and
home care firm headquartered in Delmont, PA, just outside of
Pittsburgh.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tIXv9Iat no extra charge.[CC]
GRANDE COSMETICS: Nixon Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products
------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA NIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRANDE COSMETICS, LLC, Defendant, Case
1:22-cv-06639-RMB-MJS (D.N.J., Nov. 16, 2022) is a class action
arising from the Defendant's false, misleading, and deceptive sale
of dangerous, unapproved beauty products that are, in reality,
unapproved, dangerous drugs.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures and sells
beauty products. Among its products are GrandeLASH-MD Lash
Enhancing Serum, GrandeBROW Brow Enhancing Serum, and GrandeHAIR
Enhancement Serum (hereafter, the "Enhancement Serums" or the
"Products"). The Defendant deceptively sells the Enhancement
Serums, without a prescription, as cosmetics, not as drugs, or
so-called "serums," with no identified active drug ingredient, and
with no warning of serious side effects, says the suit.
The Enhancement Serums, however, contain the active ingredient
isopropyl cloprostenate ("ICP"), which is in the same class of
compounds as the active ingredient found in prescription drugs that
grows eyelashes, like Latisse -- which the FDA has approved for use
only under the supervision of a physician due to the possible
adverse effects associated with its active ingredient, the suit
added.
GRANDE COSMETICS, LLC is a cosmetics company domiciled and
headquartered in Valhalla, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 435-1300
Email: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Perry Sues Over Replacement Motor Parts' Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-02920 (D. Minn., Nov. 16, 2022) is
action alleging Harley-Davidson's monopolization of the repair
service market for the marketing, manufacture, and/or sale of
consumer products, the warranties of which include statements that
condition the continued validity of the warranty on the use of only
an authorized repair service and authorized replacement parts (a
"tying arrangement') or "unlawful repair restriction").
According to the complaint, the Defendant's tying arrangements that
condition a consumer product's warranty on the use of a specific
repair service violate state and federal law. Had the Plaintiff
been aware that the repair restriction was unlawful, he would not
have purchased the Product, or would have paid significantly less
for it.
The Tying Arrangements, which condition a consumer product's
warranty on the use of a specific repair service or the use of
authorized parts violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Sherman
Act, and Clayton Act, the suit says.
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP LLC produces and sells
motorcycles. The Company offers sports bikes, heavyweight
motorcycles, and other accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Brant D. Penney, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
b.penney@rwblawfirm.com
- and -
Brian Murray, Esq.
Lee Albert, Esq.
Brian Brooks, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com
lalbert@glancylaw.com
bbrooks@glancylaw.com
- and -
Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Email: tostrud@tostrudlaw.com
acarter@tostrudlaw.com
- and -
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
Email: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
ietheridge@srkattorneys.com
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Order Dismissing Huston Class Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH HUSTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HEARST
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-1489 (7th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms
the judgment of the district court granting Hearst's motion to
dismiss.
Huston, a Good Housekeeping magazine subscriber, filed a putative
class action complaint alleging a media conglomerate, Hearst,
violated her right of publicity by offering to sell and selling
mailing lists containing her, and 9.1 million other subscribers',
identifying information. As redress, Huston seeks statutory damages
as provided by the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA) and an
injunction requiring Hearst to obtain prior written consent before
selling its subscribers' information in this manner.
Huston alleges Hearst violated IRPA by offering for sale and
selling mailing lists that identified its magazine subscribers,
including Huston, by name, address, "gender, age, ethnicity,
income, political party, religion, and charitable donation
history," among other personal attributes. Two mailing lists are at
issue: (1) the Good Housekeeping Mailing List and (2) the Hearst
Corporate Masterfile & Enhanced Mailing List.
The first contains personal information for "each of the 1,715,229
active U.S. subscribers to Good Housekeeping." The other contains
the same information for "all 9,108,589 active U.S. subscribers to
all of Hearst's various publications." While Hearst directed its
offer to sell these mailing lists to the "community at large," the
intended audience was data miners, aggregators, and brokers who use
this information to target subscribers with direct-mail
advertisements.
IRPA provides: "A person may not use an individual's identity for
commercial purposes during the individual's lifetime without having
obtained previous written consent." According to Huston, offering
to sell and selling these mailing lists violates IRPA because it
constitutes using or holding out her identity for a commercial
purpose.
Hearst filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to
sufficiently allege a commercial purpose and thus failed to state
an IRPA claim. The district court agreed and granted Hearst's
motion. Huston declined to amend her complaint, the district court
entered judgment in favor of Hearst, and Huston subsequently
appealed.
Hearst does not dispute that the mailing lists identify her and
that she did not consent to being included on the mailing lists. As
a result, this appeal centers on the last element -- whether Hearst
used Huston's identity for a commercial purpose.
Huston offers two alternative bases for reversing the district
court's decision. First, she attempts to cobble together a
connection between her identifying information and her purchase of
the Good Housekeeping subscription. Second, she argues Hearst's
conduct also runs afoul of IRPA's second commercial use prong,
which concerns advertisement or promotion. Neither argument is
persuasive.
In sum, the Seventh Circuit finds that Huston failed to allege that
Hearst used or held out her identity to effectuate the sale of the
mailing lists. Because Huston did not allege that Hearst made any
portion of her information available to prospective mailing list
purchasers or used her identifying information to solicit
purchasers or consummate the sale, Hearst did not use or hold out
her information as is required for IRPA liability. Huston also
failed to allege facts to support either of her alternative
theories: that Hearst held out her information in connection with
her purchase of a Good Housekeeping subscription or that Hearst
used her identifying information to promote its own magazines. As a
result, Huston's complaint fails to state a claim under IRPA.
For these reasons explained, the Seventh Circuit affirms the
judgment of the district court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5cxn7w9w from Leagle.com.
HOLY SEE: Blecher Appeals Sexual Abuse Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK BLECHER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Erik Blecher, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. The Holy See, AKA The Apostolic See, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03545-JPO, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, 30 alleged victims of childhood clergy sexual abuse,
brought a putative class action against the Defendant, seeking
money damages for negligence on the ground that it mandated a
policy of secrecy for its bishops and dioceses in response to
allegations and reports of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic
clergy.
The Plaintiffs alleged abuse in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s
by local priests or deacons of the Archdiocese of New York, the
Diocese of Brooklyn, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, the Diocese
of Syracuse, and the Diocese of Ogdensburg. The Archdiocese of New
York and the Dioceses of Brooklyn, Rockville Centre, Syracuse, and
Ogdensburg (collectively "the New York Corporations") were all
separate corporations organized and existing under New York law
during the relevant time periods.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Holy See had a "secrecy policy,"
set forth in a document titled Crimen sollicitationis, that
"mandated that the Bishop follow a specific course of action in
response to an allegation of child sexual abuse." They claimed that
the Holy See "knew or should have known that its strict secrecy
policy would result in children in contact with Catholic clergy
being sexually abused." Based on these allegations, each Plaintiff
advances a single negligence claim predicated on the failure to
warn children and parents of the dangers generally posed by
"Catholic clergy" and the failure to report sex abusers to law
enforcement and others.
On September 29, 2021, the Holy See moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), for lack of standing, for
failure to state a claim, and for improper venue as to the claims
of 19 named Plaintiffs.
On September 28, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge J. Paul Oetken. The Court
dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Court
directed the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the Holy See
and to close the case.
The appellate case is captioned Erik v. The Holy See, Case No.
22-2840, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on October 31, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ERIK BLECHER, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
HERMAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
1800 N Military Trail
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (305) 931-2200
Defendant-Appellee THE HOLY SEE, AKA THE APOSTOLIC SEE, is
represented by:
Jennifer Bruno, Esq.
4768 Soquel Drive, Suite 206
Soquel, CA 95073
Telephone: (312) 961-8056
- and -
Alexis Ivar Haller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALEXIS HALLER
7960b Soquel Drive, Suite 130
Aptos, CA 94708
Telephone: (831) 685-4730
- and -
Jeffrey Stanley Lena, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY S. LENA
1152 Keith Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94708
Telephone: (510) 847-3181
IRVINE CO: Artificially Inflates Real Estate Prices, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE K. GODFREY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC, REALPAGE, INC.;
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI
MANAGEMENT, INC.; MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5
RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC;
THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.,
Case No. 8:22-cv-02082 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants have formed a cartel to artificially inflate the price
of and artificially decrease the supply and output of multifamily
residential real estate leases from competitive levels.
According to the complaint, until approximately 2016, and
potentially earlier, many of the nation's largest Lessors priced
their leases based upon their own assessments of how to best
compete against other Lessors. Lessors generally priced their units
competitively to maximize occupancy (that is, maximizing output).
Lessors had an incentive to lower 10 their prices to attract
lessees away from their competitors, until all available leases
were sold. In this way, competition drove rent levels to reflect
available supply of rental units and lessee demand. Lessors also
independently determined when to put 13 their leases on the market,
resulting in unpredictable supply levels -- a natural phenomenon in
a competitive market. When supply exceeded demand, Lessors cut
prices.
However, beginning in approximately 2016, and potentially earlier,
Lessors replaced their independent pricing and supply decisions
with collusion. Lessors agreed to use a common third party that
collected real-time pricing and supply levels, and then used that
data to make unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations.
Accordingly, by staggering lease renewals to artificially smooth
out natural imbalances of supply and demand, RealPage and
participating Lessors also eliminate any incentive to undercut or
cheat on the cartel, says the suit.
The conspiracy Plaintiff challenges is unlawful under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. Plaintiff brings this action to recover their
damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other appropriate
relief, detailed infra, on behalf of all others similarly
situated.
Irvine is a manager of multifamily real estate in the United
States, with over 63,000 units under management in five
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
S. Ferrell Alman, Jr., Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
E-mail: falman@vwlawfirm.com
ISS FACILITY: N.D. Cal. Refuses Bid to Certify Class in Garcia Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLAUDIA GARCIA, Plaintiff v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07807-RS (N.D. Cal.),
Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denies Garcia's motion for
class Certification.
Garcia brought the action on behalf of herself and similarly
situated employees of Defendants ISS Facility Services, Inc., ISS
Facility Services California, Inc., and Broadridge Financial
Solutions, Inc., alleging various violations of wage and hours
laws.
ISS Facility Services, Inc. is a "leading international facilities
maintenance and staffing company" with nearly 400,000 employees
worldwide. Defendant ISS Facility Services California, Inc. appears
to be the California subsidiary through which it acts in this
state—Garcia refers to the entities collectively as "ISS." Garcia
was employed by ISS as a "janitor and custodial detailer" from
approximately May of 2018 to August of 2019.
Garcia was assigned to work at a facility owned and operated by
defendant Broadridge in El Dorado Hills. Broadridge was a client of
ISS, who contracted with it to provide janitorial services. Garcia
alleges ISS and Broadridge were her "joint employers," and the
complaint alleges its claims for relief against both of them.
Garcia's claims fall into four categories:
1) Garcia alleges she and other employees were underpaid
because of "rounding." She asserts the rounding practice resulted
in both minimum wage violations and overtime pay violations.
2) Garcia states she and other employees were not compensated
for time spent before their shifts clearing security and walking to
their work area. Again, Garcia contends this resulted in both
minimum wage and overtime violations.
3) Garcia contends she and other employees were not provided
the required meal and rest breaks, particularly because they were
not permitted to leave the premises during rest breaks, and
therefore remained "under the control" of the employer.
4) Garcia asserts the wage statements she and other employees
received failed to satisfy the requirements of Labor Code 226
because they did not show the total hours worked during each pay
period.
Based on those underlying claims, Garcia also advances what she
calls "derivative claims" for failure to pay final wages, failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair and
unlawful business practices.
Garcia first proposes simply certifying a class of "All current and
former non-exempt employees of Defendants ISS Facility Services,
Inc. and ISS Facility Services California, Inc. ("Defendants") in
California at any time during the period from Oct. 24, 2015 through
the date of class certification ("Class Period")."
The first problem with this proposal, according to Judge Seeborg,
is that it leaves uncertain the status of Broadridge, which is
alleged to be "joint employer" with ISS at Broadridge's El Dorado
facility, but not at any other locations where ISS provides
staffing in California. Second, Garcia has not otherwise shown that
she can pursue the alleged claims on behalf of employees at
facilities other than Broadridge.
Third, as Garcia appears to recognize in her alternative proposal
to create several different classes and subclasses, defining a
class of "all current and former non-exempt employees" presupposes
that all the employees were subject to all four of the alleged
categories of violations. While nothing in theory precludes Garcia
from so alleging, it is unclear whether she is prepared to take on
the burden of making such a showing.
Garcia's alternative proposal for separate classes and subclasses,
however, is also flawed, Judge Seeborg holds. She suggests the
following definitions:
1. Minimum Wage Class: all persons employed by Defendants as
non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period.
a. Rounding Subclass: all persons employed by
Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class
Period who were not paid by Defendants based on employee clock in
and clock out times.
b. Off-the-clock Subclass: all persons employed by
Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class
Period.
2. Overtime Class: all persons employed by Defendants as
non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who
worked at least one shift over eight hours long.
a. Rounding Subclass: all persons employed by
Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class
Period who were not paid by Defendants based on employee clock in
and clock out times, and worked one shift over eight hours long.
b. Off-the-clock Subclass: all persons employed by
Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class
Period who worked at least one shift over eight hours long.
3. Rest Break Class: all persons employed by Defendants as
non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who
worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours long.
4. Meal Period Class: all persons employed by Defendants as
non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period who
worked at least one shift over five hours long.
a. First Meal Break Subclass: all persons employed by
Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class
Period who worked at least one shift over five hours long.
b. Second Meal Period Subclass: all persons employed by
Defendants as non-exempt employees at Defendants' California
facilities during the Class Period who worked at least one shift
over ten hours long.
5. Wage Statement Class: all persons employed by Defendants
as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period.
As evident, the proposed 1(b) and 2(b) subclass definitions are
identical to the definitions for the primary classes (1) and (2),
respectively. Likewise, 4(a) is identical to the primary class (4),
Judge Seeborg finds. Moreover, Class (5) is titled differently, but
its definition is otherwise identical to the definition for primary
class (1). The resulting ambiguity and lack of clarity is not
tenable.
As part of its attack on Garcia's showing as to "numerosity," ISS
argues that the claims must be limited to the Broadridge facility
where Garcia worked. While ISS is correct that Broadridge is not
even potentially liable as a "joint employer" for what happens at
facilities of other ISS clients, Judge Seeborg finds that Garcia is
not arguing to the contrary. That said, Garcia has not made a
sufficient showing that the commonality and predominance
requirements can be satisfied with a class extending to all of ISS'
client workplaces.
If the class is limited to employees at Broadridge, Garcia faces a
potential numerosity issue, Judge Seeborg points out. As Garcia's
individual case shows, it also is possible that many or even most
of the employees who originally were subject to arbitration
agreements may have later signed superseding mediation agreements,
without a mandatory arbitration provision. The burden of
establishing numerosity lies with Garcia. In the event she brings a
renewed motion for class certification, she should make an
affirmative showing as to the number of potential class members who
are not subject to binding arbitration provisions.
Finally, Judge Seeborg holds that beyond repeatedly asserting that
it can be done, Garcia has provided little information as to what
actual "common proof" she proposes to use at trial to answer any of
the common questions.
For these reasons, Garcia's motion for class certification and her
motion to strike ISS' declarations offered in opposition are
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdetwep3 from Leagle.com.
JOHN HIESTER: Beard Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tracie Beard filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order and Judgment dated November 9, 2022 entered in the lawsuit
entitled TRACIE BEARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN HIESTER CHEVROLET, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-CV-173-D, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh.
The lawsuit, filed on April 14, 2021, is a putative class action
asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant has violated the TCPA by "using prerecorded messages to
market its goods and services to individuals' cellular phone
numbers without express written consent."
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Kimberly A. Swank of the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Western Division, dismissed without prejudice the Defendant's
motion to bifurcate or, alternatively, to stay discovery. The
Defendant had argued "there are multiple flaws in the Plaintiff's
individual claim, requiring dismissal of her lawsuit." It
represented "a dispositive motion is forthcoming," with an
anticipated filing within 30 days. The Defendant contended that
class discovery should not be allowed to proceed as the anticipated
motion has the potential to terminate all claims, including the
class claim asserted against Defendant.
On March 30, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment which the Court granted on November 9, 2022 through an
order signed by District Judge James C. Dever III. The court
entered judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff's action.
The appellate case is captioned as Tracie Beard v. John Hiester
Chevrolet, LLC, Case No. 22-2162, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 14, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that opening
brief and appendix is due on December 27, 2022 and response brief
is due on January 23, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant TRACIE BEARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 496-4469
- and -
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
- and -
David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 North Market Street
P. O. Box 7376
Asheville, NC 28802
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Defendant-Appellee JOHN HIESTER CHEVROLET, LLC is represented by:
Robert Anthony Buzzard, Esq.
BUZZARD LAW FIRM
728 South Main Street
P. O. Box 700
Lillington, NC 27546
Telephone: (910) 892-3900
- and -
Elisa Cyre Salmon, Esq.
SALMON LAW FIRM, LLP
P. O. Box 185
Lillington, NC 27546
Telephone: (910) 984-1012
KRAFT HEINZ: Tatum Sues Over Mislabeled Flavored Drink Mixes
------------------------------------------------------------
PEGGY TATUM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY and KRAFT HEINZ
FOODS COMPANY (LLC), Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07180 (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 15, 2022) is a national consumer class action for violations
of state consumer protection, unfair and unlawful competition, and
false advertising laws including Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; common-law breach of
warranties; negligent misrepresentation; and fraud by omission,
arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful acts.
The Defendants manufacture, label, distribute, advertise, and sell
a wide variety of flavored drink mixes under the "Crystal Light"
brand. The Products' front-of-package labels expressly claim that
they are flavored with "Natural flavor" or "Natural flavor with
other natural flavor" alongside the names and pictorial
representations of fruits and berries.
According to the complaint, the Products' labels omit all the
required artificial-flavor disclosures. The Defendants' websites
expressly as well as implicitly represent that the Products contain
only natural flavors. The Defendants intend that the packaging,
labeling, and advertising scheme for the Products give consumers
the false impression that they are buying a premium all-natural
product instead of a product that is artificially flavored, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff, who purchased the Products multiple times and was
deceived by Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, brings this
action on her own behalf and on behalf of consumers nationwide to
remedy Defendants' unlawful acts.
On behalf of the Class and Subclass members, the Plaintiff seeks an
order compelling Defendants to, inter alia: (1) cease packaging,
distributing, advertising, and selling the Products in violation of
state consumer protection laws; (2) inform consumers regarding the
Products' misbranding; (3) award Plaintiff and the other Class
members restitution, actual damages, and punitive damages; and (4)
pay all costs of suit, expenses, and attorney fees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com
mgodino@glancylaw.com
- and -
David Elliot, Esq.
Michael Dobbs, Esq.
ELLIOT LAW OFFICE PC
2028 3rd Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 468-4865
LYONS MAGNUS: Sinico Sues Over Beverages' Bacterial Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA SINICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, TRU ASEPTICS, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01479-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2022), alleges that
negligent oversight of the Defendant led to the recall of certain
beverages, liquid coffee, nutritional shakes, and other supplements
due to Cronobacter Sakazakii bacteria contamination concerns.
The recalled products included in products labeled under the brands
Oatly(TM), Stumptown(TM), Glucerna(TM), Intelligentsia(TM),
Aloha(TM), Kate Farms(TM), and Premier Protein(TM).
The Defendants state that the supplements and products that its
sells are "support health", "nutritional", and often "alternatives"
to other products, such as dairy. The Defendants' packing and
labeling further 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 Plaintiff adds.
On August 1, 2022, the Defendants recalled 53 products due to
potential bacterial contamination. Particularly, the bacteria
Cronobacter Sakazakii were mentioned as a possible Contaminant. The
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and Center for Disease Control
("CDC") have declared bacteria, particularly Cronobacter Sakazakii,
to be particularly harmful to all ages of persons, particularly
those seeking a health supplement and the elderly, noting that
death is often possible.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, the
Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual damages in that they
purchased Protein, Supplements, Additives, and Drinks that were
worth less than the price they paid given the risk and/or presence
of harmful ingredients and that they would not have purchased at
all had they known of the risk and/or presence of Cronobacter
Sakazakii, and/or other ingredients that do not conform to the
products' labels, packaging, advertising and statements, the suit
claims.
The Plaintiff and the Class seek actual damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs and any other just and
proper relief available thereunder for Defendants' failure to
deliver goods conforming to their express warranties and resulting
breach, the suit further alleges.
Lyons Magnus LLC, is a food service corporation with its
headquarters in Fresno, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
MARK CUBAN: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RPIERCE ROBERTSON, et al.,
v. MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to
file Response, if necessary, in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class on liability issue.
The Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Certify despite being fully
aware of the Defendants' intention to file a case-dispositive
Motion to Dismiss by the Court's November 18, 2022 deadline and
equally informed of Defendants' position that any class
certification motion would be premature and should not be filed or
considered before this Court rules on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.
Alternatively, while Defendants submit that the Motion to Stay
should be granted, in the event the Court denies Defendants' Motion
to Stay Consideration of Class Certification Issues, Defendants
respectfully request an extension of 30 days from that ruling to
respond to the Motion to Certify.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EXO50xat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher E. Knight, Esq.
Esther E. Galicia, Esq.
Alexandra L. Tifford, Esq.
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A.
Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor, 1395 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 789-9200
Facsimile: (305) 789-9201
E-mail: cknight@fowler-white.com
egalicia@fowler-white.com
atifford@fowler-white.com
- and -
Stephen A. Best, Esq.
Rachel O. Wolkinson, Esq.
BROWN RUDNICK LLP
601 Thirteenth Street NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone (202) 536-1755
E-mail: sbest@brownrudnick.com
rwolkinson@brownrudnick.com
- and -
Sigmund Wissner-Gross, Esq.
Jessica N. Meyers, esq.
BROWN RUDNICK LLP
Seven Times Square
New York, NY 11036
Telephone: (212) 209-4930
E-mail: swissner-gross@brownrudnick.com
jmeyers@brownrudnick.com
The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
barbara@moskowitz-law.com
Co-Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:
Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
Ursula Ungaro, Esq.
David Boies, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
100 S.E. 2nd St., Suite 2800
Miami, FL 33131
E-mail:szack@bsfllp.com
uungaro@bsfllp.com
dboies@bsfllp.com
MARTINO CARTIER: Grazioli FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Barbara Grazioli, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Martino Cartier, Martino Cartier
Salon, in their individual capacity and trading as MARTINO, Case
No. BUR-L-59-00022 was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court
Burlington County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on Oct. 4, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-05868-RMB-SAK to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Martino Cartier -- https://martinocartier.com/ -- is a beauty salon
in Washington Township, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Gerard Masciocchi, Esq.
KEAVENEY LEGAL GROUP
1000 Maplewood Drive, Suite 202, Suite G100
Maple Shade, NJ 08052
Phone: (856) 831-7119
Fax: (856) 249-0157
Email: tmasesq@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Samuel B. Fineman, Esq.
COHEN FINEMAN, LLC
1999 Marlton Pike E, Suite 4
Cherry HilL, NJ 08003
Phone: (856) 304-0699
Email: sfineman@cohenfineman.com
MASTEC SERVICES: Smart Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kayla Smart, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. MASTEC SERVICES COMPANY, INC., a Florida
Corporation; SEFNCO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Florida Corporation;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2022-00328496 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Nov. 18, 2022, and assigned Case No.
2:22-at-01198.
The Complaint asserts the following seven causes of action: Failure
to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay All Sick Time Wages; Meal
Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Wage Statement
Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Necessary
Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven A. Groode, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
1255 Treat Blvd., Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.932.2468
Fax: 925.946.9809
Email: sgroode@littler.com
- and –
Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.830.7200
Fax: 916.561.0828
Email: njenkins@littler.com
MBX LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MBX LLC. The case is
styled as Daysi Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MBX LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09802
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MBX (formerly Memebox) -- https://us.memebox.com/ -- is a global
multi-brand beauty and personal care startup.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly Files Motion to Quash Subpoena
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Robert Kelly, Eryn Learned, and Kerry Wano,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE
MCCLATCHY COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
9:22-mc-81814-AMC (S.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2022), Kelly files a request
for judicial notice support of Defendant The McClatchy Company,
LLC's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Biscayne Marketing, Inc.
The complete docket and all items contained therein for JCK Legacy
Company, et al. (F/KIA The McClatchy Company), U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 20-10418 (MEW),
including but not limited to the Asset Purchase Agreement.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Vincent F. Alexander, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAA & SMITH LLP
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2600
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-728-1280
Fax: 954-728-1282
Email: vincent.alexander@lewisbrisbois.com
MDL 2836: Parties Directed to Proceed with Class Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust
Litigation (MDL 2836), Case No. 2:18-md-02836-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Rebecca Beach Smith entered an order:
1. overruling the Defendants' Objections; and
2. affirming hearing on Magistrate Judge Miller's R&R at the
August 17, 2022.
Accordingly, the parties are directed to proceed with discovery
pursuant to Judge Miller's well-reasoned R&R.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i10HLbat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Arthur Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arthur, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04382 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 17,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
stage class certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Arthur case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3F1RefSat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Atwood Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Atwood v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04516 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 31, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Atwood case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V5vUvrat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Bedell Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Silverman Bedell v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04514 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
stage class certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Bedell case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tVdm50at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Clayton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clayton v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01058 (D.S.C., Filed April 9, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Clayton case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VtFCYlat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Cohen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00948 (D.S.C., Filed March 31, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Cohen case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA
BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3V6QCLdat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Duranko Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duranko v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00054 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7, 2021 ), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Duranko case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3F1S7Feat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Estes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
stage class certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Estes case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA
BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GHVpymat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Faszczewski
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Faszczewski v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00012 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 4, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Faszczewski case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD,
INC.,CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case
is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GGsr1Rat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Gignac Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gignac, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00419 (D.S.C., Filed Feb. 10,
2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
stage class certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Gignac case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OyHbBPat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Glasper Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasper v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04393 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson,
Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Glasper case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EWJrzMat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Graifman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graifman v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04512 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class
certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Graifman case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AJMngGat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Imhof Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Imhof v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00003 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Imhof case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA
BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EZeURLat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Jobe Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jobe v. Community Medical
Centers, Case No. 3:21-cv-02461 (D.S.C., Filed Aug. 5, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class
certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Jobe case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA
BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i0d0Hwat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Lofton Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lofton v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04510 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 29, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Lofton case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GOyMspat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mandel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mandel v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03534 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson,
Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Mandel case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AHUydlat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mesa Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mesa, et al., v. Enloe
Medical Center, Case No. 3:21-cv-01872 (D.S.C., Filed June 17,
2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
stage class certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Mesa case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA
BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EDSVP5at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Mitchell Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00145 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 14, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class
certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Mitchell case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AEBAUUat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Roth Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roth v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00053 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Roth case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA
BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gvNeuoat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Sheth Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sheth v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04511 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Sheth case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER DATA
BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i0ooTOat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Simkins Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simkins v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00431 (D.S.C., Filed Feb. 10, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class certification
briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Simkins case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3U4didOat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Briefing Bid Partly Granted in Zielinski
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zielinski v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04513 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stage class
certification briefing.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' shall brief the following subset
of claims in their class certification motion:
(1) Negligence and Gross Negligence;
(2) Invasion of Privacy;
(3) California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civil Code section
1798.100, et seq.;
(4) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
Cal. Civil Code section 56, et seq.;
(5) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. Ann. section 501.201, et seq.;
(6) New York's General Business Law section 349.
The case management order previously entered by this Court on June
2, 2022, includes a briefing schedule which is still in effect and
will govern the timing for the parties' briefs on the instant issue
of class certification. Further, as to the common law claims of
Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Invasion of Privacy against the
nationwide class, this Court has previously ruled that
Massachusetts law shall apply."
Finally, litigation will continue as to this subset of claims. The
remainder of Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the Amended Complaint
shall be stayed until these claims are resolved, the Court adds.
During this Court's case management conference on November 3, 2022,
the Plaintiffs proposed this Court institute a "bellwether" or
phased approach to class certification. This Court instructed the
Plaintiff to file a Motion with their proposed plan for briefing
and Defendant to file a Response with their respective proposal. On
November 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
proposing the parties engage in class certification briefing.
The Zielinski case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION (MDL No. 2972). The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services.
The Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud
clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools,
universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations,
and that the consumers who provided their personal information to
those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of
identity theft and fraud. The Defendants Harvard and Allina Health
System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data
breach.
Blackbaud operates as a software company. The Company designs and
develops tech solutions and non-profit software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3U3mLCbat no extra charge.[CC]
MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Data Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Walt Winston, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Medical Data Systems, Inc.
doing business as: Medical Revenue Service, Case No. 3:22-cv-02692
(S.D. Ill., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Medical Data Systems, Inc. -- https://meddatsys.com/ -- revenue
cycle management services. The Company offers accounting,
bookkeeping, and related auditing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MERRIMACK MUTUAL: Lovisa Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merrimack Mutual Fire
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Richard Lovisa,
Lois Lovisa, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Cambridge
Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-05933-ENV-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
Quat Law Offices
373 Winch St.
Framingham, MA 01701
Phone: (508) 872-1261
Email: ken@quatlaw.com
- and -
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE RICHMAN, LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Fax: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
cmoore@reesellp.com
META PLATFORMS: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Klein Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order setting the following
amended case management deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
Event Deadline
-- Substantial completion December 19, 2022
of document production
for already-served document
requests:
-- Relevant market tutorial: February 28, 2023
-- Fact discovery cut-off: June 23, 2023
-- Plaintiffs' class certification July 7, 2023
expert disclosures:
-- Defendant's class certification August 4, 2023
expert disclosures:
-- Plaintiffs' class certification September 1, 2023
reply expert disclosures:
-- Last day to file class September 15, 2023
certification and class
Daubert motions:
-- Last day to file oppositions to Oct. 13, 2023
class certification and class
Daubert motions:
-- Last day to file replies to Nov. 3, 2023
class certification and
class Daubert motions:
-- Last day to file joint Nov. 10, 2023
submission for class
certification concurrent
expert proceeding:
-- Class certification Dec. 5, 2023,
concurrent expert
proceeding:
-- Class certification Dec. 14, 2023
hearing:
-- Bilateral merits expert Jan. 12, 2024
disclosures:
-- Bilateral merits rebuttal Feb. 9, 2024
expert disclosures:
-- Merits expert discovery March 15, 2024
cut-off:
-- Last day to file April 5, 2024
dispositive and merits
Daubert motions:
-- Last day to file May 3, 2024
oppositions to dispositive
and merits Daubert motions:
-- Last day to file replies to May 21, 2024
dispositive and merits
Daubert motions:
-- Last day to file joint May 28, 2024
submission for merits
concurrent expert:
Meta is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in
Menlo Park, California. The company owns Facebook, Instagram, and
WhatsApp, among other products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ExsLNPat no extra charge.[CC]
METZ CULINARY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perta Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH PERTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METZ CULINARY MANAGEMENT LLC. d/b/a METZ
CULINARY MANAGEMENT; NO LIMIT STEAKS LLC d/b/a RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK
HOUSE; METZ ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a T.G.I. FRIDAYS; LEHIGH VALLEY
PUBS, INC. d/b/a T.G.I. FRIDAYS; and JEFFREY C. METZ, Defendants,
Case No. 5:22-cv-04595 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 16, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to
time-shaving, unpaid wages, including overtime, due to invalid tip
credit, illegally retained gratuities, liquidated damages, and (5)
attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff Perta was employed by the Defendants as barback.
METZ CULINARY MANAGEMENT LLC. own and operate franchise restaurants
in Pennsylvania, known as Ruth's Chris Steak House, and T.G.I.
Friday's. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
MG BILLING: Joint Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Vandiver
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES VANDIVER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MG BILLING LIMITED
dba PROBILLER, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Case No.
1:21-cv-02960-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Maritza Dominguez
Braswell entered an joint proposed amended scheduling order as
follows:
-- Disclosure of Anticipated November 29, 2022
Fields of Expert Testimony:
-- Fact Discovery Cut-off April 10, 2023
-- Expert Witness Designation April 24, 2023
-- Designate Rebuttal Experts May 24, 2023
-- Expert Discovery Cut-off June 30, 2023
-- Class Certification Deadline July 31, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XjnIJoat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Avenue, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
arosenberg@kalielgold.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ari N. Rothman, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 344-4220
E-mail: ANRothman@Venable.com
- and -
Christopher L. Limpus, Esq.
LIMPUS & LIMPUS, LLC
7723 Arlington Drive
Boulder, CO 80303
Telephone: (303) 731-9540
E-mail: chris@limpuslaw.com
MICHIGAN: Sanders Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------
JASON L. SANDERS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
the lawsuit entitled Paul Scott, et al., individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Heidi Washington, as
director of Michigan Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00730, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the Defendants on August 11, 2022. The
nature of suit was stated as prison condition.
On Sept. 19, 2022, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice
through an Order entered by Judge Robert J. Jonker.
The appellate case is captioned Paul Scott, et al. v. Heidi
Washington, et al., Case No. 22-1979, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 28, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JASON L. SANDERS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, appears pro se.
MINISO GROUP: Ashraf Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Adeel Ashraf, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MINISO GROUP HOLDING LIMITED, GUOFE
YE, SAIYIN ZHANG, MINXIN LI, DONALD J. PUGLISI, GOLDMAN SACHS
(ASIA) L.L.C., BOFA SECURITIES, INC., and PUGLISI & ASSOCIATES,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09864-ER was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of New York on Nov. 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-09864 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities.
MINISO Group Holding Limited -- https://www.miniso.com/ -- operates
as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries,
retails home decor, small electronics, textile, accessories, beauty
tools, toys, cosmetics, personal care, snacks, fragrance and
perfumes, and stationery and gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Chen Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Juan Chen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MISSFRESH LIMITED, ZHENG XU, JJUN
WANG, YUAN SUN, ZHAOHUI LI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CHINA INTERNATIONAL
CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, CHINA RENAISSANCE
SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED, HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES
COMPANY LIMITED, CMB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED, AMTD GLOBAL
MARKETS LIMITED, ICBC INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LIMITED, NEEDHAM &
COMPANY, LLC, CHINA MERCHANTS SECURITIES (HK) CO., LIMITED, ABCI
SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, GF SECURITIES (HONG KONG) BROKERAGE
LIMITED, FUTU INC., TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED , and COGENCY
GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09836-JSR was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for Southern District of New York on Nov. 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-09836 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities.
Missfresh Limited -- https://ir.missfresh.cn/ is an innovator and
leader in China's neighborhood retail industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Mosaic 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 8, 2022, that the Company intends
to defend itself from the Cruz class action.
On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in
Hillsborough County, Florida against our wholly-owned subsidiary,
Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated co-defendants.
The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of
radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on
reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly
due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring
decades ago.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.
On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to
dismiss that Mosaic filed late in 2020, with leave for the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in
response,
Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with prejudice on
November 15, 2021.
On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs opposed that motion and Mosaic
replied to that opposition on January 26, 2022.
On April 6, 2022, the court heard argument on the motions to
dismiss filed by Mosaic and each other co-defendant.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
The Mosaic Company is a producer and marketer of concentrated
phosphate and potash crop nutrients. The Company is a single-source
supplier of phosphate and potash-based crop nutrients and animal
feed ingredients.
MY JOURNEY TRANSPORT: Kaestner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Journey Transport,
et al. The case is styled as Kristine Kaestner, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated individuals v. My Journey
Transport, Journey Gurney LLC, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00330013-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
18, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
My Journey Transport -- https://myjourneytransport.com/ -- is a
handicapped transportation service in Stockton, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100
Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824
Phone: 818-703-8985
Fax: 818-703-8984
Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
NATURAL SAPPHIRE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Natural Sapphire
Company. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Natural Sapphire
Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-07071 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Natural Sapphire Company --
https://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com/ -- specialize in
providing our customers with the first quality natural sapphires
and a one of a kind jewelry experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
NELSON AND NELSON: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelson and Nelson
Antiques, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Nelson and Nelson
Antiques, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07074 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nelson and Nelson Antiques --
https://www.nelsonandnelsonantiques.com/ -- has been an antique
silver dealer in NYC for over 40 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
NEW HORIZONS: Summary Judgment in Brockington Class Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALVIN BROCKINGTON, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly-Situated, Appellant v. NEW HORIZONS ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Respondent, Case No. SC99512 (Mo.), the Supreme Court of Missouri,
En Banc, reverses the circuit court's summary judgment to New
Horizon.
Brockington, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly
situated employees, appeals the circuit court's entry of summary
judgment for New Horizons. His class action claims New Horizons
violated the Missouri Prevailing Wage Act by failing to pay its
employees the prevailing wage for work performed on properties in
Kansas City, Missouri.
The Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of Kansas City, Missouri
("PIEA") is a public body created pursuant to an ordinance passed
in 1968 by the city council of Kansas City, Missouri. PIEA's stated
purpose is to promote redevelopment of designated blighted areas in
Kansas City. In 2005, PIEA prepared a development plan for an area
of midtown Kansas City. The city council approved the plan. As
early as 2006, city officials began ongoing development discussions
with The Silliman Group, an affiliate of Antheus Capital, and
provided incentives for Silliman to acquire properties in the area
within the amended plan. During this time, PIEA worked directly
with Silliman to conceive the Commonwealth Project. The project's
objective was the redevelopment of a portion of the area within the
amended plan.
PIEA solicited proposals from developers to complete the project,
including Commonwealth-KC Corp., Inc., also an affiliate of Antheus
Capital, submitted a proposal. On Feb. 28, 2011, PIEA accepted
Commonwealth-KC's proposal, and the parties entered into a
Redevelopment Agreement on the same date.
The project was also to be financed by way of tax-exempt bonds in
the amount of $38 million, state tax credits of $4.268 million,
federal tax credits of $4.554 million, and Commonwealth-KC's equity
of nearly $5.974 million. In addition, Commonwealth-KC was to
receive a property tax abatement on the properties for 18 years,
estimated to be worth more than $1.97 million. In a letter to the
Kansas City mayor, PIEA touted the project as planning to provide
150 temporary construction jobs paying prevailing wages. PIEA also
claimed in the letter that Commonwealth-KC would maintain 20
percent of the units as affordable units for tenants at or below 50
percent of the area median income.
The parties entered into a Development Contract in December 2011.
Commonwealth Holdings I, LLC, another affiliate of Antheus Capital,
was also party to the contract and was referred to as "Owner" of
the designated real estate in the project. The contract required
Commonwealth-KC to pay or caused to be paid a prevailing wage to
all crafts employed for construction work as part of the Project"
including that such wages be paid by both the general contractor
and all subcontractors. PIEA was to engage Strategic Workplace
Solutions to monitor compliance with "among other things, the
Prevailing Wage Laws."
For Commonwealth-KC to acquire the property tax abatement as
contemplated in the agreement, the contract required
Commonwealth-KC convey title to the project upon its substantial
completion to the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of Kansas
City, Missouri Redevelopment Corporation ("PIEA Redevelopment"). At
the time that PIEA entered into the agreement and the contract,
neither PIEA nor the city owned the properties comprising the
project. However, Commonwealth Holdings conveyed title for at least
10 redeveloped properties to PIEA Redevelopment on various dates in
2012 and 2013.
Construction took place during 2011 through 2013. Throughout
construction, Peter Cassel, Silliman's director of community
development, regularly talked with PIEA's executive director about
the progress being made on the project. Cassel also periodically
attended PIEA board meetings to speak about the project's
progress.
Commonwealth-KC selected Haren Laughlin Construction as the
project's general contractor. But it was Silliman that hired New
Horizons to perform asbestos abatement on the project. The work
orders from Silliman to New Horizons specifically excluded payment
of prevailing wages. New Horizons believed its work "completely
disconnected" from the project because it did not contract with
PIEA, Commonwealth-KC, or Haren Laughlin Construction, and the KC
grant was to cover only "masonry, window, HVAC, electrical, and
plumbing costs."
Brockington, along with 44 other New Horizons employees, performed
construction work on the project from 2011 through 2012, including
asbestos abatement and window work. New Horizons did not pay
Brockington or the other employees prevailing wages. The workers
complained. In July 2013, Colleen White, head of Strategic
Workplace Solutions, met with PIEA's Executive Director. Three
weeks later, the executive director sent White a letter on behalf
of PIEA informing her that only subcontractors hired by Haren
Laughlin Construction were entitled to prevailing wages.
In November 2013, Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local 264, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly
situated, filed a petition in the Jackson County circuit court
alleging New Horizons violated the State's prevailing wage act and
minimum wage law. In January 2017, Brockington was joined as a
party and substituted for the union as the class representative.
Brockington's "Amended Class Action Petition" included the same
allegations as the original petition. Both Brockington and New
Horizons filed motions seeking summary judgment.
The circuit court overruled Brockington's motion, sustained New
Horizons' motion as to all Brockington's claims and entered summary
judgment for New Horizons accordingly. The court of appeals
affirmed. Brockington filed an application for transfer with this
Court, which the Court granted pursuant to article V, section 10 of
the Missouri Constitution.
The Supreme Court opines that New Horizons is correct to suggest
some of the facts set out in the complaint considered in isolation
are insufficient to trigger application of the prevailing wage act.
But these separate facts must be considered together with all the
other relevant facts developed in the summary judgment record. The
summary judgment record contains evidence that, taken together,
creates a reasonable inference Brockington was employed "on behalf
of any public body engaged in the construction." Because the
circuit court entered summary judgment for New Horizons,
Brockington is entitled to the benefit of this reasonable
inference.
While the facts contained in the summary judgment record create a
reasonable inference that Brockington was employed "on behalf of
any public body engaged in the construction," the Supreme Court
opines that this record does not preclude a fact finder from
reaching the opposite conclusion. Rather, the evidence developed in
the record produced contrary inferences as to whether Brockington
was employed on behalf of a public body engaged in the
construction. A reasonable inference can be drawn that Brockington
was employed on behalf of a public body engaged in the
construction, but a reasonable inference can also be drawn that he
was not. Because the summary judgment record supports two plausible
but contrary inferences as to whether Brockington was employed on
behalf of any public body engaged in the construction, a genuine
dispute of material fact exists.
Accordingly, New Horizons is not entitled to summary judgment.
Ultimately, the fact finder must determine if Brockington was
employed on behalf of any public body engaged in the construction
of the Project. Because the circuit court erred in granting summary
judgment to New Horizons, the Supreme Court reverses the judgment
and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with its
Opinion.
All concur.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/43vj56au from Leagle.com.
NEW YORK, NY: WOCEJ Bid for Preliminary Injunction Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WOMEN OF COLOR FOR EQUAL
JUSTICE, et al., v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-02234-EK-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered
an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' applications for a preliminary
injunction; and
2. denying Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their
preliminary injunction papers.
The Plaintiffs are warned that any further requests for emergency
or preliminary relief premised on issues that the Court has already
decided will expose them to sanctions for engaging in vexatious
litigation.
The plaintiffs here -- an organization called Women of Color for
Equal Justice and a number of current and former employees of the
City of New York -- filed this lawsuit against the City, its Mayor
and Commissioner of Public Health, and its Departments of Education
and of Health and Mental Hygiene. Plaintiffs challenge the City's
orders requiring certain employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine.
They have applied for a preliminary injunction enjoining the City
from enforcing those requirements. Because Plaintiffs have failed
to show a sufficient likelihood on the merits, those applications
are denied.
Between August and December 2021, in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental
Hygiene issued a series of nine orders requiring certain
individuals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of various City
agencies who allege they lost their jobs or were placed on unpaid
leave for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, or who were "coerced" into
becoming vaccinated.
They seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages.
On September 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3i9jX9zat no extra charge.[CC]
NORTH STAR INSURANCE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Reimer Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUHI REIMER, individually individualy and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH STAR INSURANCE ADVISORS,
LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01222 (E.D.
Mo., Nov. 16, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act.
NORTH STAR INSURANCE ADVISORS, LLC provides investment advisory
services. The Company specializes in financial planning, analysis,
asset allocation, and fund management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8180
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Extension of Time to File Response OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romano, et al., v.
Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05760
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Steven Tiscione entered an order
granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply as
follows:
-- Plaintiffs shall serve reply brief Dec. 15, 2022
to Rule 23 motion, rebuttal expert
reports, oppositions to Defendants'
Daubert motions, and Daubert motions
as to Defendants' class certification
experts by:
-- Defendants shall serve oppositions to April 12, 2023
Plaintiffs' Daubert motions and
replies supporting their own Daubert
motions by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall serve replies in May 31, 2023
support of their Daubert motions and
file fully briefed Rule 23 motion and
parties' Daubert motions by:
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product Liability.
Northrop Grumman is an American multinational aerospace and defense
technology company.[CC]
OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ocugen 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 8, 2022, that the Company intends
to defend itself from a stockholder derivate suit.
In August 2021, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed
derivatively on behalf of the Company against certain of its agents
and the nominal defendant Ocugen in the Court (Case No.
2:21-cv-03876) that purported to state a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty and contribution for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 21(d) of the Exchange Act, based on facts and circumstances
relating to the securities class action lawsuits and seeking
contribution and indemnification in connection with claims asserted
in the securities class action lawsuits. In September 2021, a
second stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed derivatively on
behalf of the Company against certain of its agents and the nominal
defendant Ocugen in the Court (Case No. 2:21-cv-04169) that
purported to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and
contribution for violations of Sections 10(b) and 21(d) of the
Exchange Act, based on the same allegations as the first complaint.
The parties to both stockholder derivative lawsuits have stipulated
to the consolidation of the two stockholder derivative lawsuits and
also have submitted to the Court in each action a proposed order
requesting a stay of the litigation pending a decision on any
motion to dismiss filed in the securities class action lawsuits,
which the Court entered in April 2022.
The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.
Ocugen, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing a pipeline of
innovative therapies that address rare and underserved eye
diseases. The Company is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Spoto
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spoto v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00836-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Misrolav Rovric entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order
as follows:
-- Venue Motions are to be filed within 60 days of the date
of this Order following the procedures set forth in Local
Rule 7.1 (a)(2) and are to be made returnable before the
assigned Magistrate Judge.
-- Jurisdiction motions are to be filed within 60 days of the
date of this Order following the procedures set forth in
Local Rule 7.1 (a)(1) and are to be made returnable before
Judge D'Agostino.
-- Any motion to join any person as a to this action shall be
made on or before January 3, 2023.
-- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be
made on or before January 3, 2023.
-- The parties are directed to file a status report on or
before January 30,2023.
-- Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by
December 9, 2022.
-- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or
before December 29, 2023.
-- No later than October 2, 2023, plaintiff(s) shall identify
any expert(s) and, unless waived, shall serve on the other
parties the expert's written report pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
-- Motion for conditional certification are to be filed on or
before December 16, 2022.
-- Motion for class certification are to be filed on or
before May 31, 2023.
-- Mandatory Mediation shall be completed by April 28, 2023.
Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of discount closeout
retailers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TStgrwat no extra charge.[CC]
OPW FUELING COMPONENTS: Canales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ovis Matamoros Canales, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. OPW Fueling Components LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-00459-BO (E.D.N.C., Nov. 16, 2022), is brought against
Defendant seeking statutory overtime wages and the appropriate
overtime premiums for all overtime work required under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, for
not fully compensating employees who work or have worked at the
Defendant OPW.
Despite notifying Plaintiffs of their non-exempt hourly status,
overtime eligibility, hourly rates, promised bonuses, and shift
differentials through an employee handbook and earning statements
consistent with the NCWHA, the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated were not always paid for all of their hours worked,
(including time spent working through lunch breaks), promised
bonuses, and either did not receive overtime premium at time and
one-half for certain hours worked over 40 per week, and/or, did not
receive the appropriate premium overtime rate because the Defendant
OPW did not incorporate all bonus earnings and/or shift
differentials in determining the appropriate regular-rate for
overtime compensation when Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, in violation of the FLSA or the NCWHA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a machine operator and
welder.
OPW primarily operates in the fluid-handling operations industry
including to design and manufacture clean energy solutions,
including loading systems, rail and transport tank truck equipment,
integrated flexible piping and secondary containment pumps, valves,
fittings, underground and above ground storage tank equipment,
spill containers, overfill prevention devices, swivels, breakaways,
and fueling nozzles for virtually all fuel types, including
gasoline, diesel, alternative fuels, LPG, Hydrogen and CNG.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Charlotte Smith, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Phone: (919) 741-8693
Fax: (919) 869-1853
Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Coast
Producers, et al. The case is styled as Griselda Ramirez, an
individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Pacific Coast Producers, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010664 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 18, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Pacific Coast Producers -- https://pacificcoastproducers.com/ -is
an agricultural cooperative.[BN]-
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel J Hyun, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. HYUN
1100 West Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Phone: (949) 596-4782
Email: dh@danielhyunlaw.com
PACTIV PACKAGING: Yanez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pactiv Packaging,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Christina M. Yanez, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Pactiv Packaging, Inc.,
Does 1-100, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010477 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Nov. 15, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Pactiv -- https://www.pactiv.com/ -- is a manufacturer and
distributor of food packaging and foodservice products, supplying
packers, processors, supermarkets, restaurants, institutions and
foodservice outlets across North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
PANADERIA CONTRERAS: Parties File FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CARDENAS on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PANADERIA CONTRERAS, INC., PANADERIA CONTRERAS No. 2, INC., and
MANUEL CONTRERAS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00599-NYW-SKC (D. Colo.), the
Parties ask the Court to adopt their stipulation to the conditional
collective action certification of Plaintiff's claims brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and to
dissemination of the form of notice.
The Court may order the defendant to provide contact information
for employees that may be eligible to participate in the collective
action, and may approve a form of notice to be sent to all of those
individuals."
In the operative First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff pleaded
substantial allegations of company-wide violations of the FLSA. For
example, Plaintiff pleaded that "Defendants refused to pay their
employees overtime premiums for overtime hours worked" and that
"Defendants failed to pay their employees at least the Colorado
minimum hourly wage."
Finally, the Parties have agreed that Defendants will provide
Plaintiff with the names and last known email and physical
addresses of all members of the putative collective action within
14 days of the Court's order conditionally certifying the
collective and approving the proposed notice.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GKm7qpat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandt Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
2400 Broadway, Suite B
Boulder, CO 80304
Telephone: (303) 440-8780
E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lee E. Christian, Esq.
LEE CHRISTIAN LAW
415 Mason Court, Building 2
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Telephone: (970) 484-0300
E-mail: lee@leechristianlaw.com
PAPA JOHN: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Schnur Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN SCHNUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01620-AJS (W.D. Pa., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that
the Defendant wiretaps the electronic communications of visitors to
its website, www.papajohns.com in violation of the Pennsylvania
Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.
Accordingly, Papa John's procures third-party vendors, such as
FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session
Replay Code") on Papa John's website, which then deploys on each
website visitor's internet browser for the purpose intercepting and
recording the website visitor's electronic communications,
including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text
being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web
pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time.
These third-party vendors create and deploy the Session Replay Code
at Papa John's request, the Plaintiff claims.
Papa John's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly
deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent
of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the Papa John's
website for the entire duration of their website interaction, the
Plaintiff adds.
In addition to the privacy invasions caused by the diversion of
user communications with websites to third-party Session Replay
Providers, Session Replay Code also exposes website visitors to
identity theft, online scams, and other privacy threats, the
lawsuit contends.
The Plaintiff seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of
action, including compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and cost.
Papa John is an American pizza restaurant chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
kelly@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
elizabeth@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
patrick@lcllp.com
PAPARAZZI LLC: Loses Bids to Consolidate Teske and 4 Other Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORI TESKE and TERRI FRANKLIN, Plaintiffs v.
PAPARAZZI, LLC; MISTY KIRBY; TRENT KIRBY; CHANTEL REEVE; and RYAN
REEVE, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00035-DBB-PK (D. Utah), Judge
David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
denies the Motions to Consolidate.
The action involves a multilevel-marketing company that uses a
nationwide network of "Consultants" to sell jewelry and accessory
items to "End Consumers." The Plaintiffs were Consultants of
Paparazzi.
The Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action Complaint on behalf of
themselves and other Paparazzi Consultants alleging claims against
Paparazzi and its founders for: (1) violation of the Lanham Act
Section 43(a); (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability
under Utah Code Ann. Section 70A-2-314; (3) breach of contract;
and (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The
thrust behind the Plaintiffs' claims are allegations that the
Defendants misrepresented Paparazzi's products as being lead- and
nickel-free.
The Defendants seek to consolidate this action and four other
proposed class action cases brought against Paparazzi by End
Consumers of Paparazzi's products: Johnson et al. v. Paparazzi,
LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00439-JNP-DBP (D. Utah); Gilbert v. Paparazzi,
LLC, No. 2:22-cv-484-TC-DAO (D. Utah); Burgess v. Paparazzi, LLC,
No. 2:22-cv-00538-BSJ (D. Utah); Hollins v. Paparazzi, LLC, No.
2:22-cv-00553-JNP-DBP (D. Utah) (collectively, "End Consumer
Cases").
The Plaintiffs initially opposed consolidation, but later
stipulated to consolidate the cases for pretrial matters. The
plaintiffs in the End Consumer Cases also do not oppose
consolidation.
Judge Barlow notes that the five cases for which consolidation is
sought have common factual questions regarding Paparazzi's
representations and the chemical makeup of Paparazzi's products.
However, unlike the End Consumer Cases, he says this action
involves Consultant Plaintiffs and includes claims against
Paparazzi's founders. The legal questions and applicable
substantive law also differ among the five cases. And consolidation
is unnecessary for judicial economy or to address the parties'
desire to coordinate discovery and to avoid a potential for
inconsistent rulings. Rather, transferring the cases filed in the
District of Utah to a single district judge will achieve these
considerations and will avoid the drawbacks and unworkable aspects
of the convoluted consolidation the parties propose.
Therefore, Judge Barlow denies the Motions to Consolidate. He gives
the parties notice of the Court's intent to transfer the End
Consumer Cases to him. Any objection to such transfers must be
filed (in this action) within 14 days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8asmbb from
Leagle.com.
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Parker Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLISON PARKER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated V. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., Case No. CACE-22-017019
(Fla. Cir., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges that the Defendant violates the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving collection letter.
On a date better known by the Defendant, the Defendant sent a
collection letter to Plaintiff, of which was internally dated
September 19, 2022, in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The
Defendant identifies September 14,2022, as the itemization date of
the Consumer Debt in the Collection Letter. The Represented
Itemization Date is not the Last Statement Date associated with the
Consumer Debt, the suit says.
The Defendant violated section 1692e of the FDCPA by using the
Represented Itemization Date in the Collection Letter because the
Represented Itemization Date is not one of the five dates permitted
by section 1006.34(b)(3)of Reg F and using the Represented
Itemization Date as though it was one of the five dates permitted
by section 1006.34(b)(3)of Reg F is false,deceptive,and/or
otherwise misleading to the least sophisticated consumer, the suit
added.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the FDCPA Class seeks
to recover statutory damages as provided by 15 U.S.C. section
1692k; costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
section 1692k; and any other relief that this Court deems
appropriate under the circumstances.
Patenaude & Felix is a debt collection law firm that targets people
who have fallen behind on their consumer credit and other
accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street,Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
PC CONNECTION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PC Connection, Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. PC Connection, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09821 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
PC Connection, doing business as Connection --
https://www.connection.com/ -- provides information technology
services and technology solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Boyuk Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES J. BOYUK, JR., v.
PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00124-MJH (W.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the
current deadline for his motion for class certification from
December 12, 2022 to February 3, 2022 to allow the parties to
mediate this case on January 11, 2023.
Counsel for the Defendant Petrochem has indicated that it concurs
in the relief sought in this motion. This motion should be granted
for the following reasons:
1. On February 24, 2022, the Court held a scheduling
conference with the parties and entered an Initial Case
Management Order, see Doc. 11, setting forth the following
initial scheduling deadlines concerning Plaintiff's
anticipated motion for class certification pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
2. In early June, 2022, the Court extended certain deadlines
of the Case Management Order by 90 days at the request of
the parties.
These included:
-- Class Certification discovery shall be completed on or
before October 27, 2022;
-- Plaintiffs' expert and/or third-party data analyst
reports as to class certification shall be filed on or
before September 22, 2022.
-- Depositions of Plaintiffs' experts and/or third-party
data analysts shall be completed on or before October
27, 2022.
-- Defendant's expert reports as to class certification
shall be filed on or before October 10, 2022.
-- Depositions of Defendant's experts shall be completed
on or before October 27, 2022.
Petrochem is a construction company that provides insulation,
scaffolding, and metal structuring services.
A copy of Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 18, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tYvbQwat no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
- and -
Timothy Conboy, Esq.
CONBOY LAW, LLC
733 Washington Road, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Employees Get Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN STRANGE, et al., v.
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Case No. 8:19-cv-02761-DLB (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Deborah L. Boardman entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification as as follows:
"All past or present Prince George's County, Maryland non-
union-represented employees who occupied positions classified
as General Schedule and non-exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act at any time from November 14, 2019 through
November 14, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TUmlhuat no extra charge.[CC]
RAPID ARMORED: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Manuel Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RAPID ARMORED CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-08511-MKV
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, that he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime,
unpaid overtime, due to an improper rounding policy, spread of
hours premiums, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not
compensated overtime premiums for all hours worked over forty.
Instead, Defendant maintained a policy of raising the ceiling on
the necessary number of hours worked before an employees'
entitlement to overtime premium commenced, contrary to federal and
state wage laws. The Defendant violated Plaintiff's, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs', and Class members' rights by refusing to
pay at the overtime premium rate of time and one half of regular
hourly rate for each hour exceeding 40 hours per workweek., says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as cook at the
Defendants' Restaurant Victor's Cafe.
RAPID ARMORED CORPORATION provides security and armored transport
of valuable goods and currency on behalf of its customers
throughout the tri-state area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1180
Fax: 212-465-1181
REMINGTON ARMS: Bids in Limine in Teague Suit Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARON TEAGUE and RANDALL TEAGUE, Individually, and in
their official capacity as Co-Personal Representatives of the
ESTATE OF MARK RANDALL TEAGUE, Plaintiffs v. REMINGTON ARMS
COMPANY, LLC, REMINGTON OUTDOOR COMPANY, INC., SPORTING GOODS
PROPERTIES, INC., E.I. EU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, DOES A TO K,
Defendants, Case No. CV 18-184-M-DLC (D. Mont.), Judge Dana L.
Christensen of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana,
Missoula Division, grants in part, denies in part, and reserves
ruling on all remaining parts the Defendants' Motions in Limine and
the Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are strictly liable for
the death of Mark Teague due to the defective, unreasonably
dangerous design of the Remington Model 700 and the Defendants'
conduct in failing to remedy or repair that design, failing to
recall these rifles despite many decades of knowledge of its
dangers, and failing to warn the consuming public of these dangers.
They seek compensatory and punitive damages under Montana law.
Before the Court are the Defendants' Motions in Limine and the
Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine.
The Defendants' Omnibus Motions in Limine are granted in part,
denied in part, and the Court reserves ruling on all remaining
parts. The Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Specific
Opinions of Derek Watkins is denied. Watkins is an engineering
consultant specializing in firearms and ammunition who offered an
expert opinion as to the circumstances of Mark Teague's death and
whether the subject rifle was defectively designed or
manufactured.
Judge Christensen finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that Watkins's expert testimony is inadmissible under
FED. R. EVID. 702 or Daubert. She says issues regarding the
correctness of an expert's opinion go to the weight of the
testimony, rather than its admissibility, and are best addressed
through cross-examination and counter evidence.
The Plaintiffs' Combined Motions in Limine are granted in part,
denied in part, and the Court reserves ruling on all remaining
parts. Judge Christensen does not allow the Defendants to offer
testimony, evidence, or argument that Mark Teague, or anyone else,
was contributorily negligent or an intervening or superseding cause
of Mark's death. They may offer testimony, evidence, or argument
that rebuts the Plaintiffs' claim that a defect in the subject
rifle was the cause of Mark's death or that Mark unreasonably
misused the subject rifle.
The Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude or Limit the Expert
Testimony of Dr. Sunil Prashar is denied. Dr. Prashar is a Forensic
Pathologist with the Forensic Science Division of the Montana
Department of Justice who performed the autopsy of Mark Teague and
filed the official external examination report. His final diagnosis
for cause of death states (1) "Gunshot Wound to Head" and (2) "Shot
Self with .270 Caliber Rifle." Judge Christensen holds that the
Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence that Dr. Prashar
violated any rules or laws that would warrant his exclusion as an
expert witness at trial.
The Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Non-Causally Related
Defects and Conditions and Other Inadmissible Matters is granted in
part, denied in part, and the Court reserves ruling on all
remaining parts. Judge Christensen orders that the Plaintiffs may
not introduce evidence of: (1) the adjustability of the Model 700
trigger mechanism; (2) inadequate sear lift; (3) the "trick"
condition; (4) the "screwdriver" test; (5) filing, stoning, or
polishing the top of the connector; (6) the Model 600 rifle series
recall; or (7) the Model 700 rifle series owner's manual. They may
introduce evidence of: (1) build up of aged or gummed lubricants
and debris on the top of the engagement screw and smashed chips;
(2) use of the bolt-lock mechanism in pre-1982 Remington
bolt-action rifles; and (3) the H.P. White testing results.
The Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Other
Occurrences, Lawsuits, and Settlements is granted in part, denied
in part, and the Court reserves ruling on all remaining parts. The
Plaintiffs may not introduce evidence of customer Bart D'Angelo's
complaint, or the total number of customer complaints received by
Remington. They may introduce evidence of customer complaints made
by Renee Mclure, Charles Morgan, Ed Herlson, and Allen Thrasher.
The Court reserves ruling on the Defendants' Motion in Limine to
Exclude Reference to TV, News, Internet Reports, and Class Action
Litigation Regarding Remington Bolt-Action Rifles. Judge
Christensen does not find it necessary, nor possible, to address
the Defendants' argument that all "testimony regarding the content
of written and televised news reports and programs and/or internet
material discussing Remington bolt-action rifles" should be
excluded. She also notes that there may be some material that is
solely relevant to the Plaintiffs' claim for compensatory damages
and other material that is solely relevant to their claim for
punitive damages.
The Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Punitive Damages
Evidence and to Sever Punitive Damages and Veil-Piercing Issues is
granted in part, denied in part, and the Court reserves ruling on
all remaining parts. Judge Christensen permits the Plaintiffs to
offer evidence on punitive damages.
The trial will be bifurcated into two phases: phase one will be
limited to the issue of liability for compensatory damages under
Montana's law on strict products liability, phase two will be
limited to liability for punitive damages and determining what
amount, if any, of punitive damages will be awarded. The state law
where the Defendants are incorporated will be applied to the issues
of veil-piercing and alter-egos.
Having now ruled on all pending motions in the case and reset jury
trial for April 17, 2023, Judge Christensen reminds the Parties
that the Magistrate Judges of the Court are available for a
settlement conference, should the Parties so desire.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr2n2evn from Leagle.com.
RIPPLE LABS: Zakinov Seeks Certification of Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakinov, et al., v. Ripple
Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for certification of two
classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
-- Federal Securities Claims Class:
"All persons or entities who purchased XRP from May 3, 2017
through the present and who have (a) retained the XRP,
and/or (b) sold the XRP at a loss;"
-- California State Securities Claims Class:
"All persons or entities who purchased XRP from Defendants
and/or from any person or entity selling XRP on Defendants'
behalf from May 3, 2017 through the present and who have
(a) retained the XRP, and/or (b) sold the XRP at a loss."
Excluded from both Classes are: Defendant Bradley
Garlinghouse; corporate officers, members of the boards of
directors, and senior executives of Defendants Ripple Labs,
Inc. and XRP II, LLC; members of Defendants' immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors
or assigns; and any entity in which Defendants have or had
a controlling interest.
The Lead Plaintiff Zakinov also requests he be appointed by the
Court as the class representative and that Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
and Taylor-Copeland Law be appointed as Class Counsel.
The Defendants' U.S.-based conduct specifically targeted XRP
speculators and included social media posts, live interviews and
speeches, and XRP market reports.
In addition, Defendants made extensive efforts to get XRP listed on
crypto exchanges to increase speculative trading in XRP, including
by including instructions for how to purchase XRP on Ripple's
website.
Ripple is an American technology company which develops the Ripple
payment protocol and exchange network.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TZr29Uat no extra
charge.[CC]
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Bradley Sostack are:
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq.
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
Nicholas N. Spear Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com
kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
nspear@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
James Q. Taylor-Copeland, Esq.
TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-4944
Facsimile: (619) 566-4341
E-mail: james@taylorcopelandlaw.com
ROVER GROUP: Continues to Defend Rainey Labor Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Rover Group 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
continues to defend itself in the Claire Rainey labor class suit.
On October 26, 2021, a pet care provider filed a putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, captioned Claire Rainey v. A Place for Rover, Inc.,
alleging that the Company misclassified pet care providers in
California as independent contractors in violation of the
California Labor Code and alleging various wage and hour claims
under the California Labor Code and unfair competition claims under
the Business and Professions Code.
The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
civil penalties, attorney's fees, and other forms of relief.
On January 19, 2022, the Company removed the class action to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July
18, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion to compel
arbitration.
On January 21, 2022, the same plaintiff filed a representative
action under PAGA in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, captioned Claire Rainey v. A Place for Rover, Inc.,
alleging that the Company misclassified pet care providers in
California as independent contractors in violation of the
California Labor Code and alleging various wage and hour claims
under the California Labor Code.
The plaintiff is seeking civil penalties under PAGA, attorney's
fees, and other forms of relief.
On March 18, 2022, the Company removed the PAGA lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
On July 29, 2022, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration.
On September 1, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel arbitration, ordering arbitration of the plaintiff's
individual PAGA claims and dismissing the plaintiff's
representative PAGA claims.
The Company has denied or intends to deny the allegations of
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in
these lawsuits.
The Company does not currently believe that a material loss related
to these lawsuits is probable.
Rover Group, Inc. operates an online platform for pet care. The
Company provides applications and websites to connect dog and cat
parents with loving pet sitters and dog walkers in neighborhoods.
Rover Group serves customers in the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom, and Europe.[BN]
RUBY'S FAST FOOD: Miranda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maadi Ornan Martinez Miranda, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated, known and unknown v. RUBY'S FAST
FOOD CORP., an Illinois corporation, and NICKIE RODICA, an
individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-05453 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2022), is
brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave
Ordinance for the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
statutory minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants paid the Plaintiff below the statutory minimum wage
rates throughout his term of his employment. Additionally, the
Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff, and other non-exempt
cooks, food preparers, dishwashers and kitchen staff employees, at
one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 in individual workweeks. The Defendants
never paid Plaintiff an overtime premium when he worked more than
40 hours in a work week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a food preparer at the Defendants'
restaurant.
Ruby's Fast Food Corp. is an Illinois corporation that operates the
Ruby's Fast Food restaurant currently located on North Pulaski Road
in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 322-1100
Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
SAFEMOON LLC: Merewhuader Suit Removed to D. Utah
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bill Merewhuader, Christopher Polite, and Tim
Viane, Mark Combs, Vlad Iacob, Benjamin Northey, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SAFEMOON LLC,
SAFEMOON US, LLC, SAFEMOON CONNECT, LLC, SAFEMOON LTD, SAFEMOON
PROTOCOL LTD, SAFEMOON MEDIA GROUP LTD, BRADEN JOHN KARONY, JACK
HAINES-DAVIES, RYAN ARRIAGA, SHAUN WITRIOL, HENRY "HANK" WYATT,
JAKE PAUL, NICK CARTER, DeANDRE CORTEZ WAY, BEN PHILLIPS, and MILES
PARKS McCOLLUM, Case No. 2:22-cv-01108 was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah on Oct. 5, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00642-DBB-JCB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
SafeMoon LLC -- https://safemoon.com/ -- is a cryptocurrency and
blockchain company created in March 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH LAW GROUP
22 E 100 S., Ste. 400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 869-1919
Email: hatch@hatchpc.com
- and -
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-233-4565
Fax: 619-236-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
- and -
Sean T. Masson, Esq.
THE HELMSLEY BUILDING
230 Park Ave. 17th Fl.
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 519-0522
Email: smasson@scott-scott.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alan C. Bradshaw, Esq.
Brandon Scott Fuller, Esq.
Trevor J. Lee, Esq.
MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR PLLC
136 E SOUTH TEMPLE STE 1300
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 363-5678
Email: abradshaw@mc2b.com
bfuller@mc2b.com
tlee@mc2b.com
- and -
Michael J. Kahn, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission St., Ste. 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Phone: (415) 393-8316
Email: mjkahn@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Jacob U. Arber, Esq.
Paul J. Collins, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1881 Page Miller Rd,
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: (650) 849-5328
Email: jarber@gibsondunn.com
pcollins@gibsondunn.com
Linda D. Lam, Esq.
AVISO LEGAL GROUP LLP
4000 Barranca Pkwy., Ste. 250
Irvin, CA 92604
Phone: (949) 262-3272
Fax: (949) 271-4037
Email: llam@avisolegalgroup.com
SAVE ADVISERS: Fitzpatrick Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAVE ADVISERS, LLC.
The case is styled as Rory Fitzpatrick, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. SAVE ADVISERS, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-08443 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Save Advisers, LLC -- https://joinsave.com/ -- provides investment
advisory services. The Company offers wide range of investment,
savings, portfolio management, and other related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Kaios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siemens Mobility,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ronny Kaios, and all others
similarly situated v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00329921-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
17, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Siemens Mobility -- https://www.mobility.siemens.com/global/en.html
-- is a leading provider of sustainable and efficient transport
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 W Olympic Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: +1 310-553-3600
SNAP INC: Sbroglio Sues Over Failure to Provide Class Vote
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sbroglio, on behalf of herself and similarly situated v. SNAP
INC., Case No. 2022-1032 (Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 16, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to provide the
statutorily required separate class vote on the Charter Amendment
and to seek judicial relief to invalidate the Charter Amendment
because it was not validly approved by the Class A Common
Stockholders.
This case shows that, while the Delaware General Corporation Law
("DGCL") is broadly enabling, when the legislature wants a
stockholder power to be mandatory it knows just how to achieve that
objective. Because voting rights are presumed if not otherwise
limited in a charter, the only reasonable reading of the above
statutory language is that even if a class of stock is typically
not entitled to vote on other matters, a charter amendment
adversely affecting the "powers, preferences or special rights"
appurtenant to that class of stock still requires an approving
vote.
on August 24, 2022, Snap's controllers (thanks to their power over
a class of super-voting shares) adopted an amendment to Article VI
of Snap's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the
"Charter"), which purports to provide exculpation from personal
liability for reckless or grossly negligent conduct to the
Company's officers, including the controllers themselves (the
"Charter Amendment").
When public market investors acquired Snap's Class A non-voting
shares, they knew they would not get voting rights for most
transactions, but that they would in the specific instances when
the DGCL assures such a vote. Snap failed to provide the
statutorily required separate class vote on the Charter Amendment,
even though it eliminated one of the core "powers, preferences or
special rights" belonging to its Class A stockholders.
On August 24, 2022, Snap approved the Charter Amendment and adopted
it by written consent of the Class C Common Stockholders,
purporting to eliminate one of the "powers, preferences or special
rights" appurtenant to ownership of Class A Common Stock — the
power to seek relief for reckless or grossly negligent conduct
among the Company's officers. Snap disclosed that the Charter
Amendment was adopted following Board approval and submission of
written consents of 231,626,943 shares of Class C Common Stock, and
the Company said that the Charter Amendment "has been duly adopted
in accordance with Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law." Since Snap's co-founders hold all of the Company's Class C
Common Stock, it follows that they voted to exculpate Company
officers to the "fullest extent permitted" by Delaware law. No vote
was solicited or obtained from the Class A Common Stockholders,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff owns shares of Snap Class A Common Stock and has
owned Snap Class A Common Stock.
Snap is a camera company, best known for its flagship product,
Snapchat. Snapchat is a mobile application that allows users to
communicate with family and friends through short videos and images
that are deleted by default after a fixed period of time.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Sara D. Swartzwelder, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 364-3601
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Ampt Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Solaredge Technologies 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 8, 2022, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Ampt LLC Class Suit.
On November 3, 2022, the Company received notice that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S District Court of the Southern
District of New York against the Company, SolarEdge Technologies
Ltd., the Company's CEO and the Company's CFO, by a purported
stockholder of the Company, alleging violations of the Federal
Securities Act in connection with complaints filed against the
Company by Ampt LLC, the details for which can be found under "Note
12- Commitments and Contingent Liabilities".
The Company believes the allegations contained in this new action
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Solaredge provides solar power optimization and photovoltaic
monitoring solutions for solar energy systems, offering
optimizers,
inverters, monitoring equipment, tools, and accessories for power
harvesting, conversion, and efficiency while serving customers
worldwide.[BN]
SOPHIE RATNER: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sophie Ratner
Jewelry, LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Sophie Ratner Jewelry, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07012 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 16, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sophie Ratner -- https://sophieratner.com/ -- is a fine jewelry
designer based in New York, creating handmade 14k gold pieces for
the modern day woman.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SPACE EXPLORATION: Cornejo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Cornejo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., a Delaware
Corporation dba SpaceX and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV36362 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 16, 2022), is
brought seeking monetary relief against the Defendants to recover,
unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages among other things, civil
penalties, attorney's fees and costs and expenses pursuant to Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff frequently worked in excess of 8 hours a day and/or
over 40 hours in a workweek, but were not properly paid for minimum
and overtime wages. The Defendant also failed to properly calculate
the Plaintiff's and Class Members' regular rate of pay including
but not limited to by failing to include all forms of
compensation/remuneration in the regular rate including but not
limited to bonuses, incentives, commissions, shift differentials,
and other compensation for overtime calculation purposes, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in March of 2017 as a
Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Test Technician.
The Defendant is a spacecraft manufacturer, launcher, and a
satellite communications corporation.[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
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
SPRING HOMECARE: Rasoli Files Bid for Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAHID RASOLI, Individually
and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SPRING HOMECARE
CORPORATION , et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00801-PTG-IDD (E.D. Va.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Spring Home Care Corporation is a respite care in Annandale.
A copy of Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 17, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TUBJKOat no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Powers, Esq.
Steven Anderson, Esq.
MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC
8133 Leesburg Pike, Suite 130
Vienna, VA 22182
Telephone: (703) 520-1326
Facsimile: (703) 828-0205
E-mail: rpowers@mcplegal.com
STATE FARM: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to March 10, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COOK and ELFE
KUESTERS, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated,
v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02458-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andrew F.
Kirtley entered an order all upcoming scheduled deadlines set forth
in the Court's March 11, 2022 Minute Order under the heading
"Briefing schedule for Motion for Class Certification" shall be
extended by 28 days, as follows:
Event Current Date Extended Date
-- Last day for Joint Nov. 18, 2022 Dec. 16, 2022
Rebuttal Disclosures:
-- Close of Expert Discovery: Jan. 20, 2023 Feb. 17, 2022
-- Deadline to file Motion Feb. 10, 2023 Mar. 10, 2023
for Class Cert.:
-- Opposition due by: Mar. 17, 2023 Apr. 14, 2023
-- Reply due by: Apr. 7, 2023 May 5, 2023
-- Hearing on Motion for Apr. 28, 2023, May 26, 2023,
Class Cert.:
State Farm operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XwwiVxat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Victor Jacobellis, Esq.
Daniel J. Veroff, Esq.
MERLIN LAW GROUP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1925
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 851-2300
Facsimile: (415) 960-3882
E-mail: vjacobellis@merlinlawgroup.com
dveroff@merlinlawgroup.com
- and -
Brian Danitz, Esq.
Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcom Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
akirtley@cpmlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Frank Falzetta, Esq.
Jennifer M. Hoffman, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com
jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Crowe, Esq.
Katherine C. Sample, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 513-5100
Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
E-mail: jcrowe@sheppardmullin.com
ksample@sheppardmullin.com
STK SAN FRANCISCO: Burroughs Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STK San Francisco,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kameron Burroughs, Jaeyln
Gonzales, Konstantin Howard, Trucker Truen, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated and the general public v. STK San
Francisco, LLC, STK Rebel San Diego, LLC, STK Rooftop San Diego,
LLC, Stk Westwood, LLC, The One Group Hospitality, Inc., The One
Group, LLC, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC22602250
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 6, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
STK SAN FRANCISCO -- https://stksteakhouse.com/ -- is a top rated
steakhouse is a high energy destination offering a chic vibe lounge
plus waterfront dining on a one of a kind outside loft.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Un Kei Wu, Esq.
LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
2760 Mission St 2nd floor,
San Francisco, CA 94110,
Phone: +1 415 695 1000
Fax: +1 415 695 100
STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET: Fuller Sues Over Misleading Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Fuller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, Case No.
7:22-cv-09824 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022), is brought seeking damages
and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading
labeling practices with regard to its adhesive lidocaine patches
under the CareOne brand ("Product").
The front label representations include "Maximum Strength,"
"Lidocaine Pain Relief Patches," "4% Lidocaine/Topical Anesthetic,"
"Desensitizes Aggravated Nerves," "Up To 8 Hours Numbing Relief," a
seal with the Rx symbol stating "Our Pharmacists Recommend," and a
picture of a body with a patch applied to the lower back.
The claim that the Product provide "Pain relieving ointment on a
breathable adhesive pad" is misleading Consumers expect that when
they are told the Product will provide "Up to 8 Hours" of relief,
the patches will adhere to their bodies for no less than eight
hours or even longer. However, the Product cannot adhere to the
skin for more than four hours, which renders the "Up To 8 Hours"
misleading, a significant disparity. The "Up To 8 Hours" claim is
also inconsistent with the "Uses" disclosed on the Drug Facts which
indicates it can only provide "Temporary relief" which consumers
will understand as a short time, less than eight hours.
The representation of "Maximum Strength" is misleading for multiple
reasons. First, this statement tells consumers the Product contains
and delivers the maximum amount of lidocaine available in patch
form and is superior or equivalent in efficacy and results to other
OTC and prescription-strength lidocaine patches. However, newly
developed adhesive technology can deliver the bioequivalence of 5%
lidocaine in patch form and maintain adhesion for at least eight
hours under normal conditions. Second, numerous studies and reports
revealed that users of adhesive lidocaine patches using the same
technology used by the Product regularly peel off a user's skin
within three to four hours, and sometimes in minutes, after being
applied.
The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. Had the
Plaintiff known the truth, he would not have bought the Product or
would have paid less for it. As a result of the false and
misleading representations, the Product are sold at a premium
price, approximately no less than no less than $9.79 per box of six
patches, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar Product,
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be
sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product at locations including Stop &
Shop in New York City.
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC markets, labels and sells
adhesive lidocaine patches under the CareOne brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Faces Stock Price Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Stronghold Digital Mining 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 faces a stock price class suit in the Southern District of
New York.
On April 14, 2022, the Company and certain of its current and
former directors, and officers, as well as the underwriters in its
initial public offering, were named in a putative class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to a drop in its stock price
following our disclosure about the delays it experienced in the
delivery of certain miners it purchased from MinerVa and other
operational issues that have adversely affected the Company's
results of operations.
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG), a crypto asset
mining company, focuses on mining Bitcoin in the United States. It
also operates coal refuse power generation facility. The company
was incorporated in 2021 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Stronghold Digital Mining 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 plans to move for the dismissal of a securities class suit
on December 19, 2022.
On April 14, 2022, the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers and underwriters were named in a
putative class action complaint filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In the complaint, the
plaintiffs allege that the Company made misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material facts in violation of Section 11
of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. section 77k and Section 15 of the
Securities Act, about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects in the Company's registration statement on Form S-1
related to its initial public offering, and when subsequent
disclosures were made regarding these operational issues when the
Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial
results, the Company's stock price fell, causing significant losses
and damages. As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, compensatory damages.
On August 4, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed.
On October 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
making the same basic allegations as in the complaint.
The defendants believe the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and intend to move for dismissal of the lawsuit on
December 19, 2022.
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG), a crypto asset
mining company, focuses on mining Bitcoin in the United States. It
also operates coal refuse power generation facility. The company
was incorporated in 2021 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.
SUNRUN INC: Dekker Seeks Certification of a Class of Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 November 2, 2022, that the plaintiff
in the case captioned Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)
filed a motion for class certification to a class of customers who
are subject to the 2012 version of the Vivint Solar Power Purchase
Agreement.
In December 2019, ten customers who signed residential power
purchase agreements named Vivint Solar in a putative class action
lawsuit captioned "Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc." (N.D. Cal.),
alleging that the agreements contain unlawful termination fee
provisions. The company disputes the allegations in the complaint.
On January 17, 2020, the company moved to compel arbitration with
respect to nine of the ten plaintiffs whose contracts included
arbitration provisions. The court issued an order compelling eight
plaintiffs to pursue their claims in arbitration but subsequently
rescinded the order as to certain plaintiffs.
The court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the court's
order rescinding its order compelling certain plaintiffs to
arbitrate. At this time, one plaintiff's claims remain pending
before the court as a class action, one plaintiff's claims are in
arbitration, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims have been
resolved on an individual basis. In the class action that remains
pending before the court, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, and on March 18, 2022, the court certified a class
of customers (approximately 1,000) who are subject to the 2012
version of the Vivint Solar Power Purchase Agreement.
Sunrun Inc. provides solar energy and storage based in California.
SUTTER VALLEY: Court Resets Renewed Bid to Certify Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ward v. Sutter Valley
Hospitals, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00581 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller entered an order resetting Plaintiffs'
renewed motion to conditionally certify collective action as
follows:
-- The Motions are noticed for Dec. 9, 2022
hearing on:
-- Motion Hearing is resetting for: Jan. 27, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
SUTTER VALLEY: Tinnin Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEENA TINNIN, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SUTTER
VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00482-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
1. certifying the following plaintiff class pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All persons who are or have been employed by Sutter
Valley Medical Center in the State of California since
April 2, 2016, who worked as non-exempt employees and
whose time and pay records show late, short, or missing
meal periods;" and
2. appointing her as Class Representative and Mallison &
Martinez as Class Counsel.
Sutter provides healthcare services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ACbxgYat
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Daniel C. Keller, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com
SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Initially Approves Class Settlement in Lucas
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANNE BEAR KING LUCAS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SYNCHRONY
BANK, Case No. 4:21-cv-00070-PPS (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Philip
P. Simon entered an order granting Plaintiff Dianne Bear King
Lucas's unopposed motion to certify class and for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.
Synchrony Financial is a consumer financial services company
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ey3G5gat no extra charge.[CC]
SYNGENTA CROP: Chuck Day Farms Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Day Farms Partnership, on behalf of themselves v. SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION,
LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA
AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOE CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND
RETAILERS 1-200, Case No. 1:22-cv-02222-JMS-MG (S.D. Ind., Nov. 17,
2022), seek to recover damages in the form of overcharges incurred
by themselves and the Classes due to the Manufacturer Defendants',
Co-conspirator Distributors', and Retailers' violations of the
antitrust laws in the markets for certain crop protection products
in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
Farmers in the United States have paid and continue to pay inflated
prices for crop protection products due to the unlawful conduct of:
Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, and Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC (collectively, "Syngenta"), BASF SE, BASF
Corporation and BASF Agricultural Products Group (collectively
"BASF"), and Corteva, Inc. (referred to herein collectively as the
"Manufacturer Defendants"); Co-conspirator Distributor Defendants
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.; and Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC;
(collectively, "Distributor Defendants"); Doe Defendant
Co-conspirator Distributors (referred to, together with the
Distributor Defendants, as the "Co-conspirator Distributors"); and
retailers that participate in the loyalty programs. All of these of
entities are referred to collectively herein as "Defendants."
For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded
competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States
farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer
Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate"
programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and
Retailers.
While Plaintiffs will use the nomenclature "loyalty programs"
throughout this Complaint, their true unlawful nature should be
kept in mind. These programs substantially hindered access by
farmers to lower-cost generic alternatives. The Manufacturer
Defendants' respective loyalty programs have resulted in the
stifling of generic competition and have preserved their monopoly
power in connection with certain crop protection products, despite
expired patent. Such unlawful conduct has resulted in and continues
to cause substantial monetary damages to farmers across the
country.
The Manufacturer Defendants engaged in conspiracies to illegally
extend and maintain their respective monopolies in certain crop
protection products with the Co-conspirator Distributors and
Retailers by entering into loyalty programs to delay generic
competition, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
The Manufacturer Defendants have designed these loyalty programs
specifically for the purpose of excluding and marginalizing
competitive generic products, which enables the Manufacturer
Defendants to maintain excessive, supra-competitive prices. The
Manufacturer Defendants conspired with the Co-conspirator
Distributors and Retailers to execute these programs. This
conspiracy caused and continues to cause farmers to overpay for
these crucial inputs.
As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiff and
Members of the Classes paid more for certain crop protection
products than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of
Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Chuck Day Farms Partnership is a partnership formed
under the laws of Arkansas.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a company headquartered in Basel,
Switzerland with its North American headquarters in Greensboro,
North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636 2593
Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Dr. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, PA
1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (501) 952-8558
Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us
SYNGENTA CROP: Danny Day Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Day, Jr. Farms, and Danny Day, Jr. & Son Farm Partnership, on
behalf of themselves v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA
CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE;
BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02225-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Nov. 17, 2022), seek to recover
damages in the form of overcharges incurred by themselves and the
Classes due to the Manufacturer Defendants', Co-conspirator
Distributors', and Retailers' violations of the antitrust laws in
the markets for certain crop protection products.
The Manufacturer Defendants engaged in conspiracies to illegally
extend and maintain their respective monopolies in certain crop
protection products with the Co-conspirator Distributors and
Retailers by entering into loyalty programs to delay generic
competition, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
Farmers in the United States have paid and continue to pay inflated
prices for crop protection products due to the unlawful conduct of:
Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, and Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC, BASF SE, BASF Corporation and BASF
Agricultural Products Group, and Corteva, Inc. (referred to herein
collectively as the "Manufacturer Defendants"); and Co-conspirator
Distributor Defendants Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.; and Helena
Agri-Enterprises, LLC.; (collectively, "Co-conspirator Distributor
Defendants"). All of these of entities are referred to collectively
herein as "Defendants."
For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded
competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States
farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer
Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate"
programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and
participating retailers. These programs are exclusive dealing
arrangements that contravene the Clayton Act.
While Plaintiffs will use the nomenclature "loyalty programs"
throughout this Complaint, their true unlawful nature should be
kept in mind. These programs substantially hindered access by
farmers to lower-cost generic alternatives. The Manufacturer
Defendants' respective loyalty programs have resulted in the
stifling of generic competition and have preserved their monopoly
power in connection with certain crop protection products, despite
expired patent. Such unlawful conduct has resulted in and continues
to cause substantial monetary damages to farmers across the
country.
The Manufacturer Defendants have designed these loyalty programs
specifically for the purpose of excluding and marginalizing
competitive generic products, which enables the Manufacturer
Defendants to maintain excessive, supra-competitive prices. The
Manufacturer Defendants conspired with the Co-conspirator
Distributors and Retailers to execute these programs. This
conspiracy caused and continues to cause farmers to overpay for
these crucial inputs.
As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiffs and
Members of the Classes paid more for certain crop protection
products than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of
Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Danny Day, Jr. Farms owns and operates farmland in
Arkansas and directly purchased products at issue in this action
from one or more of the alleged Co-conspirator Distributors,
including Nutrien and Helena.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a company headquartered in Basel,
Switzerland with its North American headquarters in Greensboro,
North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636 2593
Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Dr. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, PA
1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (501) 952-8558
Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th St. St., N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Fax: (202) 540-7201
SYNGENTA CROP: M and M Farms Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
M and M Farms Partnership and Brick Farms, Inc., on behalf of
themselves v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF
CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02227-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 17, 2022), seek to recover
damages in the form of overcharges incurred by themselves and the
Classes due to the Manufacturer Defendants', Co-conspirator
Distributors', and Retailers' violations of the antitrust laws in
the markets for certain crop protection products.
The Manufacturer Defendants engaged in conspiracies to illegally
extend and maintain their respective monopolies in certain crop
protection products with the Co-conspirator Distributors and
Retailers by entering into loyalty programs to delay generic
competition, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
Farmers in the United States have paid and continue to pay inflated
prices for crop protection products due to the unlawful conduct of:
Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, and Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC, BASF SE, BASF Corporation and BASF
Agricultural Products Group, and Corteva, Inc. (referred to herein
collectively as the "Manufacturer Defendants"); and Co-conspirator
Distributor Defendants Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.; and Helena
Agri-Enterprises, LLC.; (collectively, "Co-conspirator Distributor
Defendants"). All of these of entities are referred to collectively
herein as "Defendants."
For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded
competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States
farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer
Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate"
programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and
participating retailers. These programs are exclusive dealing
arrangements that contravene the Clayton Act.
While Plaintiffs will use the nomenclature "loyalty programs"
throughout this Complaint, their true unlawful nature should be
kept in mind. These programs substantially hindered access by
farmers to lower-cost generic alternatives. The Manufacturer
Defendants' respective loyalty programs have resulted in the
stifling of generic competition and have preserved their monopoly
power in connection with certain crop protection products, despite
expired patent. Such unlawful conduct has resulted in and continues
to cause substantial monetary damages to farmers across the
country.
The Manufacturer Defendants have designed these loyalty programs
specifically for the purpose of excluding and marginalizing
competitive generic products, which enables the Manufacturer
Defendants to maintain excessive, supra-competitive prices. The
Manufacturer Defendants conspired with the Co-conspirator
Distributors and Retailers to execute these programs. This
conspiracy caused and continues to cause farmers to overpay for
these crucial inputs.
As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiffs and
Members of the Classes paid more for certain crop protection
products than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of
Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff M and M Farms Partnership is a partnership formed
under the laws of Arkansas and M and M Farms Partnership owns and
operates farmland in Arkansas.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a company headquartered in Basel,
Switzerland with its North American headquarters in Greensboro,
North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636 2593
Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Dr. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, PA
1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (501) 952-8558
Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us
- and -
Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
Patrick Clayton, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
3708 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94118
Phone: (415) 751-4193
Email: fos@scarpullalaw.com
pbc@scarpullalaw.com
TAVISTOCK RESTAURANTS: Dudley Sues Over Unprotected PII
-------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Dudley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TAVISTOCK RESTAURANTS UPSCALE GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.,
Case No. 6:22-cv-02128-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant as a result of the Defendant's
failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect
against unauthorized access to PII.
On April 6, 2022, Tavistock learned that highly sensitive personal
data of approximately 2000 employees stored in Tavistock's computer
system was compromised in a data breach by cybercriminals ("Data
Breach"). It is unclear how long the Data Breach carried on
undetected. Tavistock's investigations revealed that hackers gained
unauthorized access to employees' confidential personal identifying
information, including Social Security numbers ("PII"). After
Tavistock's "investigation" inexplicably dragged on for nearly six
months, Defendant finally disclosed the Data Breach to impacted
employees on September 29, 2022 (the "Breach Notice").
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made consumers vulnerable to identify theft without any warnings to
monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant's failure to protect
its employees' PII and adequately warn them about the Data Breach
violates Florida law, harming thousands of current and former
Tavistock employees. The Defendant knew or should have known that
each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice
of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII
misuse.
The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of the
Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures.
Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class
trusted the Defendant with their PII. But the Defendant betrayed
that trust. The Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date
security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Tavistock where he worked as
the Director of IT between 2015 and 2020.
Tavistock owns and operates upscale restaurants in Florida,
Georgia, Massachusetts and Nevada and has employees working at
those restaurant locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
TBK BANK SSB: Luckey Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TBK Bank SSB. The
case is styled as Carolyn C. Luckey, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. TBK Bank SSB, Case No.
1:22-cv-01337-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
TBK Bank, SSB -- https://www.tbkbank.com/ -- operates as a
full-service bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Duran Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 372-1300
Fax: (888) 505-0909
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
- and -
Lynn A Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 363-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Justin M. Raver, Esq.
BARASH & EVERETT LLC
143 E. Main Street
Galesburg, IL 61401, Suite 101
Phone: (309) 341-6010
Fax: (309) 341-1945
Email: debbie@barashlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher R Murphy, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 263-3600
Email: Chris.Murphy@hklaw.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Tentative Settlement in Thomas Suit Initially OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, 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 November 2, 2022,
that the court entered an order preliminarily approving the terms
of a tentative settlement reached by the parties in the case
captioned "Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc." and conditionally
certified the settlement class.
On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint captioned
"Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc." was filed in the United States
District court for the District of Massachusetts against the
company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc.
The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors
violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending
unsolicited facsimiles to the plaintiff and certain other
recipients without the recipient's prior express invitation or
permission.
The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.
Teladoc Health, Inc. is a healthcare company based in New York.
TEXAS CUSTOM BUILDERS: Hardin Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Tylor Hardin and Gabriel Brown on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated employees v. Texas Custom Builders, George
Perry, JMI Contractors, LLC, Jim Smith and Mike Garcia, Case No.
6:22-cv-01172 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 15, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the minimum wage provisions of the
Texas Labor Code and the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs regularly worked hours over 40 per week. The
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs for all the hours that they
worked. The Defendants improperly classified the Plaintiffs as
independent contractors. The Defendants further failed to pay the
Plaintiffs at least minimum wage for all hours worked and an
overtime premium for those hours worked in excess of forty in a
workweek. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA and the Texas
Labor Code, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated
for at least minimum wage for all hours worked and one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
forty hours in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs perform work for the Defendants as Laborers.
Texas Custom Builders is company incorporated in the state of Texas
that is doing business in Coryell County, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Downey, Esq.
5308 Ashbrook
Houston, TX 77081
Phone: 214-764-7279
Email: mdowney@dlawgrp.com
TIC INTERNATIONAL: Krupa Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TIC International
Corporation. The case is styled as Rodney Krupa, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIC International
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01951-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., Oct. 3,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle
TIC International Corporation -- https://www.tici.com/ -- provides
consulting, actuarial and administrative services to those
responsible for employee benefits programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th St., Ste. 1725
Oakland, CA 94607-5009
Phone: 510-891-9800
Fax: 510-891-7030
Email: cab@colevannote.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott B. Cockrum, Esq.
LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2211 Main Street, Suite 3-2A
Highland, IN 46322
Phone: (219) 440-0602
Fax: (219) 440-0601
Email: Scott.Cockrum@lewisbrisbois.com
TOP IT OFF: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Top It Off, Inc. The
case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Top It
Off, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09770 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Top It Off -- https://topitoffaccessories.com/ -- is a women-owned
business creating fashionable clothing and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
TOURANCE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tourance, Inc. The
case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Tourance, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09751 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tourance -- https://tourance.com/ -- is specializing in soft and
luxurious goods for the home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tupperware Brands 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 November 2, 2022,
that the company was named defendant in a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1934.
In June 2022, a putative stockholder class action was filed against
the company and certain current and former officers in the United
States District court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges that statements made in public filings between
November 3, 2021, and May 3, 2022 regarding the company's earnings
and sales performance and full-year 2022 guidance violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased the company's shares during the potential class period
and demands unspecified monetary damages. The plaintiff intends to
file an amended complaint in late November 2022.
Tupperware Brands Corporation is a leading global consumer products
company based in Florida.
TWITTER INC: Borodaenko Sues Over Termination of Disabled Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dmitry Borodaenko, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TWITTER, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07226 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
16, 2022), is brought against the Defendant under the Americans
With Disabilities Act on behalf of other disabled Twitter employees
across the US who have been discharged or constructively discharged
from their jobs during the chaotic weeks since multi-billionaire
Elon Musk purchased the company.
The Plaintiff brings claims of discrimination under the ADA and
(for employees who worked out of California) California Fair
Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), challenging the company's
termination, or constructive termination, of employees with
disabilities who can perform their jobs with or without reasonable
accommodation but who were not permitted to continue their jobs,
either through termination or forced resignation after being
required to accept working under unreasonable circumstances for an
employee with a disability.
Shortly after Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, he
immediately began laying off half of its workforce. Many of the
employees who have lost their jobs since Musk's purchase of the
company are disabled. Prior to Musk's purchase of the company,
Twitter employees were permitted to work remotely. In fact, over
the spring and summer of 2022, Twitter reassured employees that,
following Musk's purchase of the company, they would be permitted
to continue working remotely for at least a year.
However, shortly after Musk completed the purchase of Twitter, he
declared that working remotely would no longer be allowed and that
all remaining employees would need to work out of a company office
– with only rare exceptions for "exceptional" employees, that
Musk himself would have to approve. Many disabled employees were
able to perform their jobs adequately with the reasonable
accommodation of working remotely, rather than from a physical
Twitter office. Musk's declaration, however, that almost all
employees would need to work out of physical offices made it not
possible or viable for many disabled employees to continue their
jobs.
In addition, Musk declared that, in order to remain employed at
Twitter, employees would have to "work long hours at high
intensity." Any employees who did not agree to this mandate would
have to resign. Many disabled employees who have, and could
continue to, perform their jobs effectively have felt that, because
of their disability, they will not be able to meet this new
heightened standard of performance and productivity. Thus, many
disabled employees have felt forced to resign, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Scotts Valley, California,
where he worked for Twitter from June 2021 until November 2022.
Twitter is a social media company that employs thousands of people
across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
U.S.A. SILO SERVICE: Knowlton Sues to Recover Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Knowlton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S.A. SILO SERVICE, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-04045-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 16, 2022), is brought to
recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members consistently worked in
excess of 40 hours each workweek. The Defendant did not consider
time spent traveling as hours worked for purposes of determining
the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members' overtime eligibility.
Consequently, the Defendant failed to pay proper wages, including
overtimes wages to the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
The Defendant knew that laborers were working overtime hours and
hours for which they were not compensated at an overtime rate when
they traveled to jobsites. The Defendant willfully deprived
laborers of proper wages, including overtime wages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a laborer by the Defendant.
The Defendant is a domestic for-profit corporation registered in
the State of Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Adam L. Slone, Esq.
BRIAN G. MILLER CO., L.P.A.
250 W. Old Wilson Bridge Rd., Suite 270
Worthington, OH 43085
Phone: (614) 221-4035
Facsimile: (614) 987-7841
Email: als@bgmillerlaw.com
UNDER ARMOUR: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour 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 8, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class
Suit.
On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (the "District Court") were consolidated under
the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No.
17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Securities Action").
On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two additional putative
securities class actions were filed in the District Court against
the Company and certain of its current and former executives
(captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03209-RDB
("Patel"), and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-03581-RDB ("Waronker"), respectively).
On September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order that,
among other things, consolidated the Patel and Waronker cases into
the Consolidated Securities Action. The operative complaint (the
Third Amended Complaint or the "TAC") in the Consolidated
Securities Action, was filed on October 14, 2020.
The TAC asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
against the Company and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the
Exchange Act against Mr. Plank. The TAC alleges that the defendants
supposedly concealed purportedly declining consumer demand for
certain of the Company's products between the third quarter of 2015
and the fourth quarter of 2016 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's performance and
future prospects and by engaging in undisclosed and allegedly
improper sales and accounting practices, including shifting sales
between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier.
The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to
disclose that the Company was under investigation by and
cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") since July
2017. The class period identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015
through November 1, 2019.
Discovery in the Consolidated Securities Action commenced on June
4, 2021 and is currently ongoing. On July 23, 2021, the Company and
Mr. Plank filed an answer to the TAC denying all allegations of
wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to the claims
asserted in the TAC.
On December 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking, among
other things, certification of the class they are seeking to
represent in the Consolidated Securities Action.
On September 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion.
The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the
Consolidated Securities Action are without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Labor Suits in State and Federal Courts
------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 November 2, 2022,
that the company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in
state and federal courts containing various class action
allegations under state wage-and-hour laws.
One of these matters, "Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc."
and United Parcel Service, Inc. had previously been certified as a
class action in Kentucky state court. In the second quarter of
2019, the court granted the company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings related to the wage-and-hour claims. The plaintiffs'
appeal of this decision was denied; however, in the second quarter
of 2022, the plaintiffs were granted a discretionary review of
these claims by the Kentucky Supreme court.
United Parcel Service, Inc. is a logistics company based in
Georgia.
UNITED STATES: Grimes Files Suit in U.S. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is styled as Clarissa Grimes, individually and on
behalf similarly situated persons v. USA, Case No.
1:22-cv-01682-LAS (U.S. Dist. Ct., Fed. Cl., Nov. 15, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay – FLSA for the
Tucker Act.
The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states
covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the
northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq.
JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C.
1629 K Street, N.W., Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 496-0500
Fax: (202) 496-0555
Email: dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com
UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------
United Therapeutics 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 November 2, 2022,
that it is alleged of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and various state laws by
coordinating with Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) when making
donations to a fund so that those donations would go towards
copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs
manufactured and marketed by the company.
On July 27, 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1,
LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II,
LLC filed a class action complaint against CVC and the company in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various
Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that
allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to
recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for the drugs.
In April 2021, the court granted the company's motion to transfer
the case to the U.S. District court for the Southern District of
Florida. Two members of the putative class, Humana Inc. and United
Healthcare Insurance company have informed the company that they
may bring claims directly against it to recover alleged
overpayments.
In October 2021, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in this
litigation. On that same day, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
that includes state antitrust claims.
The amended complaint added MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a
plaintiff and Smiths Medical and CVC as defendants. As a result of
the amended complaint, the court ruled that the motion for judgment
on the pleadings was moot. In December 2021, the company filed a
motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims in the amended
complaint, including the new antitrust claims. Smiths Medical also
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against Smiths
Medical. On September 23, 2022, the court dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims against the company and Smiths Medical without
prejudice.
On October 21, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
clarification or reconsideration of the court's order dismissing
the complaint without prejudice and argued that the court should
allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend. That same day, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and
attached a proposed second amended complaint.
In addition to the claims previously asserted, the proposed second
amended complaint adds federal antitrust claims and consumer
protection claims under other states' laws. The second amended
complaint also names Accredo Health Group, CVS Health Corporation,
Express Scripts, Inc., Express Scripts Holding company, and the
Adira Foundation as additional defendants.
On October 27, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend and denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion seeking
clarification. On that same day, the plaintiffs filed the second
amended complaint.
United Therapeutics Corporation is a biotechnology company based in
Maryland.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Rojas' Breach of Contract Claim Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellant v.
ANTHONY ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Appellee, Case No. 1D21-3430 (Fla. Dist. App.), the
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reverses the
portion of the trial court's order denying the University's motion
to dismiss the breach of contract claim and affirms the rest of the
order.
When COVID-19 first impacted Florida in Spring 2020, the State
University System Board of Governors directed Florida's public
universities to commence online learning. Soon after, the
University of Florida instructed its students to leave campus and
closed its on-campus facilities. The University remained partially
closed during the spring and summer semesters of 2020. During this
time, classes were offered online, and students were advised to
remain off campus. Yet students were still required to pay various
fees along with their tuition (such as an activity and service fee,
a health fee, a transportation access fee, and an athletic fee).
This prompted graduate student Rojas to file a class action
complaint against the University. On behalf of all similarly
situated students, he alleged that the University's failure to
offer on-campus services or refund the related fees for those
impacted semesters constituted a breach of contract.
Rojas attached several documents to the complaint in support of his
claim, including a Spring 2020 tuition statement, a general
statement of tuition and various fee estimates for the 2019-2020
academic year, and a copy of the University's financial liability
agreement. Rojas asserted that these documents, in the aggregate,
made up an express written contract between him and the University
"for specific on-campus resources and services during the Spring
and Summer 2020 terms." Rojas also alleged an unjust enrichment
claim.
The University moved to dismiss, arguing that both claims were
barred by sovereign immunity. The trial court dismissed the unjust
enrichment claim but allowed the breach of contract claim to
proceed. The appeal followed under Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.130, which authorizes appellate review of non-final
orders that deny a motion that "asserts entitlement to sovereign
immunity."
The District Court of Appeal reviews the trial court's conclusion
that sovereign immunity does not bar Rojas' breach of contract
claim against the University of Florida Board of Trustee. Upon
review, it opines that because the assorted documents attached to
the complaint do not constitute an express written contract
sufficient to overcome sovereign immunity, the trial court should
have dismissed the claim.
Because state universities and colleges across Florida are facing
lawsuits like the one here, the District Court of Appeals also
certifies the following question of great public importance to the
Florida Supreme Court: "Whether sovereign immunity bars a breach of
contract claim against a state university based on the university's
failure to provide its students with access to on-campus services
and facilities?"
In sum, The District Court of Appeal cannot conclude that the
University entered an express written contract with Rojas that
obligated it to provide specific services at a specific time in a
specific way. It therefore reverses the portion of the trial
court's order denying the University's motion to dismiss the breach
of contract claim. It affirms the rest of the order.
The District Court of Appeal is sympathetic to Rojas and all other
students whose on-campus experiences were clipped short and
rendered non-existent by the University's response to COVID-19. And
if there were a sufficient contract attached to his complaint, it
would affirm the trial court without hesitation. But without such
an express, written agreement (and with no indication by the
University that it consents to suit, nor any express statutory
waiver by the Legislature to allow students such as Rojas to
proceed with these types of claims), sovereign immunity bars the
action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2mvactex from Leagle.com.
Robert J. Sniffen -- rsniffen@sniffenlaw.com -- Matthew Joseph
Carson -- mcarson@sniffenlaw.com -- and Jeffrey D. Slanker --
jslanker@sniffenlaw.com -- Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., Tallahassee,
for the Appellant.
Adam A. Schwartzbaum -- adams@moskowitz-law.com -- Adam Moskowitz
-- adam@moskowitz-law.com -- Howard Bushman --
howard@moskowitz-law.com -- Barbara Lewis --
barbara@moskowitz-law.com -- The Moskowitz Law Firm, Coral Gables,
for the Appellee.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Sherman Sues Over Gender-Based Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Sherman, and others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF
MIAMI, a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, Case No. 158495109
(Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 3, 2022), is
brought unpaid wages and damages under the Equal Pay Act Of 1963
("EPA"), for damages pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964; and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, to redress
injuries resulting from Defendant's unlawful gender-based
discriminatory treatment of and retaliation against the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff's workload was equal to or greater than her male
counterparts that were paid significantly higher wages. Throughout
Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant has consistently hired women
at considerably lower rates than plaintiff, a female, such that the
salary structure has resulted in a substantial disparity between
the male and female employees in each category, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff commenced working for the Defendant as Lecturer for
the Frost School of Music at the University of Miami on August,
2019.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation
conducting business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel H. Hunt, Esq.
P.O. Box 565096
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: 305-495-5593
Email: dhuntlaw@gmail.com
VALDEZ PAINTING: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valdez Painting,
Incorporated, et al. case is styled as Juan Rodriguez, individually
and on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. Valdez Painting,
Incorporated, Does 1-20, Case No. CGC22602121 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Oct. 3, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Valdez Painting -- http://valdez-painting.com/-- is a painter in
Sacramento, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
VIA QUADRONNO: Court Strikes Collective Action Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUNYUNG CHENG, SHIGUANG
CHEN, and MARCIANO E. ESPINAL, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. VIA QUADRONNO LLC, VIA QUADRONNO 88
STREET, ANTICA BOTTEGA DEL VINO, KING CHUNG LAM a/k/a KC LAM, XIU
YONG CHEN, and John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:20-cv-08903-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting
the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and summary
judgment and to strike the collective action allegations, the class
action allegations, and the jury demand.
This is a labor law action brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1947 and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
Via Quadronno closed temporarily in March 2020 because of the
COVID-19 pandemic and did not reopen until early May 2020.
The Plaintiff Cheng worked at Antica Bottega, Via Quadronno and
VQ88 as a chef, making panini and salads. Cheng worked at Antica
Bottega in 2014 until sometime in September 2014. Cheng commenced
working at VQ88 in September 2014 and continued working there
through 2015 and 2016. In addition, starting in approximately
February 2016, Cheng began working one or two days per week at Via
Quadronno. Cheng began working exclusively at Via Quadronno in
approximately January 2018 and continued working there until March
16, 2020.
The Defendants argue that they should be granted judgment on the
pleadings to the extent that the Third Amended Complaint purports
to assert claims other than those for unpaid overtime and failure
to deliver wage notices under the NYLL.
Via Quadronno on the Upper East Side is an Italian restaurant, best
known for its cappuccinos and paninis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3gq7kX1at no extra charge.[CC]
VISION SERVICE PLAN: Vergara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vision Service Plan,
et al. The case is styled as Nila Vergara, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vision Service Plan, Volt Management Corp.,
Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00329892-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Nov. 16, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
VSP Vision Care -- https://www.vsp.com/ -- is a vision care health
insurance company operating in Australia, Canada, Ireland, the
United States, and the United Kingdom.[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
VOLTA INC: Chau Sues Over WARN Act Violation
--------------------------------------------
Danny Chau, Hong Zhu, Jan Somers, Jessica Seto, Kenneth Heyen,
Kiersten Stanton, Leah Schunk, Maureen Mcbirney, Masaya Takahashi,
Saul Tooley, Talon Jones, Teena Kirchner, and Zachary Mondo, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. VOLTA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; VOLTA CHARGING INDUSTRIES, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-07247 (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 17, 2022), is brought for violations and ongoing and
anticipated further violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, (the "WARN Act"), as well as the
California WARN Act (the "CA WARN Act").
The Defendants have effectuated several layoffs and furloughs
beginning in October 2022, including one furlough on October 21,
2022, which impacted approximately 110 employees and another
furlough on October 31, 2022, which impacted approximately 30 more
employees. At no time did Volta provide 60 days of advance notice
of the furloughs as required under both the WARN Act and the CA
WARN Act.
The Plaintiffs file this action seeking damages and to ensure
compliance with the law requiring the requisite notice or severance
payment in connection with the furloughs and that the Defendants
not solicit releases of claims of any employees without informing
them of the pendency of this action and their right to pursue
claims for violations of the WARN Act and CA WARN Act. The
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and immediate injunctive relief,
precluding the Defendants from circumventing the requirements of
the WARN Act and the CA WARN Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed at Volta.
Volta is in the business of building and installing charging
stations for electric vehicles and placing those charging stations
at locations throughout the United States where, once installed,
they charge electric vehicles and generate advertising revenue
through advertisements displayed on the charging apparatus.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
Paul K. Pfeilschiefter, Esq.
CERA LLP
201 California Street, Suite 1240
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 777-2230
Email: scera@cerallp.com
tbright@cerallp.com
p.pfeilschiefter@cerallp.com
VRC COMPANIES: Overcharge Medical Records' Expense, Anderson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VRC COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a
VITALCHART; URGENT CARE GROUP, LLC d/b/a MEDCARE URGENT CARE - MT.
PLEASANT; and DAVID WRIGHT, MD, Defendants, Case No. 2022CP100530
(S.C. Com. Pleas, Charleston Cty., Nov. 16, 2022) is an action
against the Defendants' overcharging of expense in securing
patient's medical records.
According to the complaint, when patients' medical records are
requested by their attorneys, the Defendants systemically charge
more for copies of the patients' records than is permitted by South
Carolina law. Unfortunately, individual patients typically bear the
ultimate responsibility for the costs of these overcharges, says
the suit.
Throughout the state of South Carolina, the Defendants have
allegedly taken patients' attorneys' rights to access their medical
records and unlawfully profited at patients' expense. The
Defendants continue to do so to this day.
VRC COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a VITALCHART owns a medical record retrieval
software that lets patients request records without hospital visits
or follow-up calls. [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
WALMART INC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Toblesky Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM TOBLESKY, individually and on behalf of those
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00157-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ken., Nov. 15, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's failure to pay wages and overtime at the
statutory rate to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages
and Hours Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant Walmart, Inc. in the last
three years. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked a position
that was non-exempt under the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff's
duties consisted primarily of unloading trucks of inventory at the
Hanson, Kentucky Walmart.
Walmart Inc. 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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
P.O. Box 869
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-1303
E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
WALMART INC: Merck FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MERCK, individually
and as a representative of the class, v. WALMART INC., Case No.
:20-cv-02908-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed 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;"
2. appointing him to serve as Class Representative;
3. appointing Berger Montague PC and Terrell Marshall Law
Group, PLLC to serve as Class Counsel; and
4. directing the parties to meet and confer and to submit a
proposed notice plan and form of notice within a
reasonable time.
According to the complaint, Walmart did not send proposed class
members a copy of the report on which the company relied when it
decided not to hire them. Instead, Walmart sent a different version
of the report, that omitted critical information. Walmart relied on
for its decision not to hire, namely a code that purported to
indicate that class members had failed to disclose their criminal
histories during the application process. That supposed failure was
used to automatically
disqualify class members from employment with Walmart.
During the Class Period, Walmart contracted with non-party consumer
reporting agency Sterling Infosystems to provide Walmart with
background reports on potential employees. Pursuant to that
contract, Sterling not only identified and included criminal
records associated with an applicant on their report, Sterling also
compared the criminal records with information the
applicant disclosed during the application process and made a
determination as to whether the applicant had fully disclosed their
criminal record to Walmart.
As the Court noted, "in this case, Mr. Merck alleges that Walmart
failed to provide a copy of the report that it actually relied upon
before taking an adverse employment action against him. This is
synonymous with providing no report at all." The Plaintiff has
adequately alleged that he was deprived of the benefit afforded by
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to demonstrate standing under
Article III.
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 to certify class dated Nov. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EmEdvzat
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
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
enusser@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Michael J Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
mwilson@meyerwilson.com
WALT DISNEY: Biddle Sues Over Anticompetitive Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Biddle, Jeffrey Kaplan, Zachary Roberts, and Joel Wilson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
WALT DISNEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-07317
(N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2022), is brought as an antitrust lawsuit
against Disney to remediate and recover for Disney's
anticompetitive agreements with direct competitors in the market
for streaming live pay television ("SLPTV")--live television
streamed over the Internet to paying subscribers.
The Plaintiffs bring this suit under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
to, among other things, recover the near doubling of their
subscription prices as a result of Disney's anticompetitive
agreements with YouTube TV and other SLPTV providers.
Disney operates these businesses (ESPN and Hulu) as a single
economic entity, allowing it to negotiate horizontal,
anticompetitive carriage agreements for ESPN and ESPN-related
channels, which are the largest cost input to SLPTV products in the
United States. Disney's carriage agreements with its SLPTV
competitors contain two terms that provide Disney pricing power
over the entire market. First, Disney's carriage agreements contain
language requiring that base or lowest-priced bundles offered by
SLPTV providers must include ESPN. Second, Disney's carriage
agreements include Most Favored Nation ("MFN") clauses that put
upward price pressure on every rival SLPTV product.
Together, these carriage agreement mandates--which now cover all of
Disney's leading competitors in the SLPTV Market--allow Disney to
use ESPN and Hulu to set a price floor in the SLPTV Market and to
inflate prices marketwide by raising the prices of its own
products. And this is exactly what Disney has done in the past
three years, since it took operational control of Hulu. Since
Disney acquired operational control over Hulu in May 2019, prices
across the SLPTV Market, including for YouTube TV, have doubled.
This dramatic, marketwide price inflation has been led by Disney's
own price hikes for Hulu + Live TV, and has directly tracked
Disney's competitor-by-competitor negotiation of new SLPTV carriage
agreements over this time period.
As for YouTube TV, controlled by tech giant Alphabet, Inc.
("Google"), Google's carriage agreements with Disney have resulted
in a near-100% price increase of YouTube TV's base package, from
$35 to $65. And indeed, during hard-nosed carriage agreement
renegotiations in late 2021, YouTube TV publicly stated that absent
its agreement with Disney, it would provide an ESPN-less base plan
at $15 less than it otherwise charged for its baseline product.
Disney has entered into horizontal agreements with terms that
directly increase SLPTV prices, set a price floor for the entire
market, reduce consumer choice, and strengthen significant barriers
to entry. The Plaintiffs, who are SLPTV direct purchasers from
Disney's co-conspirator and largest counterparty YouTube TV, seek
damages as well as injunctive relief to halt and unwind Disney's
anticompetitive practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are subscribers to YouTube TV, which is the largest
provider of live television streamed over the Internet.
Disney owns, operates, and controls the second largest SLPTV
provider, Hulu, which provides an SLPTV product called Hulu + Live
TV; and also controls ESPN, the largest cost input into every SLPTV
product in the country.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (332) 322-8835
Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
901 South MoPac Expressway
Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (213) 462-2772
Email: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
WATERBEAN COFFEE: Conner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Conner, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. GOLDIN AUCIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00531-FDW-DCK
(W.D.N.C., Oct. 5, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Waterbean provides to their non-disabled customers through
http//:www.Waterbean.coffee (hereinafter "Waterbean.coffee" or "the
website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the
technology in use at other heavily trafficked retail websites,
which makes use of alternative text, accessible forms, descriptive
links, resizable text and limits the usage of tables and
JavaScript, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively
visual interface. Waterbean's sighted customers can independently
browse, select, and buy online without the assistance of others.
However, blind persons must rely on sighted companions to assist
them in accessing and purchasing on Waterbean.coffee. By failing to
make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is
violating basic equal access requirements under both state and
federal law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant owns and operates the Waterbean Coffee Shops, which
is a place of public accommodation and maintains nine Coffee Shops
in the Charlotte metropolitan area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC
2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200
Matthews, NC 28105
Phone: (704) 814-0729
Facsimile: (704) 814-0730
Email: srg@gohillaw.com
- and -
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
WEXFORD HEALTH: Swearingen Seeks Health Technicians' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINNA SWEARINGEN, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-03242-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill., Nov. 15, 2022) alleges the
Defendant's failure to pay all earned wages, earned overtime for
time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks, and
straight-time wages in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiff worked for WHS as an hourly health technician from
approximately 2010 to September 2020.
Wexford Health Sources Inc. is a healthcare services company that
contracts with governmental entities to provide healthcare services
and staff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 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.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
WHAT COMES AROUND: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against What Comes Around
Goes Around, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. What Comes Around
Goes Around, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07075-NGG-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
What Goes Around Comes Around -- https://www.whatgoesaroundnyc.com/
-- also known as "WGACA" is the premier purveyor of the finest
luxury vintage accessories and apparel from around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Byars Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arisha Byars, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Whirlpool Corporation, Does 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2215944, was removed from the Superior
Court of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Nov. 16, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-02030 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Petition To
Enforce INS Subpoena.
Lightricks -- https://www.lightricks.com/ -- develops creativity
tools that enable its users to craft and share visual content on
mobile devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Rachel Aleeza Straus, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
2049 Century Park East Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 285-8330
Fax: (424) 204-9093
Email: rstraus@shb.com
WILCO LIFE: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 20, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE GRUNDSTROM,
Individually, and as successor-in-interest to DR. RICHARD I.
APPLETON and on Behalf of the Class, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03445-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order that the
completion of discovery and the briefing of Plaintiff's motion for
class certification shall proceed according to the following
schedule:
-- Deadline to complete fact January 16, 2023
and expert discovery related
to class certification motion:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to March 20, 2023
file motion for class
certification:
Wilco Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AwvXIeat no extra charge.[CC]
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Discrimination-Related Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2022, that a
discrimination-related class suit is ongoing in the Northern
District Court of Illinois.
On May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative
class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust
Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.
Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against
black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter
42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of
promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract.
The Company vigorously dispute these allegations, believe them to
be legally and factually meritless, and otherwise lack sufficient
information to estimate the amount of any potential liability.
Wintrust Financial Corp. is a public Illinois corporation
headquartered in Rosemont, Illinois. Wintrust is a financial
holding company that operates 15 chartered community banks in
northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin.
WORLDWIDE COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldwide Comics,
Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Worldwide Comics, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09776 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Worldwide Comics -- https://www.wwcomics.com/ -- is in the Comic
Books business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
XPO LOGISTICS: Labul Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, 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 November 2, 2022,
that on December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned "Labul
v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al." was filed in the U.S. District court
for the District of Connecticut against the company and some of its
current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On March 19, 2021, the court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice, and on June 30, 2022, the U.S. court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The case is now concluded.
XPO Logistics, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is a provider
of freight transportation services based in Connecticut.
ZEBIT INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zebit, Inc. The case
is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Zebit, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09822-JMF-JLC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zebit, Inc. -- https://preview.zebit.com/ -- provides consumer
finance solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
*********
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 ***