/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221214.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 14, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 243
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Baybridge Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Caughman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Cuttle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Dermer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Happel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ACER AMERICA: Volinsky Sues Over Defective Laptop Computers
ALDI INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALUDYNE US: Underpays Machine Operators, Small Suit Alleges
AMERICAN LICORICE: Murray Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ANCESTRY.COM: Sessa Suit Seeks to Certify Nevada Resident Class
AXE AND SLEDGE: Gonzales Sues Over Unlawfully Oversized Packaging
BAUER HOCKEY: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Barber
BIG BEAVER: Xu Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB: Alves Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Vonbergen Sues for Breach of Wiretapping Act
BYLAND TRANSPORTATION: Crosby Sues Over Breach of Contract
CALIFORNIA: Seeks Denial of M.C. Class Certification Bid
CAPITAL ONE: Liou Sues Over Deceptive Business Marketing
CHICAGO, IL: Federal Judge Ruling in Arrest Policy Suit Discussed
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Revised Scheduling Order Sought
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Sunscreens' Label "Deceptive," Schneider Says
COMMAND INVESTIGATIONS: McCartney Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CONAGRA BRANDS: Agrees to Settle Mislabeling Class Suit for $3-Mil.
CREDIT CONTROL: Medina FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP: Dunham Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
CURALEAF INC: Kelley Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
CVS PHARMACY INC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DD TRADERS INC: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEMERT BRANDS: Zamora Files Suit in S.D. Florida
DEUTSCHE BANK: Civil Case Management Plan Entered
DOLLAR GENERAL: Button Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Quinn Suit Transferred to S.D. Nebraska
EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Nguyen Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND: Martinez Files FCRA Suit in D. Maryland
ENERGY PLUS: Guaman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GATEWAY REHABILITATION: Lucarelli Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
GEICO CORP: Overcharges Car Drivers' Insurance, Class Suit Says
GEICO INDEMNITY: Dinicola-Ortiz Files Suit in D. New Jersey
GENERAL MOTORS: Allowed Leave to File Opposition in Excess Pages
GEORGIA PACIFIC: Blankinship Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
GIESEN MANAGEMENT: Emory Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
GILEAD SCIENCES: EPP's Plan on Class Certification Notice OK'd
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Additional Pages for Class Cert Briefs Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: Falberg Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 2nd Cir.
GOTHAM HALL: Settecasi Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Court
GOTO TECHNOLOGIES: Debt Cleanse Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
HIBBETT INC: Moats FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
HRB DIGITAL: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HYRECAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Baron Rule 10b-5 Claims Junked
IMAGO BIOSCIENCES: M&A Class Suit Firm Probes Securities Violations
JACK SKEEN: Reule, et al., Seek to Certify Two Defendant Classes
JC HAMBURGERS: Palma-Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
JEFF R. CONSTRUCTION: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Berger Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
JP MORGAN: Civil Case Management Plan Entered
JP MORGAN: Curtis Sues Over Money Transfer System Fraud
KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: Hagle Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Campbell Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
KNACKSHOPS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KNOWBE4 INC: Monteverde & Associates Probes Securities Violations
L'OREAL USA: Faces Suit Over Dry Shampoo Benzene Contamination
L'OREAL USA: Faces Wall Suit Over Adulterated Hair Straighteners
L'OREAL USA: Zimmerman Sues Over Cosmetics' SPF Protection Claims
LAKELAND BANCORP: M&A Class Suit Firm Probes Securities Violations
LARUCE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LB GRAY LLC: Josey Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee
LE SPORTSAC: Murphy Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
LEGACY HEALTH: Hunter Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 17, 2023
LEVEL SALON: Czajka Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LG ELECTRONICS: Hernandez Sues Over Defective Refrigerators
LOVISA JEWELLERY: May Face Suit Over Underpayment, Mistreatment
LYONS MAGNUS: Speaks Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
M X PAN INCORPORATED: Duan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
M.C. DEAN INC: Domitrovich Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
MAXSOLD INC: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Vanderbrug Says
MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: DiCroce Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir.
META PLATFORMS: Texas Nationalist Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Bryant Sues Over Automated Telemarketing
NEOGENOMICS INC: Goldenberg Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
NEW ALTERNATIVES: Guillen Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
NEW RACEPATH INC: Porter Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Retirees' Illegal Charges of Plans
NOMI HEALTH: Alexis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
NOT YOUR MOTHER'S: Class Action Sparks Concerns About Dry Shampoos
NUTRISHUS BRANDS: Michael Files Suit in C.D. California
PACTIV PACKAGING: Ram Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PERKINELMER INC: Lamb Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Workers
PINK LILY: Florio Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
PITTSBURGH REGIONAL: Sued Over Religious Discrimination
POPPY & POUT: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Action Claims Lozenges Do Not Contain Lemon
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Blumenfeld Files Suit Over FCDPA Breach
PUGET SOUND ENERGY: Cheney Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
PULTE HOME: Mount Seeks OK of Renewed Class Status Bid
REALPAGE INC: Armas Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
REALPAGE INC: Crook Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
REALPAGE INC: Morgan Sues Over Artificially Raised Rental Prices
REVERSE MORTGAGE: Willis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Perez Suit
SUPERVALU INC: Sheiner Sues Over Patches' "8 Hrs. of Relief" Label
SURREY BANCORP: M&A Class Action Firm Probes Securities Violations
SYNGENTA CROP: R & D Adams Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
T.J. MAXX OF CA: Gancinia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Edgar Sues Over Improper Blocking of Products
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Wren Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir.
TRUE VALUE: Sineni Sues for Invasion of Privacy
UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Product Marketing
UNITED SERVICES: Additional Fact & Discovery Due Jan. 27, 2023
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: MSSNY Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
VALLEY HEALTH: Neidig Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
VINTAGE WINE: Salbenblatt Sues Over Share Price Drop
WALMART INC: Goldstein Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
WIRELESS ADVOCATES: Perez Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
ZILLOW GROUP: Margulis Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
[*] UK Businesses Subject to Competition Suit Censured by Tribunal
*********
3M COMPANY: Baybridge Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-------------------------------------------------------
Norwood Baybridge and Pamela Baybridge, his wife, and other
similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:22-cv-03777-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 31,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Norwood Baybridge regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career and was diagnosed with prostate cancer
and/or other medical conditions related as a result of exposure to
the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr, Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Caughman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Caughman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:22-cv-03761-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 31,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career and was
diagnosed with tonsil cancer as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr, Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Cuttle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Cuttle, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:22-cv-03746-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 28,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr. , Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Dermer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Dermer and Denise M. Barofski, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:22-cv-03762-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Daniel Dermer regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr, Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Happel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bennett, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:22-cv-03747-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 28,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
nasopharyngeal cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr. , Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ACER AMERICA: Volinsky Sues Over Defective Laptop Computers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Volinsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Acer America Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 8:22-cv-02704-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., Nov. 28, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for false and misleading advertising;
breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act; negligent misrepresentation; fraud; unjust
enrichment; and for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud Acts.
Acer America Corporation manufactures, markets, and sells laptop
computers, such as the Spin 1 SP111-33 under the Acer brand. The
Defendant markets its laptops with the representations that they
are built to last, are technologically advanced, and will remain in
proper working condition for years to come.
According to the complaint, despite the marketing of the Product as
capable of functioning reliably and remaining in proper working
condition for years to come, it did not function reliably or remain
free of flaws, damage, or structural deficiencies. The hinge
mechanism of the Product was defective, in that it was made of
low-quality and/or low-strength materials, which caused the hinges
to break and/or detach, says the suit.
Had Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers known the
truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid
less for it. As a result of the false and misleading
representations, the Product is sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than $399.99, excluding tax and sales, higher
than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and
higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading
representations and omissions, the suit alleges.
Acer America Corporation provides computers for consumers and
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P-300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ALDI INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christina Garcia, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Aldi Inc., AI
California, LLC, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV30254
was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 27,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07851-JAK-PLA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
ALDI Inc. -- https://www.aldi.us/ -- operates as a supermarket. The
Company offers groceries, meat, fresh produce, wine, beer,
beverages, and other home products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meghan Nichole Higday, Esq.
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP PC
1801 Century Park East Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 612-2627
Fax: (310) 862-6851
Email: mh@melmedlaw.com
jm@melmedlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan Durham, Esq.
4600 Northgate Boulevard Suite 145
Sacramento, CA 95834
Phone: (916) 800-2531
Fax: (888) 321-4869
The Defendants are represented by:
Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq.
Laura Wilson Shelby, Esq.
Leo Q Li, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Fax: (310) 201-5219
Email: sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com
lshelby@seyfarth.com
lli@seyfarth.com
ALUDYNE US: Underpays Machine Operators, Small Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT C. SMALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALUDYNE US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00984 (M.D. Tenn., December 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a machine operator.
Aludyne US LLC is a light weighting components supplier to the
mobility industry, with its principal office in Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
AMERICAN LICORICE: Murray Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Murray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN LICORICE CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00927-DRL-MGG
(N.D. Ind., Nov. 4, 2022), is brought to challenge policies and
practices of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to pay overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours in a workweek in the last
three years, including donning and doffing time, associated travel,
and, at times, COVID screenings. The Plaintiff was not paid for all
of the time spent donning and doffing their sanitary clothing and
other protective equipment, washing their hands, associated travel,
waiting time, and COVID screenings. As a result of the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees not being paid for all hours
worked, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were
not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked in
excess of 40 each workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee who was paid on an hourly basis for two months.
The Defendant manufactures, package, distribute, and sell food
products, in particular various candies, in Indiana and
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 230-2944
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
ANCESTRY.COM: Sessa Suit Seeks to Certify Nevada Resident Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SESSA AND MARK
SESSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation;
ANCESTRY.COM,INC., a Delaware Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW
(D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following Class pursuant to Rule 23(a), Rule
23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3):
"All persons:
(1) who are Nevada residents or were Nevada residents at any
time between December 17, 2017, and the present;
(2) who are not paying subscribers, free trial users, or
registered users of Ancestry.com and have never donated a
yearbook to Ancestry; and
(3) for whom one or more of their yearbook photographs were
searchable on Ancestry.com at any time between December
17, 2017, and the present.
The Plaintiffs further request the Order appoint them as Class
Representatives and appoint Morgan & Morgan LLP, Turke & Strauss
LLP, Law Offices of Miles N. Clark, LLC, and the Law Office of
Benjamin R. Osborn as Class Counsel.
Ancestry.com provides online family genealogy information and
resources.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BhzcE6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
Telephone: (702) 856-7430
Facsimile: (702) 552-2370
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
102 Bergen Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (347) 645-0464
E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, Wisconsin 53703-3515
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
AXE AND SLEDGE: Gonzales Sues Over Unlawfully Oversized Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AXE AND SLEDGE SUPPLEMENTS INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. 30-2022-01289011-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 31, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant who has violated the California
Consumers Legal Remedies by deceptively selling the Products in
oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that
they are nearly ha1f empty.
The Defendant manufactures and sells popular line of workout
prefinance products, "Farmfed Grassfed Whey Protein Isolate",
throughout the United States (the "Products"). To increase profits
at the expense of consumers and competition, Defendant deceptively
sells the Products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably
inform consumers that they are nearly ha1f empty. Defendant's
slack-fill scam extends to all flavors its Products sold in opaque
containers. The Defendant dupes unsuspecting consumers across
America pay premium prices for empty space.
The Defendant markets the Products in systematically misleading
manner by representing them as adequately filled when, in fact,
they contain an unlawful amount of empty space or "slack fill." The
Defendant underfills the products for no lawful reason. The front
of the products packaging does not include any information that
would reasonably apprise the Plaintiff of the quantity of the
product relative to the size of the container, such as a fill
line.
The Defendant underfills the products to save money by not filling
the containers and deceived consumers into purchasing the products
over its competitors' products. The Defendants slacko-fill scheme
not only harms consumers, but it also harms its competitors who
have implemented labeling changes designed to alert consumers to
the true amount of product in each container.
The Plaintiff and consumers have thus suffered injuries in fact
caused by the false, unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and misleading
practices and seek injunctive relief, as well as inter alia,
compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution and attorneys'
fees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Product for personal use in
May or June of 2022 from a Walmart in Irvin, California.
The Defendant manufactures and sells popular line of workout
prefinance products, "Farmfed Grassfed Whey Protein Isolate",
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Bar No. 202091
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax:(949)706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattomeys.com
BAUER HOCKEY: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Barber
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barber v. Bauer Hockey,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00742 (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Samantha D.
Elliott entered an order granting motion to extend
class-certification deadlines.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Bauer Hockey is an American manufacturer of ice hockey equipment,
fitness and recreational skates and apparel. Bauer produces
helmets, gloves, sticks, skates, shin guards, pants, shoulder pads,
elbow pads, hockey jocks and compression underwear, as well as
goalie equipment.[CC]
BIG BEAVER: Xu Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY XU, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BIG BEAVER SS No.
205, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Corporation, VAN DYKE SS No.
206, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Corporation, SOLYCO CAPITAL,
LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-12124-DPH-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Collective, defined as:
"All current and former hourly nonexempt servers (front of
the house employees) who were employed at any of
Defendants' Savvy Sliders restaurants at any time within
three years of the filing of the complaint;"
1. Implementing a procedure to send Court-approved Notice of
this action to putative members of the proposed Collective
via US Mail and email;
2. Requiring Defendants to identify all putative members of
the proposed Collective by providing a list of their
names, last known addresses, dates and locations of
employment, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in
electronic and importable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet, within 14 days of the entry of the order;
3. Approving a 60 day opt-in period from the date the Court-
approved Notice is sent during which putative members of
the Collective may join this case by returning their
written consents; and
4. Approving the short reminder Notice to be sent to the
Collective via text message 30 days into the opt-in
period.
Pursuant to L.R. 7.1, on November 14, 2022, and again on November
30, 2022, the parties conducted a conference on the present motion
in which the Plaintiff explained the nature of the motion and
requested concurrence. However, Defendant
did not concur in the relief sought.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FyXCv6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48178
Telephone: (734) 234-5583
E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Gerald D. Wahl, Esq.
STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy, Ste. 205
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2913
Telephone: (248) 633-8916
E-mail: gwahl@sterlingattorneys.com
BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB: Alves Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BJ's WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., Case No. 22-2509-BLSI (Mass.
Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Nov. 3, 2022), is brought against BJS for
wiretapping the personal and private electronic communications of
visitors to its website, www.bjs.com, without their consent in
violation of the the Massachusetts Wiretapping Act, the
Massachusetts Invasion of Privacy Statute, and constitutes a
general invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors.
BJS procures and directs third-party vendors, such as Microsoft
Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code
("Session Replay Code") on BJS's website, which then deploys on
each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose of
intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic
communications with the BJS website, including their mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an
information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time ("Website
Communications"). These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session
Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at
BJS's request.
After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, BJS
and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications
to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.bjs.com. The
Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's
behavior on the website and provide it to BJS for analysis. BJS'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 BJS website for
the entire duration of their website interaction, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff visited www.bjs.com on his computer and cell phone to
shop for tires in late 2021 and early 2022.
BJS operates the website www.bjs.com. BJS is an online and
brick-and-mortar wholesale store, offering products such as grocery
items, electronics, furniture, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Carey Alexander, Esq.
Ethan S. Binder, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Fax: (212) 223-6334
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
calexander@scott-scott.com
ebinder@scott-scott.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Vonbergen Sues for Breach of Wiretapping Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY VONBERGEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMINGDALES.COM, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-04724 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 28, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act stemming from its unlawful
interception of Plaintiff's and Class members' electronic
communications through the use of "session replay" spyware.
According to the complaint, the Defendant utilized the spyware,
namely Fullstory, 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,
stored, and recorded electronic communications regarding the
webpages visited by Plaintiff and the Class members, as well as
everything the Plaintiff and the Class members did on those pages,
e.g., what they searched for, what they looked at, the information
they inputted, and what they clicked on, the suit alleges.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks damages authorized by the
WESCA on behalf of herself and the Class members, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies to which they are entitled,
says the suit.
Bloomingdales.com, LLC operates a chain of department stores that
offers clothing, shoes, handbags, wallets, and accessories for men
and women.[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
BYLAND TRANSPORTATION: Crosby Sues Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Crosby, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BYLAND TRANSPORTATION LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05962 (N.D.
Ill., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for breach
of contract and violations of the Truth in Leasing Act.
The Plaintiff entered into an independent contract agreement
("Lease Agreement") with Defendant to transport good in interstate
commerce under Defendant's carrier license. Under the Lease
Agreement, the Defendant agreed to pay Crosby 80% of the gross
revenue payable for each load that Crosby hauled with his equipment
under Defendant's carrier license. TILA regulations required
Defendant to make certain disclosures to the Plaintiff regarding
his compensation and deductions from his pay. Specifically, the
Defendant was required to provide Plaintiff with the original
brokers' rate confirmation sheets for each load he hauled at or
before the time of settlement (pay).
The Defendant refused to provide Plaintiff with rate confirmation
sheets at or before the time of settlement. Instead, Defendant
communicated the price of the load directly to Plaintiff by phone,
text, or email. The Defendant lied and under-reported the load
rates (or prices) in its communications with Plaintiff and in
Plaintiff's settlement (pay) statements.
On September 7, 2022, after Plaintiff terminated his contract with
Defendant, Plaintiff, through counsel, sent Defendant a letter
demanding the original brokers' rate confirmation sheets. On
September 16, 2022, Defendant emailed Plaintiff's counsel copies of
what it claimed to be the original brokers' rate confirmation
sheets for loads that Plaintiff hauled with his equipment. The
Plaintiff and his counsel then called some of the brokers to
confirm the prices of the loads. Certain of the brokers reported
higher load rates than those listed on the confirmation sheets
Defendant provided to Plaintiff's counsel.
The Defendant altered the confirmation sheets before sending them
to the Plaintiff's counsel in order to make it appear that the
price on the rate confirmation sheets matched the amount that it
previously quoted to Plaintiff before he delivered the load. The
Plaintiff's counsel informed Defendant that he knew the
confirmation sheets had been secretly altered and demanded that the
Defendant produced the original, unaltered, rate confirmation
sheets. The Defendant violated the TILA rules by not adhering to
the terms of its lease agreement with Plaintiff., says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has a CDL Class A license and worked for Defendant as
an owner-operator from May to September 2022.
Byland is a federally licensed motor carrier that enters into
contracts with owner-operators to use their semi-trucks, with or
without a driver, to transport goods under its motor carrier
license.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
Emily R. Brown, Esq.
HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM
70 W. Madison St., Ste. 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 580-0100
Email: cwilmes@hsplegal.com
ebrown@hsplegal.com
CALIFORNIA: Seeks Denial of M.C. Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.C., a minor, by and
through his guardian ad litem S.B., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,. v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (CDE), Case No.
2:20-cv-09127-CBM-E (C.D. Cal.), CDE asks the Court to enter an
order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 denying class
certification to the putative class action of Plaintiff M.C. a
minor, by and through his guardian ad litem S.B., on behalf of
themselves.
The California Department of Education is an agency within the
Government of California that oversees public education. The
department oversees funding and testing, and holds local
educational agencies accountable for student achievement.
Los Angeles Unified School District is a public school district in
Los Angeles, California.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pozwqt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The California Department of Education is represented by:
Len Garfinkel, Esq.
Sarah Kalas Bancroft, Esq.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1430 N Street, Suite 5319
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 319-0860
Facsimile: (916) 322-2549
E-mail: sbancroft@cde.ca.gov
CAPITAL ONE: Liou Sues Over Deceptive Business Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Liou, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., Case No.
3:22-cv-06299-ZNQ-RLS (D.N.J., Oct. 27, 2022), is brought seeking
remedy for Defendant's deceptive business practice in marketing,
advertising, and promotion of its credit card pre-approval services
in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the New Jersey Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and New
Jersey's Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act.
The Defendant extensively markets credit cards and its pre-approval
process to consumers via its website and mobile application.
Specifically, the Defendant engages in a bait-and-switch tactic to
lure unwitting customers into applying for its credit card
services. The Defendant represents uniformly in its advertisements
and marketing that customers can get pre-approved for one of the
Defendant's credit cards, a process which would not affect their
credit score.
In reality, the Defendant induces customers to apply for an actual
credit card through use of dark patterns, resulting in damage to
the customers' credit score by lowering the score via a hard credit
pull. Capital One runs a hard inquiry on customers' credit reports
which lowers their credit score in direct contradiction to
Defendant's representation that applying for pre-approval will not
have a negative effect on their credit score.
As a large financial institution, the Defendant knew or should have
known that its dark pattern tactics were misleading, deceptive,
and/or false and lacked a reasonable basis. The Defendant omitted
material facts, including the fact that customers would experience
a hard credit pull by applying for its credit cards. As a result of
the Defendant's representations and omissions, the Plaintiff and
other reasonable consumers reasonably and justifiably relied on
Capital One's misstatements, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff applied for pre-approval for the Defendant's Credit
Card and had their credit hard pulled as a result.
Capital One is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards,
auto loans, and banking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: 856-772-7200
Fax: 856-210-9088
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
James Chung, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CHUNG
43-22 216th Street
Bayside, NY 11361
Phone: (718) 461-8808
Email: Jchung_77@msn.com
CHICAGO, IL: Federal Judge Ruling in Arrest Policy Suit Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Byrnes at courthousenews.com reports that a federal civil
rights class action challenging Chicago's policy to hold detainees
over weekends and holidays hit a major hurdle, when a federal judge
dismissed all but one of the plaintiffs from the suit.
The case, first filed in February 2020, argues that it's
unconstitutional for those arrested on weekends and court holidays
to have to wait until the next business day to post bond. A Chicago
Police Department directive takes the exact opposite stance,
expressly prohibiting those arrested on weekends and court holidays
from posting bond at the police station in which they are detained.
It instead mandates they must post bond before a Cook County judge,
whenever court is next in session.
The plaintiffs and class representatives in the suit, all
individuals who were arrested by Chicago police between 2018 and
2019 on days that court wasn't in session, say this policy violates
their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights. The former guarantees
protection against unreasonable search and seizure, while the
latter guarantees a right to fair legal proceedings.
"Plaintiffs in this case . . . challenge this municipal policy as
violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because it
results in an unreasonable duration of post-arrest detention and
imposes an invidious and irrational discrimination," an April 2021
amended version of their complaint states.
The amended complaint also points out that the city does not
require those arrested on weekdays to post bond before a county
judge, implying that the CPD's weekend directive prioritizes court
and police convenience over arrestees' civil rights.
"It is clear to me that the policy is unconstitutional," said
Kenneth Flaxman, the lead attorney representing the class of
arrestees, in an interview. "Everyone should be allowed to post
bond at the station."
U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman did not discount Flaxman's
argument on its face, but instead based his decision to dismiss all
but one of the five plaintiffs on the interaction between state and
municipal law. The four eliminated plaintiffs had been arrested by
Chicago police on warrants issued outside Cook County, and the
Barack Obama appointee found that their holiday detention was
mandated by the Cook County Circuit Court's General Administrative
Order No. 2015-06.
"Defendants taken into custody by an arresting agency located
within Cook County on an arrest warrant issued by an Illinois state
court outside of Cook County shall be required to appear in bond
court in the appropriate district or division of this court," the
order, enacted in July 2015, states.
As a municipal policy in Illinois cannot override state law or
disobey a circuit court order, Feinerman wrote in his opinion that
"this command plainly requires the City to bring to bond court
persons arrested on a warrant issued outside Cook County."
Later in his ruling, the judge pointed out that those arrested on
warrants from outside Cook County could not post bond at a police
station even on weekdays.
"On its face . . the Order prohibits individuals arrested on
warrants issued outside Cook County from posting bond at the
[police] station," Feinerman wrote.
Anticipating this argument, the class representatives said in prior
hearings that Order No. 2015-06 also contains language allowing
arrestees to post bond without having to go to court first.
The last sentence of the order reads, "When the defendant is able
to post the bail set on the warrant issued by the demanding
authority, the defendant shall be admitted to bail and scheduled
for a court appearance in the county of the demanding authority."
But Feinerman rejected this argument outright, noting that sentence
was aimed at the Cook County Sheriff's Office, not the Chicago
Police Department.
"Plaintiffs argued that the Order's last sentence . . authorizes
CPD to accept bond at the police station without bringing the
arrestee to bond court," Feinerman wrote. "But that sentence is
part of a paragraph whose first sentence is unambiguously directed
at the Cook County Sheriff, not the City, and it therefore does not
authorize CPD officers to accept bond payments at the station from
persons arrested on warrants issued outside Cook County."
Feinerman's ruling is a blow to the arrestee class' complaint, but
not a lethal one. The singular remaining plaintiff, a woman named
Theresa Kennedy, was arrested on a Saturday in April 2019 on an
in-county warrant. While the judge did not discuss any potential
14th Amendment violation Kennedy may have suffered, he found that
she had at least adequately alleged a Fourth Amendment claim.
The class action, and the more than 2,500 people it seeks to
represent, will now proceed entirely on Kennedy's allegations.
"Kennedy alleges that there is no legitimate reason for the delay
she suffered, as individuals arrested during nonholiday weekdays on
warrants issued in Chicago are allowed to post bond at the police
station," Feinerman wrote. "Those allegations are sufficient to
allege a Fourth Amendment violation, at least on the pleadings."
Feinerman's ruling comes as Illinois prepares for criminal justice
reform legislation known as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness
and Equity-Today Act, or SAFE-T Act, that will take effect on New
Year's Day 2023. The law eliminates cash bail in Illinois, among
other changes, though Flaxman said he did not know if it would
affect Kennedy's case moving forward.
"It's far from clear if the SAFE-T Act will affect this case," the
attorney said, though he added that in light of the planned
reforms, Chief Cook County Circuit Judge Timothy Evans ought to
consider rescinding Order 2015-06.
"The chief judge may need to rescind that order," Flaxman said. "It
seems out of touch." [GN]
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Revised Scheduling Order Sought
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA OAKLEY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. COAST PROFESSIONAL,
INC., PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORP. And PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00021 (S.D.W. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their stipulated motion to revise
scheduling order:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
-- Defendants' Dec. 9, 2022 Dec. 23, 2022
Response to
Plaintiff's Motion
for Class
Certification:
-- Plaintiff's Reply Dec. 23, 2022 Jan. 13, 2023
in Support of Motion
for Class
Certification:
On November 18, 2022, plaintiff, Carla Oakley, filed her Motion for
Class Certification and memorandum of law in support. The
Defendants' responsive briefing is currently due on December 9,
2022.
Coast Professional is a top-performing accounts receivable
management and customer support center specializing in
communications for private, public, and government entities across
the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FaQFPq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
923 Haddonfield Road. Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
HAMILTON , BURGESS , YOUNG & POLLARD, PLLC
P.O. Box 959
Fayetteville, WV 25840
Telephone: (304) 574-2727
Facsimile: (304) 574-3709
The Defendant is represented by:
Albert C. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
500 Virginia Street East, Suite 600
Charleston, WV 25337
Telephone: (304) 345-4222
Facsimile: (304) 343-3133
- and -
Michael D. Alltmont, Esq.
Dayle Van Hoose, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC
3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Ste. 200
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 846-7954
Facsimile: (504) 828-3737
E-mail: malltmont@sessions.legal
dvanhoose@sessions.legal
- and -
Alex J. Zurbuch, Esq.
Joseph M. Ward, Esq.
Mary Claire Davis, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
500 Virginia Street East, Suite 1100
Charleston, WV 25301-3207
Telephone: (304) 345-0111
Facsimile: (304) 345-0115
E-mail: azurbuch@fbtlaw.com
jward@fbtlaw.com
mcdavis@fbtlaw.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Sunscreens' Label "Deceptive," Schneider Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY SCHNEIDER and ERIKA OPGENORTH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY
and CP SKIN HEALTH GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-01294-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., December 5, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of New York's General
Business Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition
Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and
quasi contract/unjust enrichment/restitution.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading practices advertising, labeling, and
marketing of EltaMD Transparent Zinc Oxide sunscreens. The
Defendants have labeled and advertised the products in a manner
which misleads consumers into believing the only active ultraviolet
(UV) sunscreen ingredient in the products is zinc oxide, a premium
mineral sunscreen ingredient used to protect the skin from UV rays.
Unbeknownst to consumers however, a significant portion of each
product's active sunscreen ingredients is chemical sunscreen
ingredient(s), such as octinoxate, octisalate, and octocrylene,
which have a well-documented record of being harmful to the skin
and the environment. As a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentations, the products are sold at a premium price, says
the suit.
Colgate-Palmolive Company is a manufacturer of consumer products,
headquartered in New York, New York.
CP Skin Health Group, Inc. is a skin care products company,
headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
- and -
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
COMMAND INVESTIGATIONS: McCartney Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly McCartney, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. COMMAND INVESTIGATIONS, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-22077-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2022), is brought against
the Defendant for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and the putative class members allege that they were
not properly paid the overtime premium pay for the hours worked
over 40 per week, even though they were "non-exempt" employees, and
thus entitled to such wages under federal law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a SUI Investigator
and Surveillance Investigator during the three-year period.
COMMAND INVESTIGATIONS, LLC provides surveillance services for
customers such as surveillance, background investigations, social
media monitoring, command center, etc throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF J.J. TALBOTT
900 East Moreno Street
Pensacola, Fla. 32503
Phone: (850) 437-9600
Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
Email: civilfiling@talbottlawfirm.com
CONAGRA BRANDS: Agrees to Settle Mislabeling Class Suit for $3-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Auriette Lindsey at weartv.com reports that if you bought Wesson
Oil between 2008 and 2017, you may qualify for a class action
settlement.
Florida is one of eleven states named in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit says Conagra labeled some of its Wesson products as
"natural" even though they contained genetically modified
ingredients.
Conagra agreed to a $3 million settlement.
Customers can get up to $4.50 back without receipts.
Court documents say Conagra agreed to pay 15 cents for each unit of
Wesson Oils purchased to households submitting valid claim forms.
If you don't have a receipt, you can only file claims for up to 30
units.
Here is a list of all State's and their call period impacted:
California - June 28, 2007 through July 1, 2017
Colorado - January 12, 2009 through July 1, 2017
Florida - January 12, 2008 through July 1, 2017
Illinois - January 12, 2007 through July 1, 2017
Indiana - January 12, 2006 through July 1, 2017
Nebraska - January 12, 2008 through July 1, 2017
New York - January 12, 2008 through July 1, 2017
Ohio - January 12, 2010 through July 1, 2017
Oregon - January 12, 2006 through July 1, 2017
South Dakota - January 12, 2006 through July 1, 2017
Texas - January 12, 2010 through July 1, 2017 [GN]
CREDIT CONTROL: Medina FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Julia Medina, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No.
22SL-CC04036 was removed from the St. Louis County Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
Oct. 27, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01133-RLW to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.
Credit Control LLC -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is an
established debt collection agency in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Michael Klote, Esq.
HALVORSEN KLOTE
680 Craig Rd., Suite 104
St. Louis, MO 63141
Phone: (314) 254-3254
Fax: (314) 448-4300
Email: Greg@hklawstl.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Patrick A. Watts, Esq.
WATTS LAW GROUP, LLC
1200 S. Big Bend Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 669-5490
Email: pwatts@swattslaw.com
- and -
Matthew John Bell, Esq.
MALONE FROST PLLC
1200 S. Big Bend Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63117
Phone: (618) 670-0945
Fax: (888) 632-6937
Email: mbell@mamlaw.com
CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP: Dunham Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cummins-Allison
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Erin Dunham, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cummins-Allison
Corp., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00330697-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 2, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
Cummins Allison Corp. -- https://store.cumminsallison.com/ -- is a
company which creates currency handling and coin handling systems,
including currency and coin counting machines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nadir O. Ahmed, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NADIR O. AHMED
401 W. A. St., Ste. 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 800-4214
CURALEAF INC: Kelley Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Frankie Kelley, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. CURALEAF, INC., Case No. 2070 was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Dec. 6, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04854.
On November 7, 2022, Plaintiff served their Class Action Complaint
on Curaleaf, asserting numerous violations of the Philadelphia Fair
Workweek Employment Standards ("Fair Workweek Law"), and naming
Curaleaf as the Defendant.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason E. Reisman, Esq.
Julia C. Riskowitz, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 569-5500
Fax: (215) 569-5555
Email: jason.reisman@blankrome.com
julia.riskowitz@blankrome.com
- and -
Alexis M. Dominguez, Esq.
Alissa J. Griffin, Esq.
NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
Two North LaSalle St., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602-3801
Phone: (312) 269-8000
Email: adominguez@nge.com
agriffin@nge.com
CVS PHARMACY INC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-10294 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. -- https://www.cvs.com/ -- is an American retail
corporation.[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
DD TRADERS INC: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DD Traders, Inc. The
case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. DD Traders, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10304 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DD Traders, Inc., doing business as DEMDACO --
https://www.demdaco.com/ -- offers gifts and home decoration
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
DEMERT BRANDS: Zamora Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DeMert Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Janine Zamora, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DeMert Brands, LLC, Case No.
0:22-cv-62054-AHS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 3, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.
DeMert Brands, Inc. -- https://www.demertbrands.com/ --
manufactures and distributes cosmetic products. The Company
provides beauty and cosmetic products for men and women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Fax: (954) 525-4300
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas Meeks, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS
2 Miami Central
700 N.W. 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33136
Phone: (305) 530-0050
Email: tmeeks@carltonfields.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Civil Case Management Plan Entered
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jane Doe v. Deutsche Bank,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10018-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed S. Rakoff
entered an order regarding civil case management plan as follows:
-- The Court requires that this case June 20, 2023
shall be ready for trial on:
-- Joinder of additional parties Dec. 16, 2022
must be accomplished by:
-- Amended pleadings may be filed Jan. 23, 2023
without leave of Court until:
-- First request for production of Dec. 16, 2022
documents, if any, must
be served by:
-- Initial Disclosures must be served Dec. 22, 2022
by:
-- All discovery is to be completed by April 24, 2023
Deutsche Bank is a German multinational investment bank and
financial services company headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VEfryr at no extra charge.[CC]
DOLLAR GENERAL: Button Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ryan Button, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, DOLGENCORP, LLC
d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL, TODD VASOS, JEFF OWEN, STEVE SUNDERLAND,
EMILY TAYLOR, and JOHN DOES 1-500, individually, jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, Case No. MON-L-002774-22 was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Monmouth County, to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on Dec. 5, 2022, and assigned Case No.
3:22-cv-07028.
The Plaintiff alleges he was charged "a higher price at the
register than the price of merchandise advertised on the shelves"
at Dollar General stores. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants
"charge a higher price at the register for merchandise than the
price advertised on the unit price labels for the same merchandise
on the shelves." The Plaintiff brings a class action alleging it is
Defendants' "policy and practice" to charge this surplus. The
Plaintiff brought putative class claims under New Jersey's
Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA"), and for alleged violations of the
General Advertising Regulations ("GAR"), Unit Price Disclosure
Regulations, Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), and Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"). The Plaintiff seeks
on behalf of himself and the putative class actual damages,
disgorgement of "improper gains," treble damages, statutory civil
penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees, declaratory relief, and
injunctive relief.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10020-1104
Phone: (212) 548-2100
Fax: (212) 548-2150
Email: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com
EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Quinn Suit Transferred to S.D. Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony Quinn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Edfinancial Services, LLC, Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05467 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on Dec. 2, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00413-JMG-CRZ to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
EdFinancial Services -- https://edfinancial.com/welcome -- is a
financial company which provides student loans servicing for 15 of
the top 100 lenders in the USA, including regional and national
banks, secondary markets, state agencies and other student loan
providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 858-3239
Fax: (312) 610-5646
- and -
Casie D. Collignon
BAKER, HOSTETLER LAW FIRM - DENVER
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202-2662
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Fax: (303) 861-7805
Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Maria Ann Boelen
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
One N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 416-6200
- and -
James Joseph Sipchen
PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHTD.
One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606-4673
Phone: (312) 346-1973
EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Nguyen Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Educational Computer
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Rebecca Nguyen, Tamica
Brewster, Kyle Strickenberger, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Educational Computer Systems, Inc.
doing business as: HEARTLAND ECSI, Case No. 2:22-cv-01743-DSC (W.D.
Pa., Dec. 6, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Educational Computer Systems, Inc. doing business as Heartland ECSI
-- https://heartland.ecsi.net/ -- is a student loan servicer.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1622 Locust Street
Philadelpha, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 274-9331
Email: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND: Martinez Files FCRA Suit in D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Employment Background
Investigations, LLC. The case is styled as Joe Martinez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Employment Background Investigations, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03143-GLR (D. Md., Dec. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Employment Background Investigations, Inc. (EBI) --
https://www.ebiinc.com/ -- provides compliant background screening
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tara Keller, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
763 J Cyde Morris Blvd Ste 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (703) 273-7770
Email: tara@clalegal.com
ENERGY PLUS: Guaman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Jose Pedro Guaman, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. ENERGY PLUS NY CORP
d/b/a ENERGY PLUS, and ENERGY PLUS NY INC d/b/a ENERGY PLUS, and
MOSHE LEFKOWITZ, individually, and ABRAHAM LICHTENSTADTER,
individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-07401 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2022), is
brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations
that Defendants committed of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to
him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act;
the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him
under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, throughout the entirety
of the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants routinely required
the Plaintiff to work, and the Plaintiff did work, in excess of
forty hours in a workweek, but the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff at the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate for those hours, and instead paid
the Plaintiff on an hourly basis at his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an insulator from April
6, 2021, until December 21, 2021.
The Defendants are two New York corporations that operate as a
single enterprise to run two Brooklyn-based insulation contracting
companies, and the enterprise's two owners and day-to-day
overseers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle Petretta, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 248-5550
Fax: (516) 248-6027
GATEWAY REHABILITATION: Lucarelli Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gateway
Rehabilitation Center. The case is styled as John Lucarelli,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Gateway Rehabilitation Center, Case No. 2:22-cv-01729-RJC (W.D.
Pa., Dec. 5, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Gateway Foundation -- https://www.gatewayfoundation.org/ --
operates 16 drug & alcohol rehab centers in Illinois, as well as
providing virtual care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th St., Ste. 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: 510-891-9800
Email: cab@colevannote.com
GEICO CORP: Overcharges Car Drivers' Insurance, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
smdailyjournal.com reports that a federal judge has allowed a
lawsuit against Geico Corp. to proceed as a class action. The claim
is that Geico overcharged more than two million California drivers
for car insurance in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
At the start of the pandemic, some of the most severe lockdowns
went into place. This led to forced behavioral changes of Americans
throughout the country. For drivers, it meant leaving a car sitting
in the garage, used only for occasional trips to the grocery
store.
This lack of activity significantly lowered the risk of collision.
Even during the times a person was on the road, there was very
little traffic. Insurers are expected to provide discounts or
refunds in cases like these. In fact, there are a number of car
insurance discounts available to low-risk drivers in normal times
as well.
Geico did in fact offer some relief. They provided $2.5 billion to
policyholders. However, they provided this in the form of credits,
including discounts on renewals. The class action lawsuit claims
that what they provided fell well short, based on what they reaped
due to the drastic reduction in payouts.
What has Geico said?
For its part, Geico is fighting back against this class action.
Previously, the firm had contended that a group lawsuit would
create insurmountable manageability problems. The U.S. District
Judge who allowed the class action to proceed - Beth Labson Freeman
of San Jose - rejected this claim.
Freeman asserted that a class action would be better than
individual lawsuits, with the damages model provided by the
plaintiffs potentially "[presenting] an appropriate percentage
refund over a sufficiently long time" to address manageability
concerns.
Geico has also made other claims as to the validity of the class
action. They have said it cannot account for differences among
policyholders. There is a basis for this, considering that
different parties have been insured for vastly different periods of
time. They have also stated that there would be major difficulties
in retroactively assessing damages, isolating pandemic costs, and
adjusting rates.
Can They win?
A major challenge that Geico faces is in their own promises made
during the early days of the pandemic. They claimed that their
credits program would provide "substantial and full relief." While
the terms used are vague, that may work in favor of the plaintiffs.
It is difficult for a company to claim to have provided this relief
if such a large number of policyholders reject it.
That being said, Geico may be able to win this lawsuit. Similar
lawsuits have been brought against them in Chicago and Manhattan.
While the Chicago lawsuit is ongoing, an appeals court upheld a
judge's dismissal of the lawsuit in Manhattan.
Who is Geico?
If you're unfamiliar with Geico's roots, the company is a part of
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Berkshire has owned Geico
in its entirety since 1996. Berkshire is based in Omaha, Nebraska,
while Geico is based in Chevy Chase, Maryland.[GN]
GEICO INDEMNITY: Dinicola-Ortiz Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico Indemnity
Company. The case is styled as Jessica Dinicola-Ortiz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Geico Indemnity
Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-06228-RBK-MJS (D.N.J., Oct. 24, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.
GEICO Indemnity Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an
insurance company. The Company provides vehicle, property,
business, and life insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Allowed Leave to File Opposition in Excess Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00410 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N.
Sweeney entered an order granting unopposed motion for leave to
file excess pages for General Motors LLC's opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The nature of suit states contract product liability.
The Court will permit Defendant's 27-page response brief. The
Plaintiff's reply brief will be limited to 15-pages.
The General Motors Company is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[CC]
GEORGIA PACIFIC: Blankinship Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Xenia Blankinship, Jeffrey Waters, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Georgia Pacific
LLC, Case No. CE22-01084 was removed from the Superior Court of
Glynn County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia on Dec. 6, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00138-LGW-BWC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land for Property Damage.
Georgia-Pacific LLC -- https://www.gp.com/ -- is an American pulp
and paper company based in Atlanta, Georgia, and is one of the
world's largest manufacturers and distributors of tissue, pulp,
paper, toilet and paper towel dispensers, packaging, building
products and related chemicals.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Quentin L. Marlin, Esq.
ELLIS, PAINTER, RATTERREE & ADAMS LLP
2 East Bryan Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 9946 (31412)
Savannah, GA 31401
Phone: (912) 233-9700
Fax: (912) 233-2281
Email: qmarlin@epra-law.com
GIESEN MANAGEMENT: Emory Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Emory, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GIESEN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC and DAVID GIESEN,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03150-SKC (D. Colo., Dec. 6, 2022), is brought to
challenge the policies and practices of the Defendants that violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime
compensation.
The Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and the Ohio
Class frequently worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek.
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other members of the
FLSA Collective and the Ohio Class for all time worked while they
were clocked in and working, including during workweeks when they
worked more than 40 hours, as a result of the Defendants' unlawful
time editing practices and/or policies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants from July 28,
2022 to present as an hourly, non-exempt employee.
Giesen Management Associates is a "restaurant management group with
Slim Chickens, Dunkin', Arby's, and Freddy's Frozen Custard and
Steakburgers brands."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza – Suite 520
Independence, OH
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW, LLC
8 N. Court St. Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: (847) 986-5889
Fax: (847) 673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: EPP's Plan on Class Certification Notice OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Staley et al v. Gilead
Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting end-payor
plaintiffs' plan for notice of class certification and to appoint
notice administrator.
The Court issued an Order on November 14, that, among other issues,
held the Third-Party Payor Plaintiffs ("TPP Plaintiffs") should
have been included as named representatives of the cART Injunctive
Classes in the Court's September 27, 2022 Order. Therefore, the
Court hereby appoints the named TPP Plaintiffs as representatives
of the cART Injunctive Classes.
The Court finds that A.B. Data will adequately oversee the Notice
Plan and administer class notice to potential End-Payor Class
Members. The Court finds none of class counsel have any financial
or other ties with A.B. Data. The Court hereby appoints A.B. Data
as the Notice Administrator.
-- The Court approves the form and content of: (a) the Short-
Form Notice attached as Exhibit 1; (b) the Long-Form
Notice attached as Exhibit 2; (c) the TPP Postcard
attached as Exhibit 3; (d) the Government Cover Letter
attached as Exhibit 4; (e) the Government Postcard
attached as Exhibit 5; and (f) the banner ads attached
hereto as Exhibit 6.
-- The Court finds that the publication of banner ads on
digital media containing embedded links to the case-
specific website with the Long-Form Notice available
for download in the manner set forth by End-Payor
Plaintiffs ("EPPs") in their Memorandum constitutes the
best notice that is practicable under the circumstances
and complies fully with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(c)(2)(B) and Due Process.
-- The Court finds that the mailing of the Government
Postcard, which is substantially similar to the Short-Form
Notice sent to the other Third-Party Payors, to the local
government entities and the Government Cover Letter to the
State Attorney General Offices and publication of ads on
targeted websites in the manner set forth by EPPs in their
Memorandum constitutes the best notice that is practicable
under the circumstances and complies fully with the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and Due
Process.
-- On or before January 6, 2023, the TPP Postcard Notice
shall by mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to
all potential third-party payors included in A.B. Data's
database. In addition, a copy of the Long-Form Notice
shall be posted on the Internet at
www.HIVDrugLitigation.com, the website dedicated to this
litigation.
-- On or before January 6, 2023, the Government Postcard
shall be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to
the local government entity offices and the Government
Cover Letter to the Attorney General Offices of the
Specified States identified in the Notice Memorandum.
-- On or before January 6, 2023, Co-Lead EPP Class Counsel
shall cause the digital and social media notice directed
at Consumer Class Members to be published in the manner
set forth by the Proposed Notice Plan for a period of 45
days.
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on
researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of
HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19,
including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VEoyPC at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daralyn J. Durie, Esq.
DURIE TANGRI LLP
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 362-6666
E-mail: ddurie@durietangri.com
- and -
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (855) 344-3298
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Additional Pages for Class Cert Briefs Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; and PFIZER
INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate
and jointly request an order granting them leave to file briefs up
to 25 pages in support of Plaintiff's motion for and Defendants'
opposition to class certification.
On December 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint
and on January 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended
Class Action Complaint in this putative California-based and
Nationwide class action against Defendants, the alleged
manufacturers, marketers, and sellers of certain ChapStick brand
lip care products, which Plaintiff alleges are deceptively labeled
and advertised as "Natural" in violation of California consumer
protection laws and related common law, because the products
allegedly contain ingredients that are either artificial,
synthetic, or overly processed.
Under the current Third Amended Case Management Scheduling Order,
entered on October 11, 2022, the Plaintiff will file a motion for
class certification on or before December 7, 2022, and Defendants
will file an opposition thereto on or before April 6, 2023.
The Parties have met and conferred regarding the foregoing and
agreed that an increase of up to 25 pages for the briefs in support
of and in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
(1) is necessary for the Parties to adequately and efficiently
brief their respective positions on a complex motion to facilitate
a fair and just ruling on the issues surrounding class
certification; (2) would not prejudice any party; (3) serves the
aims of justice; and (4) conserves judicial resources.
GSK is a British multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company with global headquarters in London, England. Established in
2000 by a merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VDEPEr at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Fl
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (619) 915-9432
Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan S. Tam, Esq.
Matthew F. Williams, Esq.
Christina G. Sarchio, Esq.
Lincoln D. Wilson, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
One Bush Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104-4446
Telephone: (415) 262-4518
Facsimile: (415) 262-4555
E-mail: jonathan.tam@dechert.com
matthew.williams@dechert.com
christina.sarchio@dechert.com
lincoln.wilson@dechert.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Falberg Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEONID FALBERG is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Leonid Falberg, Plaintiff, v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09910, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Falberg, a
participant in the Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan, brought this putative
class action on behalf of the Plan and those similarly situated
against the Plan's sponsor, the Defendants, for alleged violations
of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").
Mr. Falberg claims that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA by (1) "only reluctantly and belatedly" removing
underperforming Goldman Sachs Asset Management ("GSAM") funds as
Plan investment options, (2) failing to consider lower-cost
institutional investment vehicles, and (3) failing to claim "fee
rebates" on behalf of the Plan that allegedly were available to
other similarly situated retirement plans that invested in the GSAM
funds.
The Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Falberg
separately moved for partial summary judgment only on the issues of
loss and loss causation. Also before the Court were Falberg's
motion to compel production of certain documents designated as
privileged; the Defendants' motion to strike certain opinions of
Dr. Brian C. Becker, Falberg's expert; and the Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration of certain class members.
Against this backdrop, Judge Edgardo Ramos found that the
Defendants did not breach any of their fiduciary duties under
ERISA. As such, Falberg's motion for partial summary judgment on
these issues was denied. Judge Ramos granted the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment and denied Falberg's motion for partial
summary judgment. In addition, Judge Ramos denied as moot Falberg's
motion to compel production of documents designated as privileged
and the Defendants' motions to strike expert opinions and to compel
arbitration of certain class members.
The appellate case is captioned Falberg v. The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc., Case No. 22-2689, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on October 18, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LEONID FALBERG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Brock Specht, Esq.
Paul Lukas, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
- and -
Benjamin Bauer, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3247
- and -
Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
APOLLO LAW LLC
333 Washington Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 927-2969
Defendants-Appellees THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-3493
- and -
Charles A. Michael, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 378-7604
- and -
Mark Popovsky, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-7939
- and -
Thomas C. White, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1700 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 956-7521
GOTHAM HALL: Settecasi Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Court
------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT SETTECASI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
in the lawsuit entitled Vincent Settecasi, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Gotham Hall, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 152791/2018, in the
Supreme Court of New York for the County of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed this putative class action to recover damages for alleged
wage and overtime violations under New York Labor Law.
The first amended class action complaint (FAC) alleges unlawful
withholding of gratuities, breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
and violations of New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the
Defendant opposed, and counter filed a motion for summary
judgment.
The appellate case is captioned Vincent Settecasi, et al. vs.
Gotham Hall, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-04627, in the New York
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on October 18,
2022. [BN]
GOTO TECHNOLOGIES: Debt Cleanse Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GoTo Technologies
USA, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Debt Cleanse Group Legal
Services, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GoTo Technologies USA, Inc., LastPass US LP, Case No.
1:22-cv-12047-PBS (D. Mass., Dec. 2, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
GoTo Technologies -- https://www.gototechnologies.com/ -- is an IT
Consulting company, providing our clients with industry-leading
expertise in key Technology disciplines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
QUAT LAW OFFICES
373 Winch Street
Framingham, MA 01701
Phone: (508) 872-1261
Email: kquat@quatlaw.com
HIBBETT INC: Moats FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Valerie Moats, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated individuals v. HIBBETT INC., HIBBETT
RETAIL INC., Case No. 2022-CA-000816 was removed from the Leon
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida on Dec. 6, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00372-AW-MAF to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Hibbett Sports, Inc. -- https://www.hibbett.com/ -- is an American
publicly traded holding company for Hibbett Sporting Goods, a full
line sporting goods retailer headquartered in Birmingham,
Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Owens, Esq.
SCOTT D OWENS PA - HOLLYWOOD FL
2750 N 29th Avenue, Suite 209A
Hollywood, FL 33020
Phone: (954) 589-0588
Fax: (954) 337-0666
Email: scott@scottdowens.com
- and -
Christopher Wallace Legg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER LEGG PA
8965 Sandy Crest Lane
Boynton Beach, FL 33472
Phone: (954) 962-2333
Email: chris@theconsumerlawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mya M. Hatchette, Esq.
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC - WINTER PARK FL
200 E New England Avenue, Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32790
Phone: (407) 620-6063
Email: mhatchette@maynardcooper.com
- and -
Emily Carson Burke, Esq.
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC - BIRMINGHAM AL
1901 6th Avenue N, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 254-1046
Email: eburke@maynardcooper.com
HRB DIGITAL: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HRB Digital LLC. The
case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. HRB Digital LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10295 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HRB Digital LLC operating as H&R Block -- http://www.hrblock.com/
-- is an American tax preparation company operating in Canada, the
United States, and Australia.[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
HYRECAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Baron Rule 10b-5 Claims Junked
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN BARON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYRECAR INC.,
JOSEPH FURNARI and ROBERT SCOTT BROGI, Case No.
2:21-cv-06918-FWS-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter
entered an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims.
Taken holistically, the court finds the SAC's allegations discussed
above give rise to a strong inference of scienter. Defendants urge
that HyreCar's switch to a new insurance adjuster was the more
plausible inference to draw from its corrective disclosure of
previously accrued insurance claims under its previous partner.
However, the circumstances taken as a whole sufficiently
demonstrate that Defendants acting with scienter is "cogent and at
least as compelling as any plausible opposing inference one could
draw from the facts alleged." Accordingly, the court DENIES
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 claims.
The Defendants assert Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim for secondary
liability must be dismissed because the SAC fails to state a claim
for primary violation of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff does not
dispute Defendants' characterization of its Section 20(a) claims,
but contends the SAC adequately alleges Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 claims against Defendants.
The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification within 90
days of the date of this Order.
Here, the SAC relevantly alleges that the insurance reserves
constituted an important part of HyreCar's business and that
HyreCar's executives had access to Genoteq's insurance claims
database. Though the court does not find the "core operations
inference" sufficient to sustain a strong inference of scienter, it
may contribute to one.
This case is a putative securities fraud class action concerning
alleged misrepresentations in corporate financial statements. The
SAC alleges that HyreCar, a "tightly-controlled company led by"
Brogi and Furnari, used a conflicted third-party insurance
adjuster, Genoteq, to manipulate HyreCar's earnings by concealing
certain expenses and under-accruing liability for its insurance
reserves, resulting in inaccurate financial statements.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FG7Qdr at no extra charge.[CC]
IMAGO BIOSCIENCES: M&A Class Suit Firm Probes Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Imago BioSciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMGO), relating to its proposed
merger with a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Under the terms of the
tender offer, IMGO shareholders will receive $36.00 in cash per
share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/imago-biosciences-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates
Monteverde & Associates PC are a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We
were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr.
Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as
a Rising Star and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities
Litigation. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a
2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include
changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard
of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth
Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory
by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently
granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v.
Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or
secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers
& acquisitions class action cases. [GN]
JACK SKEEN: Reule, et al., Seek to Certify Two Defendant Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REULE et al., v. Judge
JACK SKEEN, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00367-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiffs Christine Reule, Harriet Nicholson, Rebecca Foster,
Jimmy Lee Menifee, Tony Lamar Vann, and the Honorable Madeleine
Connor move the Court to certify two classes of defendants:
-- a class of all Texas local administrative judges (LAJ's);
and
-- a class of all state-court clerks in Texas.
The Plaintiffs urge that there is a risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications if all of Chapter 11's enforcers are not gathered
into classes. The Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to grant this
motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs also respectfully
request a hearing on this motion.
The Defendant proposes that the Office of Court Administration
(OCA) notify state judges and court clerks through an announcement
via email. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OCA has used this method
to notify state courts and clerks of emergency orders relating to
court administration. Despite the possibility of some error, OCA
considers this the generally accepted and reliable method of
reaching those recipients by the agency responsible for providing
resources and information for the efficient administration of the
Texas judiciary, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiffs pled for certification of these classes in their
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
The Plaintiffs want an injunction to bar enforcement of Chapter 11.
Enforcement is carried out by court clerks like Defendant
Clarkston, who reject attempted filings by "vexatious litigants"
and LAJ's like Defendant Judge Skeen who A minor exception is that
a prefiling order entered by a justice or constitutional county
court applies only to the court that entered the order.
The Plaintiffs claim no monetary damages (except nominal damages of
$1.00). This allows use of Rule 23(b)(1)(A) -- which does not
require notice or opt-out rights—because, if Plaintiffs are
awarded their requested relief, no varying money judgments will
need to be distributed.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Dec. 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FCkfit
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John W. Vinson, Esq.
JOHN W. VINSON, PLLC
PO Box 301678
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (512) 926-7380
E-mail: johnvinsonatty@yahoo.com
- and -
Mary Louise Serafine, Esq.
MARY LOUISE SERAFINE, ATTORNEY &
COUNSELOR AT LAW
3571 Far West Blvd., #3669,
Austin, TX 78731
Telephone: (512) 220-5452
E-mail: serafine@mlserafine.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Iglesias, Esq.
IGLESIAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
605 Chase Drive, Suite 8,
Tyler, TX 75701
Telephone: (903) 944-7185
E-mail: david@iglesiaslawfirm.com
- and -
Caroline A. Merideth,
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station, MC-019,
Austin, TX 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 463-2120
E-mail: caroline.merideth@oag.texas.gov
JC HAMBURGERS: Palma-Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suyapa Liliana Palma-Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JC HAMBURGERS, INC., a California
corporation d/b/a/ McDonald's; DANIEL BORBA, an individual; and
DOES I through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 22CV405260 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 24, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code by failing to
pay wages.
The Defendants have violated California statutory laws and
California Labor Code violations as a result of unfair business
practices, and civil penalties stemming from the Defendants'
failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit
rest periods, failure to timely pay wages, failure to timely pay
final wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure
to maintain accurate time and payroll records, and failure to
reimburse necessary business related expenses, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the County of San Jose,
State of California.
JC HAMBURGERS, INC. owns and operates several McDonald's
restaurants in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rana Nader, Esq.
Hengameh S. Safaci, Esq.
PROXY LAW FIRM LLP
10880 Wilshirc Boulevard, Suite 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 8S3-8333
Facsimile: (310)861-5931
Email: nader@proxylawfirm.com
safaei@proxylawfirm.com
JEFF R. CONSTRUCTION: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
FABIAN ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JEFF YANZA-ROJAS, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-07358 (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York State Labor Law including failure to pay
proper minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide wage notices, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statement.
Mr. Rojas was employed as a manual laborer at the Defendant's
construction company known as Jeff R. Construction from February
2016 through and including July 2018.
Jeff Yanza-Rojas is an individual doing business as Jeff R.
Construction, located at 41-28 Junction Blvd., 3b, Corona, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Berger Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Berger, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION and
AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07374 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 5, 2022), is brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act to
restrain the anticompetitive conduct of Defendants, JetBlue Airways
Corporation and American Airlines Group Inc. (collectively,
"Defendants") to remedy the effects of Defendants' unlawful
conduct, to protect free market competition from continued unlawful
manipulation, and to remedy harm to consumers who purchased airline
tickets from Defendants.
In 2019, Defendants JetBlue and American Airlines began to discuss
what the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") and several
states attorneys' general would, in their own lawsuit against the
Defendants, call "a modern-day version of a nineteenth-century
business trust" that harms consumers to the tune of $700 million
annually. The agreement, which eliminates head-to-head competition
between JetBlue and American Airlines at four of the largest
airports in the United States (Boston Logan, New York-LaGuardia,
New York-Kennedy, and Newark-Liberty Airports), leads to
supracompetitive prices for consumers, like Plaintiff Berger, and
the members of the Class, who bought airline tickets from JetBlue
and American Airlines after the agreement was formally entered into
on July 15, 2020.
According to the DOJ, the agreement coined the Northeastern
Alliance (the "Alliance") "commits to pool revenues and coordinate
'on all aspects' of network planning at Boston Logan, JFK,
LaGuardia, and Newark Liberty airports, including deciding together
which routes to fly, when to fly them, who will fly them, and what
size planes to use. In addition, Defendants commit to pool and
apportion revenues earned on flights to and from the four airports
such that each partner earns the same revenues regardless of
whether a passenger flies on an American or JetBlue plane."
Additionally, a series of other agreements went along with these
restraints, including, according to the DOJ, "a codesharing
agreement, through which American and JetBlue have agreed to market
each other's flights to and from the four airports, as well as
potentially other flights that have yet to be determined. American
and JetBlue have also agreed to pool their "slots" at JFK and
LaGuardia, which are takeoff and landing authorizations issued by
the Federal Aviation Administration."
The DOJ and the Plaintiff states continue, "these kinds of
restraints of trade--agreements between competitors to coordinate
on output or to share revenues--are often condemned as per se
illegal because they have the same tendencies to increase prices
and reduce output as explicit horizontal agreements on price…
Moreover, Defendants can raise fares simply by one of them exiting
a market where it competed against the other, and then share in
their-now ally's increased profits."
The DOJ concludes, as this Action does, that the "Alliance is
anticompetitive and unlawful as a whole, and the output
coordination and revenue-sharing restraints present particular
competitive concerns due to their inherently anticompetitive
nature." As such, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class bring
this Action for damages, trebled damages, injunctive relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees against the Defendants due to their per
se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a direct purchaser of flights from JetBlue and has
used their services at least once during the proposed Class
Period.
JetBlue is a New York-based corporation and markets itself as a
low-cost airline carrier providing flights to consumers both
domestically and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Israel David, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
Hayley Lowe, Esq.
Madeline Sheffield, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
17 State Street, Suite 4010
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 739-0622
Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
blake.yagman@davidllc.com
hayley.lowe@davidllc.com
madeline.sheffield@davidllc.com
JP MORGAN: Civil Case Management Plan Entered
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase &
Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-10019-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed S.
Rakoff entered an order regarding civil case management plan as
follows:
-- The Court requires that this case June 20, 2023
shall be ready for trial on:
-- Joinder of additional parties Dec. 16, 2022
must be accomplished by:
-- Amended pleadings may be filed Jan. 23, 2023
without leave of Court until:
-- First request for production of Dec. 16, 2022
documents, if any, must
be served by:
-- Initial Disclosures must be served Dec. 22, 2022
by:
-- All discovery is to be completed by April 24, 2023
JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City and
incorporated in Delaware.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HhKNqw at no extra charge.[CC]
JP MORGAN: Curtis Sues Over Money Transfer System Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------
Keanna Curtis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING SERVICES,
LLC D/B/A ZELLEPAY.COM, Case No. 1:22-cv-10286 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5,
2022), is brought seeking actual damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and an injunction on behalf of the general public to
prevent Chase Bank and Zelle from continuing to engage in their
illegal practices presently and in the future such a money transfer
system fraud.
The Zelle money transfer system is rife with fraud--fraud that
places all Zelle users at an acute and immediate risk. Billions of
dollars of fraudulent transactions are processed by the service
each year. Victims of Zelle fraud, like Plaintiff, are often left
devastated by such fraud, which can drain hundreds or thousands of
dollars from their bank accounts. As a partial owner of Zelle
(along with several other of America's largest banks), the Bank has
a huge incentive to get as many consumers as possible to sign up
for and use Zelle for payments and money transfers: the more
consumers it can persuade to set up an account and use Zelle, the
more money the Bank saves by avoiding transaction payments to other
payment networks.
Accordingly, the Bank works with Zelle to aggressively market the
Zelle service to consumers and accountholders alike, urging them to
sign up for Zelle every time they log in to online banking, use the
Bank's mobile app, or even visit a Chase ATM. But the marketing of
Zelle by Defendants, including during the quick, rushed sign up
process for Zelle in the Bank's mobile app or website, contains
materially deceptive representations suggesting that Zelle is safe,
while omitting any warnings regarding the acute and immediate risk
of fraud. Those representations and omissions, which Plaintiff
relied upon, are false and misleading. Zelle too knows that fraud
on its service is rampant, and it is on notice of consumers'
claims, but consumers are similarly left without recourse from
Zelle, just like Chase Bank.
Unlike other commonly used consumer payment systems—credit cards,
debit cards, even PayPal--Zelle has no consumer fraud protections,
money transfers are immediate and irrevocable, and neither Zelle
nor the Bank will provide help in the case of fraud. These material
facts about Zelle are omitted from marketing about Zelle
promulgated by Defendants for a simple reason: no reasonable
consumer would sign up for and use the service if these facts were
fairly disclosed.
Having lured Chase Bank accountholders to sign up for and use the
Zelle service with deceptive and incomplete marketing promises,
Defendants fail victims of Zelle fraud in two distinct ways. First,
for victims of Zelle fraud who had their access devices used by
fraudsters, the Bank maintains a massive bureaucratic apparatus
designed to make it impossible for victims to lodge a successful
fraud claim. When such victims make a claim for fraud, the Bank
denies the claim without conducting a full investigation and blames
fraud victims for the fraud. As occurred with Plaintiff, the Bank
summarily rejected fraud claims without explanation or recourse.
Second, for victims of Zelle fraud who were tricked into making
fraudulent transfers to fraudsters, the Bank has adopted a practice
wherein any and all such fraud reimbursement claims are denied in
their entirety—with a cursory investigation and denial of
reimbursement--another instance of the Bank's "blame the victim"
corporate policy.
In both circumstances the consumer, not Chase Bank or Zelle, is
left without recourse following the fraud or unauthorized
transaction by a third-party. These policies and practices
contradict Defendants' marketing promises. These policies and
practices also violate the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), a
statute with the purpose of "providing a basic framework
establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of
participants in electronic fund and remittance transfer systems."
These policies and practices also breach contractual promises the
Bank made and violate the duty of care owed. The Plaintiff and the
Class members have been injured by signing up for and using Zelle,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, individual citizen and resident
of New York, County of Nassau.
Chase Bank is a nationally-chartered bank with its principal place
of business in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
48 Wall Street, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
KEYSTONE RURAL HEALTH: Hagle Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Hagle, Randy Jansen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keystone Rural Health
Center doing business as: Keystone Health, Case No. 22-03491 was
removed from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 5,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01927-CCC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Keystone Health -- https://keystonehealth.org/ -- is staffed by a
diverse team of primary care providers serving the greater Franklin
County Pennsylvania region.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq.
Gary E Mason, Esq.
Lisa A. White
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
- and -
Mark B DeSanto, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (610) 601-6748
Email: mbd@sstriallawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin D Wanger, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1325 Market Street, Suite 33
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 564-1601
Email: bwanger@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Carrie Dettmer Slye, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
Phone: (513) 852-2626
Fax: (513) 929-0303
Email: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Casie D Collignon, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Campbell Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Campbell, individually and as parent and guardian of
S.D.R.; Jessica Dionise, individually and as parent and guardian of
R.D.; Melissa Desmond, individually and as parent and guardian of
A.D.; Natarsha Harris, individually and as parent and guardian of
N.C.H., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-02717-N (N.D. Tex.,
Dec. 6, 2022), is brought to seek redress for the Plaintiffs for
deceptive acts and practices in connection with the marketing,
advertising, and sale of Huggies, which Defendants'
misrepresentations and deceptive omissions caused consumers to
believe were safe.
The Plaintiff parents and their Plaintiff minor children also seek
redress for physical and financial injuries to resulting from the
purchase and use of all varieties of Huggies Diapers ("Huggies" or
"the Product," which includes all variants). In reality, the
Products are liable to cause severe burns in infants because they
contain a skin irritant known as Ahcovel and the Defendant has not
instituted manufacturing safeguards to ensure that the proper
amounts of Ahcovel are dispensed on diapers. Because the amount of
Ahcovel on Huggies diapers is not properly regulated, they will
cause burns whenever an infant has the misfortune of wearing a
diaper with too much Ahcovel in it.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring their claims under the consumer
protection statutes of their respective states, alleging violations
of New York General Business Law; Michigan Consumer Protection Act;
(3) Georgia Fair Business Practices Act; and Virginia Consumer
Protection Act. As a result of Defendant's design, manufacturing,
and marketing of the Products, these caused significant injuries to
the minor children Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs also bring
individual claims for defective design, manufacturing defect, and
failure to warn under the laws of their respective states, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a product from the Defendant.
The Defendant is in the business of developing, designing,
manufacturing, marketing, advertising, and distributing Huggies
diapers and other personal care and cleaning products to
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
KNACKSHOPS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knackshops, Inc. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Knackshops, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10234-AT (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Knack -- https://knackshops.com/ -- is revolutionizing gift-giving
by making it simple and enjoyable to offer unique and meaningful
gifts.[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
KNOWBE4 INC: Monteverde & Associates Probes Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
KnowBe4, Inc. (Nasdaq: KNBE), relating to its proposed acquisition
by Vista Equity Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, KNBE
shareholders are expected to receive $24.90 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/knowbe4-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates
Monteverde & Associates PC are a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We
were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr.
Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as
a Rising Star and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities
Litigation. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a
2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include
changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard
of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth
Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory
by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently
granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v.
Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or
secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers
& acquisitions class action cases.[GN]
L'OREAL USA: Faces Suit Over Dry Shampoo Benzene Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
aboutlawsuits.com reports that a Chicago woman has filed a class
action lawsuit over Redken dry shampoo, alleging that the aerosol
spray products contain high levels of benzene, which could put
consumers at an increased risk of cancer.
The complaint was filed by Eileen Hirsch in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on November 22, seeking class
action status to pursue damages for all consumers who bought
L'Oreal's Redken dry shampoo spray products and may have suffered
benzene exposure as a result.
Benzene is an industrial chemical that has long been linked to
fatal forms of leukemia and other cancers such as AML, Chronic
Myelogenous Leukemia (CML), Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL),
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL),
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma, Myelodysplastic Syndrome
(MDL), Myelofibrosis and Myeloid Metaplasia, Aplastic Anemia and
Thrombocytopenic Purpura.
On November 1, the independent online pharmacy Valisure announced
it had found high levels of benzene in most dry shampoo spray
products it tested. According to the lawsuit, Redken was one of
those products tested, with Valisure finding it contained 7.55
parts per million (ppm) of benzene.
Since the toxic dry shampoo is applied directly to the hair and
scalp, health officials warn that benzene could enter an
individual's bloodstream through inhalation, orally, and through
the skin, which, over time and repeated use, could result in
adverse health effects from benzene exposure.
While Hirsh does not indicate she suffered a direct injury from
using L'Oreal's products, she indicates she used Redken Deep Clean
Dry Shampoo regularly for two years, unknowingly exposing herself
to a toxic, cancer-causing chemical due to the manufacturer's
failure to warn consumers about the risk, or make a safer product.
"Valisure tested multiple other brands of dry shampoo products,
several of which were found to be 'below the lower limit of
quantitation,' demonstrating that the Products could have been
manufactured without the use of benzene," Hirsh's lawsuit notes.
"Accordingly, any level of benzene in Defendant's Products is
unacceptable and renders the Products adulterated, misbranded,
unsafe, and worthless."
Hirsh argues that if consumers had been informed about the presence
of benzene in Redken shampoo products, they would not have
purchased them or would have paid a much lower price.
The lawsuit claims the class members are entitled to refunds of the
money paid to purchase Redken dry shampoo products, as well as
statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.
Dry Shampoo Recalls
In late October, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
announced an Unilever dry shampoo recall , instructing consumers to
stop using certain Dove, Nexxus, Suave, TIGI and TRESemmé dry
shampoo products, which contain elevated levels of benzene
contamination from the propellant used by the manufacturer.
The recall included 19 different brands of dry shampoo, including
many popular products such as Dove Dry Shampoo Volume and Fullness,
Dove Dry Shampoo Fresh Coconut, Nexxus Dry Shampoo Refreshing Mist,
Suave Dry Shampoo Hair Refresher, Tresemme Dry Shampoo Volumizing,
Bed Head Oh Bee Hive Dry Shampoo and many others.
In December 2021, a similar Proctor & Gamble dry shampoo recall was
issued, which impacted 32 separate lines of aerosol shampoo and
conditioner products that may contain elevated levels of benzene.
The products impacted by the recall include the popular brand names
Pantene, Aussie, Herbal Essences, Old Spice and Waterless.
Aerosol Spray Sunscreen & Deodorant Lawsuits
The series of dry shampoo recalls and lawsuits comes manufacturers
already face a number of individual claims and class action
lawsuits over high levels of benzene in other aerosol spray
products sold in recent years, including sunscreen, deodorant and
antiperspirant sprays.
In May 2021, the online pharmacy Valisure issued a report that
found benzene in 78 spray sunscreen and after-sun care products in
their inventory, indicating that more than a quarter of the
sunscreen contained the cancer-causing chemicals at levels that
exceed what the FDA considers safe.
Weeks later, Johnson & Johnson issued a massive Neutrogena and
Aveeno sunscreen recall, and other companies followed suit with
Coppertone sunscreen recalls, Banana Boat sunscreen recalls and
other spray sunscreen being removed from the market due to benzene
contamination.
Manufacturers have already reached agreements to settle class
action claims brought over sunscreen and deodorant products, and
dozens of individual cancer lawsuits are being pursued by consumers
diagnosed after routinely covering large areas of their body with
the benzene-contaminated spray. [GN]
L'OREAL USA: Faces Wall Suit Over Adulterated Hair Straighteners
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER WALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC.; L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS,
INC.; and SOFTSHEEN-CARSON, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-06128-GAF (W.D. Mo., December 2, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for medical monitoring, violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation/omission, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, and strict product liability for failure to warn
and manufacturing defect.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are manufacturing,
marketing, and selling hair straightener and/or relaxer products
under the brand name Dark & Lovely, which are adulterated with
endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC). The presence of EDCs in the
Defendants' products was not disclosed in the label, in violation
of state and federal law. The Plaintiff and the putative class
suffered economic damages due to the Defendants' misconduct, says
the suit.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of cosmetic products, with its
principal place of business at 10 Hudson Yards, 347 10th Ave., New
York, New York.
L'Oreal USA Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of cosmetic products,
with its principal place of business at 10 Hudson Yards, 347 10th
Ave., New York, New York.
Softsheen-Carson, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of L'Oreal USA,
Inc. based in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Kuntz, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
jkuntz@wcllp.com
L'OREAL USA: Zimmerman Sues Over Cosmetics' SPF Protection Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN ZIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-07609-LB (N.D. Cal., December 2, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, false advertising and unfair trade practices under
California's Business and Professions Code, common law fraud,
deceit and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its cosmetic products with Sun Protection Factor (SPF) protection.
The Defendant labeled these products with "24H" claims such as "Up
to 24H Fresh Wear" and "Up to 24HR" along with SPF claims such as
"Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 25." In reality, the products do not
and cannot provide 24 hours of SPF protection, says the suit.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of cosmetic products, with its
principal place of business at 10 Hudson Yards, 347 10th Ave., New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
LAKELAND BANCORP: M&A Class Suit Firm Probes Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: LBAI), relating to its proposed
merger with Provident Financial Services, Inc. Under the terms of
the merger, LBAI shareholders will receive 0.8319 shares of
Provident per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/lakeland-bancorp-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates
Monteverde & Associates PC are a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We
were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr.
Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as
a Rising Star and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities
Litigation. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a
2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include
changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard
of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth
Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory
by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently
granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v.
Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or
secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers
& acquisitions class action cases. [GN]
LARUCE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laruce Inc. The case
is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Laruce Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10232 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Laruce Inc. -- https://www.larucebeauty.com/ -- offers beauty
tools, brushes & makeup bags.[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
LB GRAY LLC: Josey Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LB Gray, LLC. The
case is styled as Kelly Josey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LB Gray, LLC doing business as: LB
Gray, Landman & Beatty, Lawyers, LLP, Case No.
3:22-cv-00378-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn., Oct. 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Jefferson Capital -- https://myjcap.com/ -- is a leading purchaser
and solutions provider in the consumer finance industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
LE SPORTSAC: Murphy Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HAMMOND MURPHY, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LE
SPORTSAC, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00058-RAL (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class for settlement purposes;
2. preliminarily approving the settlement; and
3. approving the proposed notice and notice plan, and setting
aside dates for the submission of objections to the
settlement and a fairness hearing.
In January 2022, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's
online store, located at https://www.lesportsac.com/.
The Plaintiff could not access the Defendant's online store because
it was not compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, which
Plaintiff uses to access digital content because he is blind.
In February 2022, the Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the Defendant does
not have, and has never had, adequate policies and practices to
cause its online store to be accessible to blind persons, in
violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
its implementing regulations.
In June 2022, the parties notified the Court that they had agreed
to settle this case on a class action basis, and in September 2022,
the Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.
LeSportsac is an American handbag, luggage, and travel accessories
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 5, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FwGRAL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 877-5220
E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
- and -
Lawrence H. Fisher, Esq.
LAWFIRST
One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, Suite 270
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone. (412) 577-4040
E-mail: lawfirst@lawrencefisher.com
LEGACY HEALTH: Hunter Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 17, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hunter v. Legacy Health et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02219 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey
Armistead entered an order regarding class certification
deadlines:
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Nov. 17, 2023
Certification, and Defendants'
Motion for Decertification of
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action are to be
filed on or before:
-- Any oppositions to those motions are due six weeks after
the respective moving papers are filed.
-- Replies in support of their motions are due six weeks after
the respective oppositions are filed.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
-involving maximum hours.
Legacy Health is a non-profit hospital system located in Portland,
Oregon.[CC]
LEVEL SALON: Czajka Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Czajka and Allison Moses, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LEVEL SALON, INC., a Florida
Profit Corporation, MARCUS C. NORRELL, and REBEKAH B. NORRELL, Case
No. 8:22-cv-02769 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2022), is brought concerning
the Plaintiffs who worked over 40 hours a week in a position that
is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime
requirements, but who were not properly compensated for the
overtime hours they worked.
The Defendants violated the FLSA by improperly refusing to pay the
Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees' wages for all
hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiffs were entitled to overtime pay for each hour worked over
40 in a single work week. Defendants had practice of scheduling the
Plaintiffs for a set schedule each week, including 40 hours per
week, but then expecting and pressuring them to come into work
prior to the scheduled shift by at least 15 minutes to 30 minutes
to perform certain work duties, including but not limited to
preparing for customers to arrive and doing administrative work.
The Defendants knowingly and purposefully had a practice of not
paying overtime pay to the Plaintiffs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant.
Level Salon is a hair salon, a Florida Profit Corporation with a
primary place of business located in Hillsborough County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Cantrell, Esq.
Alissa A. Kranz, Esq.
CANTRELL ASTBURY KRANZ, P.A.
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (877) 858-6868
Email: wcantrell@premierlitigators.com
akranz@premierlitigators.com
Secondary: lcaulder@premierlitigators.com
LG ELECTRONICS: Hernandez Sues Over Defective Refrigerators
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Hernandez, Miranda Sacharin, Fatemeh Koohpai, Judith Nikki
McDonnell, Polly Ko, Regina Stella Tangco, Teresa Cervantes, Victor
Wolfe, as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation;
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York Corporation; COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, a Washington Company; LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., a North
Carolina Corporation; LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina
Limited Liability Company; and BEST BUY CO., INC., a Minnesota
Corporation, BEST BUY STORES, L.P. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:22-cv-08813 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 5, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants with regard to their Defective Refrigerators, seeking
damages and relief for: breach of implied warranty, violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, Violation of New York general business
law, violation of Massachusetts consumer protection law, fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation, violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law - Business & Professions Code ("UCL"),
unjust enrichment, and related claims
This class action is brought on behalf of individuals who purchased
Kenmore and LG refrigerators (the "Refrigerators") containing a
defective linear compressor manufactured by LG Electronics U.S.A.,
Inc. during the time period from January 1, 2018 to the present.
Defendants LG, Sears, Costco, Lowe's and Best Buy designed,
manufactured, promoted, distributed, and/or sold the Refrigerators,
despite being aware of and having notice of the long history of the
defective nature of the linear compressors contained in these
Refrigerators.
These Refrigerators have a latent defect which causes failure of
the refrigerator's linear compressor--a central component
responsible for cooling. The compressor defect renders the LG
Refrigerators unable to perform their most basic function: cooling
and preserving food and beverages. When the compressor defect
manifests, the refrigerator warms and its contents spoil, unless
they are moved to a working refrigerator or cooler. Although
refrigerators last 13 years on average, these Kenmore and LG
Refrigerators have been failing within approximately 24-36 months.
Despite the fact that LG has faced multiple class action lawsuits
with similar allegations regarding the defective nature of these
refrigerators, Defendants have continued selling defective
refrigerators that have failed at extremely high rates—a
"pandemic," according to one news report. Despite their knowledge
of the compressor defect, Defendants have sold and continue to sell
these defective Refrigerators without alerting purchasers to the
problem.
Moreover, even when consumers have made warranty claims for
malfunctioning Refrigerators, Defendants have not replaced them
with working units or offered refunds. Instead, Defendants have
attempted futile repairs or replaced defective compressors with
other defective compressors--a practice that, for many, has
resulted in repeated refrigerator failures. Consumers who bought
these Refrigerators have been forced to live out of coolers, have
had to prematurely buy replacement refrigerators, or have had to
pay hefty amounts of money for replacement of the compressors which
in some instances have again failed after only a few months of
being replaced.
The compressor defect existed in each Refrigerator at the time it
was sold. The Plaintiffs were deprived of the benefit of their
bargain and bring this action to obtain relief for themselves and
others who purchased a Kenmore or LG Refrigerator in the United
States of America, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased and used Kenmore and LG branded
refrigerators.
LG designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells refrigerators
throughout the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Azar Mouzari, Esq.
Nilofar Nouri, Esq.
BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C.
468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 238
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: 310-858-5567 Fax: 424-286-0963
Email: azar@bhtrialattorneys.com
nilofar@bhtrialattorneys.com
LOVISA JEWELLERY: May Face Suit Over Underpayment, Mistreatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rakshnna Pattabiraman at insideretail.com.au reports that
Australian jewellery retailer Lovisa could face a class action suit
from former employees over allegations of underpayment and
mistreatment.
Specialist law firm Adero has received intel into the unfair
practices at certain Lovisa stores and potential breaches of the
enterprise agreement.
"We are investigating the underpayments on behalf of casual,
part-time and full-time employees of Lovisa. This includes team
members, senior stylists, assistant store managers, store managers,
inventory managers and any other in-store employees," said the
firm.
"We would seek to recover underpayments due to breaches of the
Lovisa Enterprise Agreement 2014, owed to current and former
employees from 2016 to the current date."
The firm asserts that staff were directed not to take toilet breaks
during periods of extended shifts and work pre and post-shift hours
without any compensation. Employees who served additional hours
during Christmas sales periods were not paid appropriate overtime
rates.
Supporting the claim, a former Sydney employee Marissa Tukuafu
posted a series of videos on TikTok elaborating on the "traumatic"
work culture she and her colleagues had to endure while working at
Lovisa.
In footage obtained by News.com.au, Tukuafu recounts "throwing up"
and "urinating behind the counter" due to a lack of breaks.
In the comment section, another employee claimed she had lost 5kgs
in a month while another said she has "nightmares" about working
there.
"If these practices have occurred across Lovisa stores, Adero may
pursue a class action against Lovisa and seek that compensation be
paid to any employee whose entitlements were not paid in full."
The firm is currently seeking former employee registration for the
purpose of completing the necessary investigations prior to the
commencement of the claim.
Despite ongoing mayhem, the retailer announced last month that it
plans to expand internationally as sales continue to boom across
its network. [GN]
LYONS MAGNUS: Speaks Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyons Magnus, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Barbara Speaks, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lyons Magnus, LLC, Tru
Aseptics, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01043 (M.D.N.C., Dec. 2, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Lyons Magnus, Inc. -- https://www.lyonsmagnus.com/ -- produces and
markets food products. The Company offers beverages, toppings and
sauces, food ingredients, frozen desserts, and nutritional
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN, WILLEY, ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (309) 265-5200
Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
M X PAN INCORPORATED: Duan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kun Duan, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. M X PAN INCORPORATED d/b/a Formosa Seafood Buffet; SIU
WONG PING a/k/a Siuwong Ping, and a/k/a Peter Pan; MIN XIU DONG
a/k/a Minxiu Dong, Case No. 1:22-cv-02333-RLY-KMB (S.D. Ind., Dec.
5, 2022), is brought to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime wages, liquidated damages and/or attorneys' fees and
costs, in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act; the
Indianan Code; and Indiana Minimum Wage Law arising from the
Defendants various willful, malicious and unlawful policies,
patterns and/or practices.
From May 23, 2021 to September 30, 2021, the Plaintiff's schedule
regularly ran around 75 hours per week. From October 1, 2021 to
October 3, 2022, the Plaintiff's schedule regularly ran 66 hours
per week. The Plaintiff was not paid for any such hours. At all
relevant times during the Plaintiff's employment, he was not
awarded any break period during the day. The Defendants did not
keep any records of the Plaintiff's working time.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment his flat compensation did not
include one and one half pay for any hours worked in a week beyond
the 40th fortieth hour. The Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff a wage statement with each payment that included the
hours worked by him, the wages paid to the employee, and the
listing of any deductions made on the Defendant's behalf. The
Defendants committed the foregoing acts knowingly, intentionally,
willfully, and maliciously against the Plaintiff, the collective
and the class, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 23, 2021, to
October 3, 2022, to work as a Fry Wok at the Defendants'
restaurant.
The Defendant operates a restaurant known as "Formosa Seafood
Buffet" located in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
M.C. DEAN INC: Domitrovich Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.C. Dean, Inc. The
case is styled as Russell Domitrovich, individully, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. M.C. Dean, Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-00989 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 6, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
M.C. Dean, Inc. -- https://www.mcdean.com/ -- is a design-build and
systems integration corporation for complex, mission-critical
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th St., Ste. 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Fax: (510) 891-7030
Email: sec@colevannote.com
MAXSOLD INC: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Vanderbrug Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAY ANNE VANDERBRUG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAXSOLD INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01707 (W.D. Wash., December 2, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made calls to residential
telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff's number, that were
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry in an attempt to sell
its goods and services without prior express consent.
MaxSold Inc. is an estate sale marketplace company doing business
in Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: DiCroce Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff KRISTIN DICROCE filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and Order dated November 10, 2022 entered in the lawsuit
entitled KRISTIN DICROCE, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC, and
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No.
21-11660-PBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.
In this putative class action, Plaintiff DiCroce brings deceptive
trade practices and false advertising claims against McNeil and
Johnson & Johnson ("J&J"). At issue are certain statements on the
packaging of the Defendants' product Lactaid that allegedly portray
Lactaid as a drug rather than a dietary supplement.
Plaintiff DiCroce filed the initial Complaint on October 12, 2021,
and Defendants moved to dismiss. The Court allowed Defendants'
motion and dismissed the action without prejudice on April 8, 2022,
finding that the Complaint failed to plead an injury-in-fact
sufficient to establish standing.
DiCroce promptly filed an Amended Complaint that brings three
causes of action: violation of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and other states' consumer
protection statutes (Count I); unjust enrichment (Count II); and
false advertising in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, Section
91 (Count III). The Plaintiff brings the Amended Complaint on
behalf of the proposed class of persons who purchased Lactaid
products and are from states with laws concerning consumer
protection, unjust enrichment, and false advertising substantially
similar to Massachusetts'. The Defendants again moved to dismiss
for failure to state a claim and for lack of standing. The Court
heard argument on August 16, 2022.
On November 10, 2022, Judge Patti B. Saris entered a Memorandum and
Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Amended Complaint
is dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as DiCroce v. McNeil Nutritionals,
LLC, et al., Case No. 22-1910, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on November 28, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form and Appearance form were
due December 13, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTIN DICROCE, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Brendan M. Bridgeland, Esq.
Noah Rosmarin, Esq.
John Peter Zavez, Esq.
ADKINS KELSTON & ZAVEZ PC
90 Canal St., Ste 500
Boston, MA 02114-0000
Telephone: (617) 367-1040
Defendants-Appellees MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC, et al., are
represented by:
James Michael Campbell, Esq.
Christopher Bates Parkerson, Esq.
Margaret J. Pastuszak, Esq.
CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY
20 City Sq., Ste 300
Boston, MA 02129-0000
Telephone: (617) 241-3000
- and -
Hannah Y.S. Chanoine, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036-0000
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
- and -
Kayla N. Haran, Esq.
Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Ctr., 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-0000
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
META PLATFORMS: Texas Nationalist Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Texas Nationalist Movement and Daniel Miller,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. A-210752 was removed from the 58th
District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Dec. 5, 2022,
and assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00572.
The Plaintiffs have sued Meta in the 58th District Court for
allegedly restricting Facebook postings involving the Texas
Nationalist Movement. According to Plaintiffs' amended petition,
"when Facebook users attempted to post a link to the Texas
Nationalist Movement's homepage," "Meta prevented each and every
user from sharing the link" because the link violated Facebook's
"Community Standards." The Plaintiffs claim that this restriction
imposes a "loss of First Amendment freedoms" and amounts to a
"violation of Chapter 143A" of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies
Code ("TCPRC"), which prohibits certain types of viewpoint- and
geography-based censorship of particular kinds of social-media
postings.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Thad Heartfield, Esq.
M. Dru Montgomery, Esq.
THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM
2195 Dowlen Road Beaumont, TX 77706
Phone: 409-866-3318
Facsimile: 409-866-5789
Email: thad@heartfieldlawfirm.com
dru@heartfieldlawfirm.com
- and -
Taj J. Clayton, P.C., Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
4550 Travis Street
Dallas, TX 75205
Phone: 214-972-1757
Facsimile: 214-972-1771
Email: taj.clayton@kirkland.com
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Bryant Sues Over Automated Telemarketing
---------------------------------------------------------
John Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:22-cv-01397 (E.D. Va., Dec. 7, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant engaged in automated telemarketing in violation of
the TCPA using pre-recorded messages that were sent to cellular
telephones. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant's agent
made unsolicited telemarketing calls to Virginia telephone numbers
on the National Do Not Call Registry, and that by doing so, Mutual
of Omaha has violated the provisions of the Virginia Telephone
Privacy Protection Act ("VTPPA"). Because telemarketing campaigns
generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of
potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received
illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendant,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Virginia in this
District.
Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company is a Nebraska company with its
principal place of business in Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William P. Robinson III, Esq.
319 N. Piedmont Street, Suite 1
Arlington, VA. 22203
Email: info@robinsonslaw.com
NEOGENOMICS INC: Goldenberg Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Goldenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEOGENOMICS, INC., DOUGLAS VANOORT, MARK
MALLON, KATHRYN MCKENZIE, and WILLIAM BONELLO, Case No.
1:22-cv-10314 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2022), is brought on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
NeoGenomics securities between February 27, 2020 and April 26,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") in artificially inflated
prices.
NeoGenomics provides cancer tests and testing services to doctors,
clinics, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies. Among the
Company's portfolio of tests are next generation sequencing ("NGS")
tests. NGS tests have become popular with pathologists in recent
years because they can test multiple genes of a cancer
simultaneously, making them more cost effective and efficient than
older legacy tests that only look for a single specific genetic
mutation.
Throughout the Class Period, NeoGenomics consistently
misrepresented to investors that it had a "comprehensive menu" of
cancer tests that positioned it as a "one-stop-shop" for
pathologists that needed cancer testing. Moreover, the Company
stated that it had "every kind of testing modality that you can use
for cancer, including some of the fast-growing new ones, like
next-generation sequencing," and had "a competitive advantage" as a
"go-to reference lab with a comprehensive menu for just about any
kind of tests that you want to have done in cancer and we keep our
test menu very advanced."
These statements were materially false and misleading. In truth:
NeoGenomics was anything but a "one-stop-shop" for cancer testing
because it did not offer the most technologically advanced NGS
tests, which led to a significant decrease in revenue as current
and prospective customers went elsewhere for their testing needs;
the Company's costs were not fixed because NeoGenomics needed to
hire additional employees to process more complex customized
testing demanded by customers utilizing the Company's outdated
portfolio of tests, leading to operational challenges, decreased
lab efficiency, and increased testing turnaround times; and
NeoGenomics violated federal healthcare laws and regulations
related to fraud, waste, and abuse.
On November 4, 2021, NeoGenomics revealed that it was, "conducting
an internal investigation with the assistance of outside counsel
that focuses on the compliance of certain consulting and service
agreements with federal healthcare laws and regulations" and had
recently "notified the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services of our investigation."
Additionally, the Company disclosed that it "accrued a reserve of
$10.5 million for potential damage and liabilities associated with
the federal healthcare program revenue received spanning multiple
years." On this news, the price of NeoGenomics common stock fell
$8.18 per share, or 17.6%, from $46.53 per share on November 3,
2021 to $38.35 per share at the close of trading on November 4,
2021, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased NeoGenomics securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
NeoGenomics operates a network of cancer testing laboratories in
the United States, Europe, and Asia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
Email: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
- and -
David Stein, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
Email: ds@classlawgroup.com
NEW ALTERNATIVES: Guillen Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Annabel Guillen, an individual, Maria Acevez, an individual,
Veronica Viramontes, an individual, and Brian Clementi, an
individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEW
ALTERNATIVES INC. and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No.
30-2022-01288301-CU-WT-CJC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Oct. 25,
2022), is brought for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under
California Business and Professions Codes and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 4, in addition to seeking injunctive
relief, declaratory relief and restitution.
The Plaintiff were paid for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week regardless
of actual time worked, overtime, or being on call. The Defendant
instructed the Plaintiff to fill out their time cards to only
indicate eight. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 8 hours a
day while employed by the Defendant, and often 40 or more hours per
week. The Plaintiff were not provided the opportunity to take a
30-minute uninterrupted meal period before the end of their fifth
hour of work. The Defendant also failed to compensate the Plaintiff
and other employees for all overtime wages in those instances in
which they worked over 8 hours in a work day and/or 40 hours in a
work week, nor did the Defendant pay the Plaintiff and other
employees double time wages when they worked in excess of 12 hours
in a workday, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 2017 at its Orange
County, California facility.
New Alternatives, Inc. is a California Corporation that maintains
operational facilities in Orange County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony B. Daye, Esq.
THE DAYE FIRM PC
18426 Brookhurst Street, Suite 201
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Office: (714) 988-9531
Fax: (949) 988-9531
Email: adaye@thedayefirm.com
NEW RACEPATH INC: Porter Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Evangeline Porter, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. New Racepath, Inc., d/b/a Big
Mike's Soul Food, Michael L. Chestnut, and Michael "Coby" Chestnut,
Case No. 2022-CP-26-04903 was removed from the Superior Court of
the Court of Common Pleas Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Horry
County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina on Dec. 5, 2022, and assigned Case No.
4:22-cv-04391-RBH.
In addition to alleging violation of the FLSA, Plaintiff alleges
violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John M. Leiter, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. LEITER, PA
405 79th Avenue North, Suite B
Myrtle Beach, SC 29572
Phone: (843) 449-1451
Fax: (843) 449-4884
Email: Jleiter@48th.com
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Retirees' Illegal Charges of Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 29, 2022, Walden Macht & Haran and Pollock Cohen filed
a class action on behalf of 183,000 retired municipal workers
against the City of New York and insurance company
EmblemHealth/GHI. The suit alleges that the defendants are
illegally charging co-pays to elderly and disabled retirees
enrolled in EmblemHealth/GHI's "Senior Care" plan. These senior
citizens and disabled first responders have already collectively
incurred more than $55 million in co-pays, and many have also
suffered non-monetary harm. Affidavits filed with the lawsuit
reveal that the co-pays are preventing many retirees from obtaining
important medical care and forcing others to reduce spending on
necessities such as medicine, food, housing, heat, transportation,
and, in at least one case, home health aides required to help a
Parkinson's patient walk.
The lawsuit alleges that the Senior Care co-pays, which had never
been imposed prior to this year, are unlawful for the following
three reasons: they are being forced on retirees without their
prior consent; they violate a March 2022 court order issued in a
previous case brought by the retirees; and they are not allowed
under the contract governing Senior Care.
"These co-pays are a transparent and unlawful attempt to shift onto
retirees costs that the City and Emblem are responsible for," said
Marianne Pizzitola, President of the NYC Organization of Public
Service Retirees, one of the plaintiffs. "Retirees earned and paid
for their benefits by giving up wage increases and accepting
reduced earnings during their careers. To deprive them of these
hard-earned benefits now, in their old age, is reprehensible."
Because retirees are suffering irreparable harm as a result of the
co-pays, they have filed a preliminary injunction motion along with
their lawsuit. "We have asked the Court to immediately halt these
co-pays to prevent retirees from suffering any further harm while
we litigate this case," said Jake Gardener, an attorney at Walden
Macht & Haran who represents the retirees.
This is the third healthcare-related lawsuit filed jointly by
Walden Macht & Haran and Pollock Cohen on behalf of retired public
servants. The previous two—one in New York City and the other in
Delaware—both resulted in landmark victories for retirees.[GN]
NOMI HEALTH: Alexis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Alexis, Manouse Bertrand, Evencia Lestin Bien-Aime, Nacuna
Brunson, Marjorie Calixte, Gina Delanay, Lamartine Denaud, Neltha
Desir, Kimberly Harvy Drake, Maxilene Fils-Aime, Lorna Francois,
Michael Gaspard, Diana Husein, Emma Jacinthe, Artrell Johnson,
Roxene Douce Johnson, Myrlene Joseph, Nadege Joseph, Locmaine
Louis, Lisgreily Marin, Ralph Marrero, Edlyne Metayer, Samantha
Mondesir, Jetzabell Nortey-Mayola, Nancy Pierre, Paola Ravani,
Marie Reguenard, Quamea Richards, Ismaray Rodriguez, Lateechia
Rule, Roseline Sejour, Elena Souverian, Josee Suazo, Jose Tamayo,
Yvena Termilus, Lucine Toussaint, Daniela Vazquez, Keley Vilbrun,
Chanik Worsley, and Solange Youyoute, on behalf of themselves as
well as all other similarly situated employees v. NOMI HEALTH,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, and MEDX STAFFING INC., a Utah
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-23938-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2022),
is brought seeking recovery of unpaid overtime compensation owed to
Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated employees, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors by the
Defendants. They worked at the Defendants' Covid-19 testing
facilities in the Southern District of Florida. Their primary
duties were to perform activities related to COVID-19 such as
testing and vaccinations. The Plaintiffs, all hourly employees who
worked over 40 hours, seek their unpaid overtime compensation.
Consistent with the Defendants' policies and patterns of practice,
Plaintiffs were not paid overtime at a rate of time and one half
for all hours worked in excess of 40 for each work week. As part of
their regular business practice, the Defendants intentionally,
willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or
policy of violating the FLSA with respect to the Plaintiffs, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
Nomi Health, Inc. is and was a national Company, authorized to do
business and doing business in the state of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cathleen Scott, Esq.
Gabriel "Gabe" T. Roberts, Esq.
SCOTT LAW TEAM, LLC
Jupiter Gardens
250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
Jupiter, FL 33458
Phone: (561) 653-0008
Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
Secondary Address: 101 Northpoint Parkway
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Web: www.ScottLawTeam.com
Primary Email: CScott@scottlawteam.com
GRoberts@scottlawteam.com
Secondary Email: mail@scottlawteam.com
mail@scottlawteam.com
- and -
Andrew Obeidy, Esq.
OBEIDY & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
2755 E. Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 225
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
Phone: (305)892-5454
Facsimile: (954)206-6955
Email: andrew@obdlegal.com
NOT YOUR MOTHER'S: Class Action Sparks Concerns About Dry Shampoos
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Stoogenke at yahoo.com reports that a recent class action
lawsuit says a dry shampoo sold in the U.S. had "dangerous" levels
of benzene in it.
A 27-page lawsuit says dry shampoo products by the Not Your
Mother's brand, including Beach Babe, Clean Freek and Plump for
Joy, expose consumers to "high levels of acutely toxic" benzene.
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, benzene is a
cancer-causing chemical and is unsafe in cosmetic products.
The lawsuit says an independent laboratory found some Not Your
Mother's shampoos had benzene levels reaching up to 158 parts per
million (ppm), but the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health says workers should wear protective equipment if exposed
to benzene concentrations of 0.1 ppm or higher.
According to the FDA, benzene has an "unacceptable toxicity" and if
a company has to use the chemical it should limit it to 2 ppm.
That said, there isn't any recall at present.
The FDA told Action 9′s Jason Stoogenke:
"The FDA is committed to ensuring marketed products Americans use
are safe and effective. The FDA continues to monitor the issue of
benzene in marketed products and is proactively working with
companies, when appropriate, to recall products and encourage
retailers to remove products from store shelves and online
marketplaces when quality issues arise. The FDA is evaluating the
root cause of benzene contamination and has alerted companies to
the risk of benzene contamination in marketed products and reminded
them of their obligation to ensure their products meet appropriate
quality specifications. We continually gain additional knowledge
about marketed products which allows us to identify and quickly
address previously unknown risks to consumers. The FDA will
communicate new information as it becomes available."[GN]
NUTRISHUS BRANDS: Michael Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrishus Brands,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alain Michael, Lynetta Huffman,
Karen Asher, as individuals and on behalf of himself all others
similarly situated v. Nutrishus Brands, Inc., Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-08746-SPG-MAR (C.D. Cal., Dec. 2,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Nutrishus Brands, Inc. doing business as RxSugar --
https://therxsugar.com/ -- is a producer of natural sugar used to
serve it as a healthy alternative.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shalini Dogra, Esq.
DOGRA LAW GROUP PC
2219 Main Street Unit 239
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: (747) 234-6673
Fax: (310) 868-0170
Email: shalini@dogralawgroup.com
PACTIV PACKAGING: Ram Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pactiv Packaging,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ajeet S. Ram, an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pactiv Packaging,
Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0009879 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 26, 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:
Rex J. Phillips, Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES
11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
Phone: 310-312-0299
Fax: 310-312-0296
Email: phillips@law-rm.com
PERKINELMER INC: Lamb Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA LAMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERKINELMER, INC.; JVT ADVISORS, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV38033
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to compensate all hours worked, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime and double-time compensation,
failure to provide proper wage statements, failure to pay
compensation upon termination of employment, and unfair business
practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee from October 14, 2020 until October 6, 2021.
PerkinElmer, Inc. is an American global corporation focused in the
business areas of diagnostics, life science research, food,
environmental and industrial testing, headquartered in
Massachusetts.
JVT Advisors, LLC is a job recruitment agency based in
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Young W. Ryu, Esq.
Joshua Park, Esq.
Henna H. Choi, Esq.
LOYR, APC
1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2290
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 318-5323
Facsimile: (800) 576-1170
E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com
joshua.park@loywr.com
henna.choi@loywr.com
PINK LILY: Florio Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Florio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Jack Riley Investments LLC d/b/a Pink Lily,
Case No. 159858996 (Fla. 13th Judicial Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty.,
Oct. 24, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for the
Defendant's violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by
engaging in unsolicited telephonic sales calls.
To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and
the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class
members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."
The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 422–7782
Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
Email: ben@theKRfirm.com
PITTSBURGH REGIONAL: Sued Over Religious Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s), on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Pittsburgh Regional Transit f/k/a Port
Authority of Allegheny County (PAT), Case No. 2:22-cv-01736-RJC
(W.D. Pa., Dec. 6, 2022), is brought to seek damages to redress the
deprivation of Plaintiffs' fundamental rights to equal protection
under the law and the free exercise of their religion and to be
free from religious discrimination in employment.
The Plaintiffs were perceived as disabled by Defendant without
reasonable accommodation because of their unvaccinated status. The
Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendant for unlawful
religious discrimination against employees who requested and were
denied a reasonable accommodation from the defendant's Covid 19
vaccination mandate.
The Plaintiffs also assert claims for those Plaintiffs who were
denied religious exemption and were forced to get vaccination
against their will and their sincerely held religious beliefs
solely to keep their employment. The Plaintiffs also assert claims
for those Plaintiffs were denied a medical exemption and were
forced to get vaccination against their will solely to keep their
employment, or were fired because their medical exemption was
wrongfully denied.
Lastly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for those Plaintiffs who were
not given the opportunity after being informed of the risk and
benefits of the vaccine to make an informed choice to accept or
deny the vaccination without consequence in violation of federal
law. To put it in plain language, the Defendants vaccine mandate
was illegal and/or unconstitutional under federal law as the
Defendant cannot mandate a vaccine that is issued under EUA status,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of the Defendant.
PAT is a not-for-profit corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Welsh, III, Esq.
THE WELSH LAW GROUP, LLC
3875 Franklintowne Court, Suite 130
Murrysville, PA 15668
Phone: 724-519-2122
Fax: 724-519-2097
Email: jwelsh@thewklaw.com
POPPY & POUT: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Poppy & Pout LLC. The
case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Poppy &
Pout LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10233 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Poppy & Pout -- https://poppyandpout.com/ -- offers lip balms that
are 100% natural, untinted, and come in eco-friendly cardboard
tubes.[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
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Action Claims Lozenges Do Not Contain Lemon
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher at topclassactions.com reports that Vicks class action
lawsuit overview:
Who: Plaintiff Jeffrey Thomas filed a class action lawsuit against
The Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G).
Why: He alleges P&G misrepresents Vicks Honey Lemon Chill lozenges
as containing lemon ingredients.
Where: The Vicks class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal
court.
The Procter & Gamble Co. faces a class action lawsuit alleging it
misrepresents Vicks Honey Lemon Chill lozenges as containing lemon
even though they contain no lemon ingredients.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Thomas says he reviewed the front label of Vicks
Honey Lemon Chill lozenges, which includes the phrase "Soothes Sore
Throat" and depicts an image of a lemon wedge. Based on the label's
representations, he believed the lozenges contained lemon,
according to the Vicks class action lawsuit.
"Below 'Soothes Sore Throat' is a lozenge beneath a dripping honey
dipper, propped up against a lemon wedge, dispensing what appears
to be cool vapor into a mouth and nose," the Vicks class action
says of the product label.
However, Thomas says lemon is not listed as an ingredient in the
Vicks Honey Lemon Chill product.
"Consumers viewing the lemon wedge will expect lemon ingredients,
understood as a source of vitamin C and believed to promote
immunity," the Vicks class action lawsuit says.
Vicks class action says product label should note lozenges do not
contain FDA-approved demulcent ingredients
Thomas also alleges the phrase "Soothes Sore Throat" suggests the
product contains demulcent ingredients that soothe and relieve
irritation. The Food and Drug Administration has approved certain
demulcent ingredients, but the Vicks Honey Lemon Chill lozenges do
not contain any of them, Thomas alleges.
Thomas notes the lozenges' corn syrup and sucrose ingredients can
function as demulcents, but he claims the label should identify the
product as an "oral anesthetic formulated in a sugar base."
Had the plaintiff known the representations about the lemon content
in the lozenges were false and misleading, the class action says,
he would have paid less for the lozenges or would not have
purchased them at all.
The Vicks class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of New
York business law, various state consumer fraud acts, breach of
warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment.
Bayer faces a similar class action lawsuit alleging it deceptively
markets an Alka-Seltzer Plus cold and flu product as containing
honey and lemon ingredients even though it allegedly contains
neither.
What do you think of the allegations against Vicks Honey Lemon
Chill lozenges? Tell us about it in the comments.
Thomas is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates
PC.
The Vicks Honey Lemon Chill class action lawsuit is Jeffrey Thomas,
et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-00914, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, Buffalo
Division. [GN]
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Blumenfeld Files Suit Over FCDPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR BLUMENFELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS BUREAU, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 534597/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Nov. 28,
2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged abusive, deceptive, and
unfair debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the law by
failing to provide the accurate amount of debt, and by
overshadowing, confusing, misrepresenting, and/or or clouding
amounts stated. Likewise, Defendant failed to clearly and
conspicuously provide validation information in violation of
Regulation F. 94. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to the
Plaintiff for judgment that the Defendant's conduct violated
Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA, and the Plaintiff is entitled
to actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
adds the complaint.
Professional Claims Bureau, LLC is a debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Yusko, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
PUGET SOUND ENERGY: Cheney Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as David Cheney, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC., a
Washington Public Utility Corporation, Case No. 22-2-09205-5 was
removed from the Washington State Superior Court for Pierce County,
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on Dec. 5, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-05942.
The Plaintiff's Complaint raises six causes of action alleging
failure to pay wages for all hours worked, unlawful deductions from
wages for paid meal periods, failure to ensure rest periods and
failure to compensate for violations of rest period rules, failure
to provide meal periods and failure to compensate for violations of
meal period rules, failure to pay overtime, and willful withholding
of wages. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Washington
Minimum Wage Act, Wage Payment Act, Industrial Welfare Act, and
Wage Rebate Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Chelsea Dwyer Petersen, Esq.
Charles N. Eberhardt, Esq.
Margo S. Jasukaitis, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: +1.206.359.8000
Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000
Email: CDPetersen@perkinscoie.com
CEberhardt@perkinscoie.com
MJasukaitis@perkinscoie.com
PULTE HOME: Mount Seeks OK of Renewed Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beverly Massey Mount, et
al., v. Pulte Home Company, LLC and S&ME, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-02314-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their renewed bid for class certification.
The Court previously considered the Plaintiffs' motion and
memorandum in support of motion for class certification. The Court
found that, while the Fed.R.Civ.P.23(a) prerequisites were met, the
Plaintiffs had not established the prerequisites of
Fed.R.Civ.P.23(b)(3). In particular, the Court held that the
Plaintiffs had not shown that common issues predominate the
litigation and are susceptible to common proof. Thus, the Court
denied the motion for class certification without prejudice,
allowing the Plaintiffs an opportunity to renew the motion to
address this issues.
Pulte is an American residential home construction company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 5, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uvgwwQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kathryn Barnett, Esq.
Tyler Kobylinsksi, Esq.
MOTRGAN & MORGAN-NASHvILLE
810 Broadway, Suite 105
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 490-0943
E-mail: kbarnett@forthepeople.com
tkobylinski@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph S. Justice, Esq.
Stephens Lopez, Esq.
Martin Thomas Buckley, Esq.
BUCKLEY SEACORD & JUSTICE P.A.
200 S Orange Ave. Ste. 2850
PO Box 4922
Orlando, FL 32802-4922
Telephone: (407) 841-3800
E-mail: service-justice@bsj-law.com
tlopez@bsj-law.com
mbuckely@bsj-law.com
REALPAGE INC: Armas Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------
Lena Armas and Andrea Blum, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC., GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC, CH REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.,
FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.,
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, ESSEX MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST,
ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC., THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC,
SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., B/T WASHINGTON, LLC d/b/a BLANTON TURNER,
INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC., CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., BH
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, and UDR, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01726
(W.D. Wash., Dec. 6, 2022), is brought as an antitrust class action
alleging that certain major residential landlords illegally
exchanged and agreed on prices through a data analytics software
rather than compete to attract renters and against the Defendants
violation of the Sherman Act as a result of its price fixing
conspiracy.
The RealPage Platform works by collecting vast amounts of
non-public data from its client property managers regarding lease
transactions, rent prices, occupancy levels, and virtually every
other possible data point relevant to rent prices. This data is fed
into an algorithm, along with additional data collected from
RealPage's myriad other data analytics and rental management
software products. The algorithm then generates a rental price for
each of RealPage's client's available units, which is updated
daily. RealPage makes sure all of its clients know that to maximize
revenues, they must accept the software's rental price at least
80-90 percent of the time, and RealPage's "Revenue Management
Advisors" monitor clients to ensure compliance. As the allegations
and evidence set forth below demonstrate, RealPage and the property
managers who use the RealPage Platform constitute a price fixing
cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only
through coordinated price setting.
In 2016, Defendants replaced these independent pricing and supply
decisions with collusion. With its growing popularity within the
industry, Lessors agreed to use the RealPage Platform. Defendants
agreed to follow RealPage Platform's rental pricing recommendations
80-90 percent of the time and faced disciplinary action for
noncompliance based on the expectation that competing Defendants
would do the same.
Beyond the anticompetitive exchange of nonpublic and competitively
sensitive information among competing property managers, RealPage
uses additional mechanisms to facilitate coordination among cartel
members and prevent cheating by conspiracy participants. First, by
allowing property managers to outsource their rent-setting process,
RealPage causes them to consider higher rent prices than they ever
would have before. As the property managers acknowledge, they are
competitors. Yet, RealPage's clients shared a common goal of
increasing rent prices across the board and understood that
RealPage--which has been explicit that its aim is to help its
clients "outperform the market by 3% to 7%"--was the means by which
to do it.
RealPage's clients include many of the nation's largest property
managers who often control a majority of rental units in desirable
neighborhoods of major cities. A recent analysis conducted by
ProPublica showed that rents in areas where RealPage clients
control a high percentage of rental units have increased at a
significantly higher rate than those where the company's influence
is weaker.
The Defendants' price fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful
restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It has
resulted in artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished
supply of affordable rental units. As a direct result of the
anticompetitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiffs and
the Class, who rent in residential markets throughout the United
States from property managers that use RealPage's software, paid
significant overcharges on rent and suffered harm from the reduced
availability of rental units they could reasonably afford. The
Plaintiffs bring this action to recover their damages, say the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs rented multifamily residential units.
RealPage is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Richardson,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
breannav@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: jsmith@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
REALPAGE INC: Crook Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Crook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC;
LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT
COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL;
ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and
SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01907-L-AHG (S.D. Cal.,
Dec. 2, 2022), is brought to recover its damages, trebled, as well
as injunctive and other appropriate relief as a result of the
Defendants' artificially inflated prices in violation of the Sheman
Act.
A cartel of lessors has artificially inflated prices in the
multifamily real estate market in the United States. Historically,
Lessors priced their units independently to maximize occupancy
(i.e., maximize output), and were incentivized to reduce prices to
attract lessees away from competitors until complete occupancy
("heads-in-beds" strategy). This competitive process drove rent
levels to reflect natural market supply and demand of rental units.
Lessors also determined when to market a unit independently, which
led to unstable supply levels (a natural feature of a competitive
market). And when supply exceeded demand, Lessors cut rent prices.
The historical approach presented Lessors with a "a classic
prisoner's dilemma," from the view of a former industry executive,
because although all Lessors "would be better off limiting their
rent reductions," if any "lowered their rents while the others
don't, then that one would outperform" the others. Lessors solved
the natural prisoner's dilemma by replacing independent pricing and
supply decisions with collusion that is organized and facilitated
by RealPage, Inc. a company that offers software and data analytics
to the real estate industry. Starting in 2016 (or earlier), Lessors
agreed to provide RealPage with real-time, competitively sensitive
price and supply data that RealPage then feeds into its centralized
pricing algorithm that provides cartel members with unit-specific
price and supply recommendations. Lessors adhere to RealPage's
price recommendations because they know that other Lessors will do
the same. By sharing non-public sensitive information and following
RealPage's algorithmic price and supply decisions, Lessors have
avoided the price competition natural to the market and increased
(artificially) residential lease prices.
First, Lessors "outsource daily pricing and ongoing revenue
oversight" to RealPage, i.e., they replace many independent
decision makers with one. Lessors provide, and RealPage collects,
historical and live pricing data from more than 13 million units (a
"very large chunk of the total inventory in the country," according
to RealPage), which is updated every time Lessors make or change a
lease offer. Adherence to the scheme is ensured by RealPage, which
commands that Lessors must be "disciplined" and accept at least
80-percent of RealPage's price recommendations for its services to
be effective. Participating Lessors adopt as many as 90- (and at
least 80-) percent of RealPage's prices without deviation.
Second, Lessors coordinate supply levels through RealPage to avoid
price competition. In a competitive rental market, lease supply
exceeds demand at times, which creates downward price pressure as
firms compete to attract lessees. To avoid such competition,
RealPage provides Lessors with information sufficient to "stagger"
lease renewals to avoid an oversupply in the market, which causes
Lessors to hold units vacant for periods of time (contra the
historical heads-in beds strategy) so that, collectively in the
market, there is never a period of oversupply of available units,
artificially maintaining and inflating prices.
The cartel's efforts have caused anticompetitive effects in the
form of higher prices and reduced output (occupancy). RealPage
advertises that participating Lessors experience year-over-year
rent price increases "between 5% and 12% in every market." Indeed,
a RealPage Vice President said in a marketing video that he thought
RealPage's software was "driving" recent, never-before seen price
increases for residential real estate leases (up to 14.5%). Lessors
are happy with the program: one, for example, made "10 million in
income" by raising rents and "pushing people out" of leases they
could no longer afford). The conspiracy here alleged violates
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff rented a multifamily residential unit in a property
managed by Defendant Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.
located in Memphis, Tennessee.
RealPage, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Richardson, Texas who offers software and data analytics to the
real estate industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Email: TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com
MWeiler@schneiderwallace.com
REALPAGE INC: Morgan Sues Over Artificially Raised Rental Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN ASHLEY MORGAN, ERIK BARNES, SHERRY BASON, LOIS WINN, GEORGES
EMMANUEL NJONG DIBOKI, JULIA SIMS, and SOPHIA WOODLAND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC;
LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; FPI MANAGEMENT,
INC.; RPM LIVING, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; MIDAMERICA
APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES, LLC; AVENUE5
RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; AVALONBAY
COMMUNITIES, INC.; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL;
THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; ZRS
MANAGEMENT, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; UDR, INC.; CONAM MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT,
LLC; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; CWS APARTMENT HOMES, LLC; PROMETHEUS
REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.; SARES REGIS GROUP OPERATING, INC.; MISSION
ROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; and MORGAN GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01712 (W.D. Wash., December 1, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for alleged violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, 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. RealPage and its participating lessors
shifted from the previous competitive market share over price
strategy to a new collusive price over volume strategy. RealPage
and participating lessors have adopted a philosophy of maximizing
economic occupancy, that is, increasing prices notwithstanding
market conditions and tolerating any reduced physical occupancy
levels that might engender. They have effectuated their agreement
through two mutually reinforcing mechanisms. First, participating
lessors have agreed to set prices using RealPage's coordinated
algorithmic pricing. Second, participating lessors have agreed to
stagger their lease renewal dates through RealPage, to avoid
(otherwise natural) oversupplies in rental properties. As a result
of the Defendants' cartel, the Plaintiffs and Class members
suffered overcharge damages, says the suit.
RealPage, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Richardson,
Texas.
Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC is a multifamily rental real
estate management firm, headquartered in Charleston, South
Carolina.
Lincoln Property Co. is a multifamily rental real estate management
firm, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in New York, New York.
FPI Management, Inc. is a multifamily rental real estate management
firm, headquartered in Folsom, California.
RPM Living LLC is a multifamily rental real estate management firm,
headquartered in Austin, Texas.
BH Management Services, LLC is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm with its headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. is a multifamily rental
real estate management firm, headquartered in Germantown,
Tennessee.
Morgan Properties, LLC is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Avenue5 Residential, LLC is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
Bozzuto Management Company is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in Greenbelt, Maryland.
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.
Highmark Residential, LLC is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Equity Residential is a real estate investment trust, headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.
The Irvine Company, LLC is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in Newport Beach, California.
Essex Property Trust, Inc is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in San Mateo, California.
ZRS Management, LLC is a multifamily rental real estate management
firm, headquartered in Orlando, Florida.
Camden Property Trust is a real estate trust, headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
UDR, Inc. is a multifamily rental real estate management firm,
headquartered in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.
CONAM Management Corporation is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in San Diego, California.
Cortland Partners, LLC is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
Thrive Communities Management, LLC is a multifamily rental real
estate management firm, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
Security Properties Inc. is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
CWS Apartment Homes, LLC is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in Austin, Texas.
Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. is a multifamily rental real
estate management firm, headquartered in San Mateo, California.
Sares Regis Group Operating, Inc. is a multifamily rental real
estate management firm, headquartered in Newport Beach,
California.
Mission Rock Residential, LLC is a multifamily rental real estate
management firm, headquartered in Denver, Colorado.
Morgan Group Inc. is a multifamily rental real estate management
firm, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
breannav@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com
- and -
Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: sbojedla@hausfeld.com
- and -
Katie R. Beran, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
mwallin@bm.net
- and -
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 559-9745
E-mail: dwalker@bm.net
- and -
Janet M. Herold, Esq.
Benjamin D. Elga, Esq.
Lucy B. Bansal, Esq.
JUSTICE CATALYST LAW
40 Rector Street, Floor 9
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (518) 732-6703
E-mail: jherold@justicecatalyst.org
belga@justicecatalyst.org
lbansal@justicecatalyst.org
- and -
Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: bglackin@lchb.com
dharvey@lchb.com
- and -
Dan Drachler, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 895-5005
Facsimile: (206) 895-3131
E-mail: ddrachler@lchb.com
- and -
Jason Scott Hartley, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
REVERSE MORTGAGE: Willis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reverse Mortgage
Funding, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Willis, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Reverse
Mortgage Funding, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00328496-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec.
6, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Reverse Mortgage Funding LLC -- https://www.reversefunding.com/ --
provides mortgage loan services. The Company offers home equity
conversion mortgage services to homeowners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Phone: 310-975-1493
Fax: 310-675-0861
Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Perez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order
denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Ignain Perez, Plaintiff, v. Roto-Rooter Services Company,
Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01508-CJC-ADS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint, which was removed
from Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, for the Defendant's violations
of California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay
minimum wages, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
On Sept. 29, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Cormac J. Carney on Nov. 15, 2022.
The appellate case is captioned Ignain Perez v. Roto-Rooter
Services Company, Case No. 22-56129, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 1, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Roto-Rooter Services Company Mediation
Questionnaire was due December 8, 2022;
-- Appellant Roto-Rooter Services Company opening brief is due
on January 30, 2023;
-- Appellee Ignain Perez answering brief is due on March 1,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee IGNAIN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Gregory Philip Wong, Esq.
BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC
6047 Bristol Parkway, 2nd Floor
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (323) 450-2777
Defendant-Appellant ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY is represented
by:
Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
Cameron O'Brien Flynn, Esq.
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
SUPERVALU INC: Sheiner Sues Over Patches' "8 Hrs. of Relief" Label
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE SHEINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERVALU INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-10262-NSR (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of
the New York General Business Law and State Consumer Fraud Acts,
and breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and the Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its pain relief patches under the Equaline brand. The Defendant
represented the patches as "Maximum Strength," "Lidocaine Patch,"
"Topical Anesthetic," "4% Lidocaine," to "desensitize aggravated
nerves," "for temporary relief of pain [to] back, neck, shoulders,
knees [and] elbows" for "up to 8 hours of relief" and a picture of
a body with a patch applied to the lower back. However, studies
have shown the product is unable to adhere to the skin for more
than four hours, often peeling off within minutes of light
activity, which renders the "Up to 8 Hours of Relief" label as
misleading, because this is a significant disparity between what is
promised and what is delivered. As a result of the Defendant's
false and misleading representations, the product is sold at a
premium price, says the suit.
Supervalu Inc. is a chain of grocery stores, with a principal place
of business in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
Sheehan & Associates, PC
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SURREY BANCORP: M&A Class Action Firm Probes Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Surrey Bancorp (OTC: SRYB), relating to its proposed acquisition by
First Community Bancshares, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
SRYB shareholders will receive 0.7159 shares of First Community per
share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/surrey-bancorp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates
Monteverde & Associates PC are a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We
were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr.
Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as
a Rising Star and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities
Litigation. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a
2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include
changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard
of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth
Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory
by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently
granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v.
Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or
secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers
& acquisitions class action cases. [GN]
SYNGENTA CROP: R & D Adams Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
R & D Adams Dairy Farm, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, and CORTEVA, INC., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01050 (M.D.N.C., Dec. 6, 2022), is brought under the
Clayton Act to secure injunctive relief and to recover actual and
compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees for the injury caused by the Defendants' wrongful
conduct against the Defendants for violating the Sherman Act.
Farmers have been grappling with skyrocketing operating expenses
for the last several years. In a 2018 survey, 80% of farmers
reported their costs were increasing and they were unable to pay
their debts estimated to be over $400 billion as of 2019. In the
latest-revealed scheme to take advantage of farmers in the United
States, Defendants have implemented special "loyalty programs" in
connection with key active ingredients that are incorporated into
products that farmers use to protect crops from damage caused by
insects, weeds, and fungi ("pesticides").
Under these loyalty programs, Defendants provide payments to
distributors in exchange for selling certain amounts of Defendants'
pesticides and restricting sales of generic pesticides made by
competing manufacturers. Defendants implement and enforce these
loyalty programs to ensure that manufacturers of generic pesticides
are unable to effectively distribute their products, which
preserves the Defendants' control of the market and prevents price
competition.
As reflected in a recent complaint filed by the Federal Trade
Commission (the "FTC") and ten state Attorneys General, the
Defendants' scheme has succeeded. In order to obtain Defendants'
loyalty payments, distributors severely curtail sales of, and in
some cases wholly refrain from selling, pesticides that compete
with those manufactured by Defendants. Without these distributors,
competing manufacturers cannot effectively sell their pesticides
and farmers are forced to purchase Defendants' higher-priced
products. As a result, farmers face decreased innovation, fewer
choices, and increased prices totaling many millions of dollars in
overcharges.
On September 29, 2022, following an investigation, the FTC filed a
complaint against Defendants alleging that Defendants' loyalty
programs foreclose generic competition and result in higher prices
for farmers in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. As
revealed by the FTC's investigation, Defendants' loyalty programs
provide that Defendants will make payments in the form of "rebates"
to distributors based on their purchases of Defendant--branded
pesticides--but there is a condition: distributors and retailers
must limit their purchases of generic pesticides to a set
percentage. Defendants both reward participation in their loyalty
programs and punish non-compliance. Indeed, Defendants ensure that
Distributors profit more from accepting Defendants' "rebates"
payments than they would from distributing a higher volume of
lower-priced, generic pesticides.
Only a small number of distributors dominate the sale of pesticides
in the United States. Since they profit from participating in
Defendants' loyalty programs and face significant financial
consequences if they do not, these distributors readily exclude
generic pesticides from their distribution lists. As a result,
generic competitors are almost entirely foreclosed from efficiently
distributing their products. Prices remain high and farmers pay
millions of dollars more than they otherwise would have for
pesticides containing Defendants' ingredients. Defendants, on the
other hand, are able to maintain high prices and dominant market
positions years after their exclusivity expires. While Defendants
and their distributors benefit, farmers are left to pay
supracompetitive prices for pesticides and are deprived of access
to cheaper generic alternatives.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have restrained
competition, maintained unlawful monopolies, and harmed America's
farmers, reducing choices for these farmers and costing them
millions of dollars in overcharges. Plaintiff and the Class bring
this antitrust suit under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust
and consumer protections laws, and for unjust enrichment to redress
that wrongful conduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased an herbicide that contained the active
ingredient Rimsulfuron from Growmark FS, LLC at a supra-competitive
price.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG transacts or has transacted business in
this District, and is engaged in the development, manufacture, and
sale of pesticides.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gagan Gupta, Esq.
Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
Sara C. Willingham, Esq.
PAYNTER LAW, PLLC
106 S. Churton Street, Suite 200
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 729-2149
Email: ggupta@paynterlaw.com
stuart@paynterlaw.com
swillingham@paynterlaw.com
- and -
Austin Cohen, Esq.
Keith Verrier, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
501 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: acohen@lfsblaw.com
kverrier@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
Marco Cercone, Esq.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNIGHHAM, LLC
1600 Liberty Building
424 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Phone: (716) 854-3400
Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com
cercone@ruppbaase.com
T.J. MAXX OF CA: Gancinia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC.
The case is styled as Roxan Gancinia, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0009999 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 26, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
TJ Maxx -- https://tjmaxx.tjx.com/store/index.jsp -- is an American
department store chain, selling at prices generally lower than
other major similar stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Edgar Sues Over Improper Blocking of Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keiko Edgar, Dena Burge, and Uha Health Insurance, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PARENTERAL
MEDICINES, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., TEVA SALES & MARKETING,
INC., CEPHALON, INC., and WILLIAM S. MARTH, Case No. 2:22-cv-02501
(D. Kan., Dec. 2, 2022), is brought to hold the Defendants
accountable for participating in a scheme to improperly block
access to two different generic pharmaceutical products: the
generic versions of the EpiPen (a life-saving drug/device
combination for severe allergic reactions) and Nuvigil (a
wakefulness medicine). As a result, Teva enriched itself at the
literal expense of American consumers who overpaid by hundreds of
millions of dollars for these medications.
Teva worked in secret to sign deals with two other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, Mylan and Pfizer, that foreclosed generic
competition to both the EpiPen and Nuvigil for several years longer
than legally allowed. In short, Mylan and Pfizer, on the one hand,
and Teva, on the other, agreed to exchange market access for EpiPen
and Nuvigil, to protect their respective market shares, and to
delay entry of generic competition for their respective branded
drugs.
By abusing the patent litigation process and conspiring to block
generic access, Teva, Mylan, and Pfizer forced purchasers to pay
for branded products, when prescriptions should have been filled
with less costly generic options. Teva is primarily a generic drug
company that publicly claims to champion and promote generic drug
access. Standing in stark contrast to these claims, Teva's secret
efforts to block access to generic alternatives to Nuvigil and
EpiPen were especially egregious.
As to the schemes to block generic drug access to Nuvigil and the
EpiPen, there is little mystery as to what happened: Mylan and
Pfizer have already settled a lawsuit filed against them concerning
the generic delay scheme for a total of $609 million. These nine-
figure settlements, which occurred after years of discovery and
nationwide class certification of claims for antitrust and RICO
violations, confirm the plausibility of the allegations raised in
this Complaint against Teva.
But those settlements addressed only the EpiPen, and only Mylan and
Pfizer's roles in the pay-for-delay scheme. This case addresses the
other participant in the scheme, Teva, and the other side of the
exchange: Nuvigil. This case seeks to complete the puzzle and to
hold Teva accountable for its role in delaying generic options both
for the EpiPen and Nuvigil, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs paid for part of the purchase price of EpiPens
during the EpiPen Class Period.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. is a worldwide pharmaceutical
company engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, and
sale of pharmaceutical products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
W. Greg Wright, Esq.
Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
Hammons P. Hepner, Esq.
SHARP LAW LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Phone: (913) 901-0505
Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
rhudson@midwest-law.com
rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
gwright@midwest-law.com
hhepner@midwest-law.com
- and -
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alison Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 456-1496
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Spencer Cox, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (469) 904-4550
Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
scox@burnscharest.com
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Wren Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM F. WREN is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
William F. Wren, Plaintiff, v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00178, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asserts claims arising from the Defendant's breach of its
obligation to pay the 300% "Cash Value Increase" due on the 30th
policy anniversary of the Transamerica Life Insurance Company
(TLIC) "Direct Recognition Life I" policy issued to the Plaintiff
in 1990.
On Jan. 31, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary
adjudication. On same day, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On Nov. 9, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for
summary adjudication and granted the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment in its entirety through an Order entered by Judge Jesus G.
Bernal. The Clerk of the Court was directed to close the case.
The appellate case is captioned William Wren v. Transamerica Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 22-56131, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 1, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant William F. Wren Mediation Questionnaire was due
December 8, 2022;
-- Appellant William F. Wren opening brief is due on January 30,
2023;
-- Appellee Transamerica Life Insurance Company answering brief
is due on March 1, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM F. WREN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
7301 N. 16th Street, Suite 102
Phoenix, AZ 85020
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
Defendant-Appellee TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Vivian Orlando, Esq.
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE, LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 596-4378
TRUE VALUE: Sineni Sues for Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------
ANDREW SINENI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE VALUE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-01264-PLC (E.D. Mo., Nov. 28, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Missouri Wiretap Act,
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and an invasion of the
privacy rights of website visitors, and a trespass to chattels.
This complaint arises from the Defendant's conduct of
surreptitiously intercepting the electronic communications of
Plaintiff and other visitors to its website, www.truevalue.com.
True Value directs third-party vendors, such as Microsoft
Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code on True
Value's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's
Internet browser for the purpose intercepting and recording the
website visitor's electronic communications with the True Value's
website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such
as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs
of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in
real-time. These third-party vendors create and deploy the Session
Replay Code at True Value's request, says the suit.
After intercepting and capturing the website communications, True
Value and the Session Replay Providers use those communications to
recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.truevalue.com. The
Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's
behavior on the website and provide it to True Value for analysis.
True Value's directive to 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 True Value's
website for the entire duration of their website interaction, the
suit alleges.
The True Value Company is an American wholesaler with over 4,500
independent retail locations worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
Telephone: (314) 541-0317
E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
khriebel@locklaw.com
UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Product Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Who: Margaret Murphy filed a class action lawsuit against Unilever
United States Inc.
Why: Murphy claims Unilever deceptively marketed that its The
Laundress brand luxury laundry detergent and fabric care products
are non-toxic, despite them allegedly containing "deadly bacteria."
Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal
court.
Unilever deceptively marketed that its The Laundress brand luxury
laundry detergent and fabric care products are non-toxic, despite
them containing "deadly bacteria," a new class action lawsuit
alleges.
Plaintiff Margaret Murphy claims The Laundress products are
marketed by Unilever as "non-toxic and present better-for-you
alternatives to other cleaners," despite their alleged inclusion of
"highly toxic, undisclosed ingredients."
Murphy argues The Laundress products' contain undisclosed bacteria
that have "fatal consequences" and that they are "unreasonably
dangerous" when compared to what their utility is.
The complaint comes after a safety notice was released by The
Laundress earlier this month that advised consumers to stop using
its products immediately, after it discovered that certain of its
products may contain elevated levels of bacteria.
The Laundress products contain bacterium Pseudomonas, says class
action
Murphy claims The Laundress products contain the bacterium
Pseudomonas, which she argues has a mortality rate 39% and has been
the cause of "multiple fatal outbreaks in infant wards" around the
country.
"With the sale of every Product, Defendant delivered a biological
weapon into the home of every Class Member," states the The
Laundress class action.
Murphy wants to represent a nationwide class, a multi-state
consumer fraud class, and a California class of individuals who
purchased a The Laundress product.
Unilever is accused of unjust enrichment and breach of implied
warranty, and of violating the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, various
state consumer protection statutes, and California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, among other things.
Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief along with an award of compensatory, punitive,
and statutory damages for herself and all class members.
A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Unilever earlier
this month by a consumer arguing the company sold dry shampoo
containing the cancer-causing chemical benzene under a number of
different brand names.
The plaintiffs are represented by J. Ryan Gustafson of Good
Gustafson Aumais LLP, Amir Shenaq of Shenaq PC, and Steffan T.
Keeton of The Keeton Firm LLC.
The The Laundress bacteria class action lawsuit is Murphy, et al.
v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07468, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.[GN]
UNITED SERVICES: Additional Fact & Discovery Due Jan. 27, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Coleman, et al., v. United
Services Automobile Association, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00217
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford entered an
order that deadlines for additional fact and expert discovery will
be set at the upcoming Case Management Conference (CMC) on Jan. 27,
2023 at 10:00 a.m.
The Court routinely schedules additional time for discovery after
class certification and related motions have been resolved.
If the motions currently pending before the District Court have not
been resolved by close of business on Jan. 23, 2023, the Court will
re-schedule the CMC.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.
The United Services Automobile Association is a San Antonio-based
Fortune 500 diversified financial services group.[CC]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: MSSNY Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al. are taking an
appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled The
Medical Society of the State of New York, et al., on behalf of its
members, Plaintiffs, v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05265, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this suit against the Defendants for their refusal to pay
office-based-surgery facility fees even though the terms of most
United Plans have not changed with respect to the coverage provided
for out-of-network outpatient surgeries.
The central issue in the class action is whether the Defendants
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) when they determined that physicians performing
office-based surgeries in the state of New York are not entitled to
a "facility fee."
In Count I, Columbia East Side alleges that United violated ERISA
by failing to pay facility fees to it in accordance with the
applicable plans. Columbia East Side maintains thirty-one benefit
claims on behalf of twenty-nine patients. The benefits claims seek
a total of $1,507,102.33 for a "facility fee." United has paid Dr.
Antell $400,000 in professional fees for these procedures.
In Count Two, Columbia East Side, joined by the Medical Society of
the State of New York (MSSNY) and New York Office Based Surgery
Facilities (NYOBS), asserts a class-wide claim for prospective
injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that United has
systematically violated ERISA by failing to adequately review the
plans to determine whether facility fees should be paid to
physician offices for office-based surgeries.
Judge J. Paul Oetken first addressed Count II of the Complaint,
which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that United's
systematic application of its refusal to pay facility fees to
physician offices violates ERISA. He then addressed Count I, which
covers Columbia East side's benefit claims.
As to declaratory and injunctive relief, Judge Oetken concluded
that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that United's
process for adjudicating the claims at issue violates ERISA. United
implemented reasonable systems designed to ensure that coverage
determinations accord with plan terms and sufficiently explained to
the Plaintiffs why they were denied facility fee claims submitted
for office-based procedures. Judge Oetken, therefore, finds for
United on Count II.
For the same reasons detailed, Judge Oetken concluded that the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that United erred in its
adjudication of the claims filed on behalf of Columbia East Side's
patients. United had discretion to determine coverage questions,
and Plaintiffs have not shown that United's interpretation of the
plans at issue was without reason. Even more compelling is the fact
that the plans covering these thirty-one claims distinguish between
"offices" and "facilities," and some of the plans explicitly define
"facility" to require an Article 28 license. Not one of the plans
explicitly confers "facility fee" benefits for physician offices,
noted Judge Oetken.
Because Columbia East Side is not an Article 28 license facility,
and Judge Oetken concluded that United was reasonable in
determining that offices without an Article 28 license are not
entitled to separate facility fees, he finds for United on Count
I.
Based on these findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge
Oetken found in favor of the Defendants on all counts. The Clerk of
Court was also directed to enter final judgment in favor of the
Defendants and to close the case.
The appellate case is captioned The Medical Society of the State of
New York v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., Case No. 22-2702, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
October 17, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
et al., on behalf of its members, are represented by:
D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
Nell Peyser, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
485 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 704-9600
- and -
Adam Abelson, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
100 East Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 949-1148
Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., et al. are
represented by:
Anton Metlitsky, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
- and -
Meaghan McLaine VerGow, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
VALLEY HEALTH: Neidig Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE NEIDIG is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Elaine Neidig, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Valley Health System,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00161-GMG, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, West
Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia, is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant
for alleged medical malpractice.
The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, which the
Court granted, and the case was terminated on Oct. 31, 2022.
The appellate case is captioned Elaine Neidig v. Valley Health
System, Case No. 22-2227, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 30, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ELAINE NEIDIG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Stephen Gibson Skinner, Esq.
SKINNER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 487
Charles Town, WV 25414
Telephone: (304) 725-7029
Defendant-Appellee VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM is represented by:
Jonathan Tyler Mayhew, Esq.
BOWLES RICE, LLP
101 South Queen Street
P.O. Drawer 1419
Martinsburg, WV 25402
Telephone: (304) 264-4209
- and -
Charles Francis Printz, Jr., Esq.
BOWLES RICE, LLP
101 South Queen Street
P.O. Drawer 1419
Martinsburg, WV 25402
Telephone: (304) 264-4222
- and -
Liana Stinson, Esq.
BOWLES RICE, LLP
101 South Queen Street
P.O. Drawer 1419
Martinsburg, WV 25402
Telephone: (304) 264-4239
VINTAGE WINE: Salbenblatt Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL F. SALBENBLATT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VINTAGE WINE ESTATES, INC.,
PATRICK RONEY, KATHERINE DEVILLERS, and KRISTINA JOHNSTON,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01976 (D. Nev., Nov. 28, 2022) asserts
claims against all Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC on behalf of the Plaintiff and
the class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Vintage Wine Estates securities between October 13, 2021
and September 13, 2022.
On September 13, 2022, Vintage Wine Estates announced disappointing
financial results for fiscal year 2022 and disclosed that figures
contained in previous public statements and SEC filings were
inaccurate by a wide margin. The Company disclosed that it
"recorded $19.1 million in non-cash inventory adjustments
identified through efforts t[o] improve and strengthen inventory
management, processes and reporting." The Company further disclosed
that "the [fourth] quarter included approximately $6.8 million in
overhead burden that was related to the first and second quarter of
fiscal 2022, but not material to the respective periods."
Immediately following these revelations, the Company's share price
plummeted 40.3%, to close at $3.30 per share on September 14, 2022,
on high trading volume.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) material
weaknesses relating to inventory controls and procedures
substantially undermined the reliability of the Company's inventory
metrics; (2) the Company repeatedly understated its overhead, and
thus falsely inflated its adjusted EBITDA; (3) because of these
issues, Vintage Wine Estates was likely to incur significant
charges to restate prior reporting; and (4) Defendant's positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says
the suit.
Vintage Wine Estates sells wine and spirits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Aldrich, Esq.
ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.
7866 West Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: (702) 853-5490
Facsimile: (702) 227-1975
E-mail: jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
WALMART INC: Goldstein Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
AILEEN GOLDSTEIN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Aileen Goldstein, Plaintiff, v. Walmart, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00088, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
The Plaintiff filed this action, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against the Defendant for breach of
express warranty and breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(MMWA) and violations of the consumer protection acts of various
states and Washington, D.C.
On March 28, 2022, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure
to state a claim for relief.
On Oct. 28, 2022, Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court determined that the
Plaintiff's claims are preempted under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FDCA). For that reason, the Court ruled that the
Plaintiff's MMWA claim fails as well and need not reach the
sufficiency of Plaintiff's pleadings on her state claims or whether
she has statutory standing to pursue non-New York consumer fraud
claims. The Court determined that the Plaintiff does not have
standing to pursue injunctive relief.
The appellate case is captioned Goldstein v. Walmart, Inc., Case
No. 22-3052, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on November 30, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant AILEEN GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Defendant-Appellee WALMART, INC. is represented by:
Joseph Angelo Iemma, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
1325 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 779-6103
- and -
Emily Marie Weissenberger, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
WIRELESS ADVOCATES: Perez Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WIRELESS ADVOCATES, LLC and CAR TOYS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00412 (S.D. Tex., December 5, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.
According to the complaint, the Defendants terminated the
employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers as a
result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing on or about December
5, 2022 without giving them at least 60 days' advance written
notice of termination pursuant to the WARN Act. The Plaintiff and
Class members seek to recover from the Defendants their wages and
Employee Retirement Income Security Act benefits for 60 days, none
of which have been paid, says the suit.
Wireless Advocates, LLC is a provider of wireless products and
services, headquartered in Washington.
Car Toys, Inc. is a medium-sized chain of stores, founded and
headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Zendeh Del, Esq.
Gabe Perez, Esq.
ZENDEH DEL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1813 61st Street, Suite 101
Galveston, TX 77551
Telephone: (409) 740-1111
Facsimile: (409) 515-5007
E-mail: Jonathan@zendehdel.com
Gabe@zendehdel.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Margulis Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ryan Margulis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04847-EEC was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on Dec. 5, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01736-TSZ to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Zillow Group, Inc. -- https://www.zillowgroup.com/ -- or simply
Zillow, is an American tech real-estate marketplace company that
was founded in 2006.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Marc Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 234-6486
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David T. Cellitti, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2400
Tempa, FL 33602-5236
Phone: (813) 222-1137
Email: david.cellitti@bipc.com
[*] UK Businesses Subject to Competition Suit Censured by Tribunal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipping companies subject to a class action-style lawsuit in the
UK have been censured by a tribunal over their communication with
businesses eligible to sue them and ordered not to repeat the
behaviour.
On 28 November, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) said in its
unanimous judgment that the sending of letters to businesses that
are members of the class raising a claim against the companies was
"not proper conduct", breached the tribunal's rules, and merited it
issuing an order prohibiting further letters being sent.
The CAT's intervention concerns 11 of 12 companies that are
defendants to collective proceedings before the tribunal.
In February 2022, the CAT certified a collective action in relation
to a claim worth up to £150 million against shipping companies
that were found by the European Commission in 2018 to have breached
competition law by engaging in price-fixing in relation to the
provision of roll-on and roll-off vehicle transportation services.
The judgment determined that a collective proceedings order (CPO)
should be granted by the CAT in favour of Mark McLaren who
represents UK-domiciled consumers and businesses that purchased or
leased a vehicle between October 2006 and September 2015. The CPO
was then issued on 20 May. Under the terms of the CPO, UK-domiciled
consumers and businesses had to opt out if they did not wish to
participate in the claim. Non-UK domiciled consumers and businesses
are also eligible to participate in the collective proceedings,
though they had to opt in to be part of the claim. The deadline for
opting out or opting in was 12 August 2022.
In July, lawyers on behalf of 11 of the 12 defendants wrote to 20
large business purchasers to say that if they did not exercise
their right to opt out of the collective proceedings, their claim
would automatically be within the proceedings and that they could
be subject to an application to make disclosures as part of the
litigation. The letters were sent almost two weeks before the 12
August opt-out/opt-in deadline
Mark McLaren, as the class representative, subsequently asked the
CAT to intervene.
The CAT has now ruled that "there is a restriction inherent" in the
rules governing collective proceedings "that precludes defendants
from communicating with class members where a class has been
certified". It said the rules similarly preclude communications
between proposed defendants and class members respectively at the
application stage, where a CPO is being sought.
In the CAT's judgment, under the collective proceedings regime it
is the class representative, not the class members on whose behalf
the action is taken, and the defendants who are "parties" to the
proceedings. Communications regarding the proceedings therefore
"should be between the parties to those proceedings, and this does
not include represented persons or putative represented persons".
Direct communication with class members can lead to them incurring
costs which would be "to the disbenefit of the regime as a whole",
given a key objective of the regime is "to ensure that the class
representative incurs one set of costs, rather than each individual
class member incurring individual costs", it said.
The CAT also considered that the content of the letters "cut across
and undermined the potential benefits of collective proceedings, at
least for these particular class members [who received the letters]
and potentially for all class members if and in so far as it
influenced the potential make-up of the class".
The CAT further noted "it is the Tribunal which has the ultimate
responsibility for supervising the conduct of collective
proceedings, and in particular the extent to which it is
appropriate to involve individual class members". If the letters
sent on behalf of defendants were prompted by "genuine and
immediate concern" that class members might destroy important
documentation that could be subject to litigation disclosure, this
should be raised with the CAT during the CPO certification stage or
otherwise appropriate directions should be subsequently sought from
the CAT.
The tribunal rejected assertions made by the defendants that no
such restriction arises from the CAT rules, that such a restriction
cannot be articulated with sufficient clarity, and that the
restriction infringes their rights to freedom of expression. It
further rejected the notion that non-communication obligations in
relation to collective proceedings inhibits defendants from
properly exercising their rights of defence.
Alan Davis of Pinsent Masons said: "In what is still a rapidly
developing area of law, the CAT's judgment provides important
clarification on restrictions concerning direct communications
between defendants and claimant class members. It also emphasises
the important supervisory role of the CAT in such cases, with a
focus on the regime's overarching objective of providing redress
for claimants who are unable to effectively or cost-efficiently
bring individual claims."[GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***