/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230113.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, January 13, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 11
Headlines
A.W. COMPANIES: Egan Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
ABC SIGNATURE: Class Certification Sched Order Entered in Mann
ALICO INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Securities Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Lawsuit Accuses Firm of Refusing to Pay Workers
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: Hirsch Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
ANTHEM COS: Fillipo's Conditional Class Certification Bid Denied
ANTILLANA & METRO: Fails to Pay Produce Workers' OT, Huerta Says
AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Graham Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
AVAYA HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 6
BARRETT ROOFS: Cajilema Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Pipeling Sues Over Seresto Collars' Side Effects
BHIRES LLC: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
BHS MANAGEMENT: Modification of Case Management Order Sought
BINANCE US: Plaintiffs File Brief Opposing Motion to Compel Bid
BIOLINERX LTD: Artificially Inflated ADS' Price, Peete Suit Says
BIOLINERX LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 6
BIOLINERX LTD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
BP WEST: Motion for Summary Judgment Filed in Antitrust Class Suit
BUTLER MOTORS: Consumers Got Settlement Pay From Illegal Fees' Suit
CAMINO NATURAL: Johnston May Distribute Residual Unclaimed Funds
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $153-Mil.
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $153-Mil.
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Doe Suit Says
CHEERFUL GIVER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Ransomware Attack
DENALI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Superintendents' OT, Guzman Claims
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Settlement Claims' Filing Deadline Set April 22
E.A. SWEEN: Halwix Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
FACEBOOK INC: Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling in Wilkinson Suit
GAOTU TECHEDU: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 28
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Suit Transfer to Alexandria Denied
GLOBAL PERSONALS: Faces Ulery Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle 12-Year-Long Class Suit for $23-Mil.
H&M HENNES: May File Leave to Amend Bid to Dismiss Lizama Suit
HOME CLEAN: Moshe Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
JAMES VELISSARIS: Day Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
JESS PETROLEUM: Siddique Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Pitts Appeals Order Denying Bid to Join Case
KIND LLC: Healthy Grains Misrepresented as High in Fiber, Suit Says
LASTPASS US: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Consumers' Data
MARS INC: Dark Chocolate Contains Heavy Metals, Millman Suit Claims
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Sexual Harassment
MDL 2873: Transfer of Dumais Suit to AFFFs Litigation Denied
MDL 2921: Malkemes Suit Consolidated in Breast Implant Product Row
MDL 2924: Marlen Consolidated in Ranitidine Product Liability Row
MDL 2936: Panel Denies Remand of Nationwide v. Smitty's to E.D. La.
META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Ad Practices
NEW YORK, NY: Imposes Excessive Drivers' Fines, Miller Suit Claims
PIONEER MERGER: Suit Seeks to Enjoin Distribution of SPAC's Assets
QUALITY FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Holguin Says
RIVERBEND CORRECTIONAL: Boyd Ordered to File Amended Complaint
SAXE MGMT: Court Orders Return of Razilou's $2.5K Security Bond
SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: Creme Pies Contain Preservatives, Martin Alleges
SIMON PROPERTY: All Remaining Pretrial, Trial Deadlines Stayed
SUNWING AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Flight Delays and Cancellations
TORTI FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hidalgo Suit Claims
TRIGRAM EDUCATION: Fails to Pay Employees' Wages, Marchese Says
UNIFI AVIATION: Walkes Seeks Security Personnel's Unpaid OT Wages
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Insurance Scheme
VELOCITY SERVICE: Dominguez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Laborers' Wages
WILMINGTON, NC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Red Light Cameras
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honx Inc. Stays in Chapter 11 to Resolve Claims
*********
A.W. COMPANIES: Egan Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Kate Egan, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. A.W. COMPANIES, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, Case No.
3:23-cv-50006 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2023), is brought seeking unpaid
wages, an award of liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, attendant penalties and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA").
The Defendant's CSR jobs are hourly, non-exempt positions with
rigid schedules that require CSRs, including the Plaintiff, to work
at least 8 hours per day, on average 5 days each week, and often 40
hours or more in a workweek. These schedules result in CSRs
routinely working overtime on a weekly basis. Throughout her
employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required to work a
substantial amount of unpaid time, including overtime, as a CSR.
The Defendant knew or should have known how long it takes CSRs to
complete their off-the-clock work, and the Defendant could have
properly compensated Plaintiff and the putative Collective and
Class for this work, but did not. The Defendant knew or should have
known that CSRs, including the Plaintiff, worked overtime hours for
which they were not compensated, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an Illinois resident who worked for the Defendant
as a remote CSR in Illinois within the last three years.
The Defendant is "a business process outsourcing (BPO) service
provider with extensive experience in staffing and recruiting for
contact centers."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
55 E Monroe Street, Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (954) WORKERS
Fax: (954) 327-3013
Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48178
Phone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 S. Main St
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
Phone: (734) 662-4426
Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com
ABC SIGNATURE: Class Certification Sched Order Entered in Mann
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Mann v. ABC
Signature, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-06628-SSS-Kkx (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order setting the
deadlines below for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and
will set a case management conference regarding the remaining
deadlines after the Court decides Plaintiff's Class Certification
Motion:
Event Deadline
Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion June 28, 2023
for Class Certification and Any
Class Certification Expert Report
Deadline for Defendant to File July 12, 2023
Opposition to Class Certification
and Any Class Certification Expert
Report
Deadline for Plaintiff to File Reply July 19, 2023
in Support of Motion for Class
Certification and Any Class Certification
Rebuttal Expert Report
Class Certification Hearing August 18, 2023,
ABC Signature is an American television production studio that is a
subsidiary of Disney Television Studios.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CuPgmy at no extra charge.[CC]
ALICO INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
whether Alico, Inc., any of its executive officers, or others
violated securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to timely
disclose material, adverse information to investors. The
investigation focuses on investors' losses and whether they may be
recovered under federal securities laws.
What if I purchased Alico common stock? If you purchased Alico
common stock and suffered significant losses on your investment,
join our investigation now:
Click or paste the following web address into your browser to
submit your losses:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/alico-inc-class-action-alco
Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471
There is no cost or obligation to you.
What is Johnson Fistel investigating? On December 13, 2022, Alico
issued its 10-K form for the year ending September 30, 2022. The
company disclosed 'restate[d] the Company's previously issued
audited consolidated balance sheet, audited consolidated statements
of changes in equity and related disclosures as of September 30,
2021, included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended September 30, 2021 (the '2021 10-K') previously filed
with the SEC and the Company's previously issued unaudited
consolidated balance sheet, unaudited consolidated statements of
changes in equity and related disclosures as of the end of each
quarterly periods ended June 30, 2022, March 31, 2022, December 31,
2021, June 30, 2021, March 31, 2021, and December 31, 2020,
included in the Company's respective Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for each of the quarters then ended previously filed with the SEC
(together with the 2021 10-K, the 'Financial Statements')." Along
with this, the company also stated "[o]n December 12, 2022, the
audit committee (the 'Audit Committee') of the board of directors
of the Company concluded that the Company's previously issued
Financial Statements can no longer be relied upon due to an error
identified during the completion of the 2022 10-K." In particular,
Alico stated that "[t]he error that led to the Audit Committee's
conclusion relates to the calculation of the deferred tax
liabilities for the fiscal years 2015 through 2019, which resulted
in a cumulative reduction in the Company's deferred tax liability,
and a corresponding cumulative increase in retained earnings, of
approximately $2,512,000 on the Company's balance sheet as of
September 30, 2022."
Following this news, on December 14, 2022, Alico's shares closed
down 9.5%.
What if I have relevant nonpublic information? Individuals with
nonpublic information regarding the company should consider whether
to assist our investigation or take advantage of the SEC
Whistleblower program. Under the SEC program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may, under certain circumstances,
receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, contact Jim Baker
at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@johnsonfistel.com. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Lawsuit Accuses Firm of Refusing to Pay Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a new class
action lawsuit accuses Amazon of improperly refusing to pay
distribution center workers for time spent on daily mandated Covid
screens when reporting for work.
On Dec. 22, attorneys with the firms of Werman Salas, of Chicago,
and Hodges and Foty, of Houston, filed suit in Cook County Circuit
Court against Amazon. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named
plaintiff Lisa Johnson and potentially thousands of other workers
at Amazon's distribution centers in Illinois.
According to the complaint, Amazon, like other employers imposed a
mandated daily Covid screening for its hourly employees amid the
onset of the Covid pandemic. Amazon distribution centers across the
country required all non-exempt employees to undergo physical and
medical exams to screen for Covid symptoms prior to the start of
each shift. The Illinois facilities alone employ more than 20,000
workers who would potentially have been impacted by this mandate,
according to the complaint.
Maureen Salas | Werman Salas P.C.
While the on-site screening exams may have represented a common
practice, the class action lawsuit accuses Amazon of allegedly
improperly not compensating employees for their time during the
exams. Since the exams were required for employees to start their
shift, the suit contends employees had little option. According to
the complaint employees could only clock in after passing the
required exam, and were held on-site and required to wait in line
until they were called. For most employees, this amounted to about
10-15 minutes, according to the lawsuit. For some, however, the
screenings could have held them significantly longer.
Since they could not clock in until passing the exams, if the
employee clocked in late as a result of having to wait longer than
customary to be called for screening, they were still held
accountable and would allegedly be disciplined, according to the
complaint.
The lawsuit asserts the allegedly unpaid screenings amounted to
violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the state's Wage
and Payment Collection Act.
Johnson is seeking a trial by jury, lost wages including damages,
penalties, interest and restitution, along with court costs and
legal expenses.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Douglas M. Werman and
Maureen A. Salas, of Werman Salas. Chicago, and Don J. Foty, of
Hodges and Foty.[GN]
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: Hirsch Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kyle Hirsch, Sarah Hirsch, Dennis Fritter,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Family Mutual Insurance Company Case No. 22AC-AC00712-01
was removed from the Circuit Court of Cole County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Jan. 5,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04005-WJE to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute.
American Family Insurance -- https://www.amfam.com/ -- also
abbreviated as AmFam, is an American private mutual company that
focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers
commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well
as investment and retirement-planning products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher E Roberts, Esq.
David T. Butsch, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
231 S. Bemiston, Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 863-5700
Email: Roberts@butschroberts.com
butsch@butschroberts.com
- and -
Douglas J. Winters, Esq.
THE WINTERS LAW GROUP, LLC
190 Carondelet Plaza, Ste 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 499-5200
Fax: (314) 499-5201
Email: dwinters@winterslg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Philip Charles Graham, Esq.
SANDBERG PHOENIX & VON GONTARD P.C.
600 Washington Avenue, 15th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63101-1313
Phone: (314) 231-3332
Fax: (314) 241-7604
Email: pgraham@sandbergphoenix.com
ANTHEM COS: Fillipo's Conditional Class Certification Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LITA FILLIPO, TIMOTHY KRAFT on behalf of themselves,
Nationwide FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v.
THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00926-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge James R. Sweeney, II, of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Collective Certification.
The lawsuit is a wage-and-hour dispute. The Plaintiffs were
salespeople working for Anthem during and after the COVID lockdowns
in the spring of 2020. They were classified as "outside
salespersons," who are exempt from the overtime pay requirements of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs argue that they did not qualify as "outside
salespersons" because they worked from home, and work done from a
home office does not count as outside sales. They bring a putative
collective action under the FLSA, and a putative class action under
various state wage laws, seeking to recover overtime pay for
themselves and others similarly situated.
Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Collective Certification.
The Plaintiffs advance the following proposed definition for their
collective: "All non-managerial employees classified by Defendant
as exempt outside salespersons, regardless of job-title, employed
by Defendant in any state on or after the date, March 1, 2020
(together, the Covered Employees)."
Judge Sweeney concludes that the Plaintiffs' proposed definition of
their collective is overbroad. They have not -- indeed cannot --
meet their burden of showing that they are "similarly situated"
with other potential collective members.
Judge Sweeney reasons that the Plaintiffs' theory of the case is
that their collective is alike in having been misclassified as
exempt outside salespeople when, during the COVID lockdowns, they
in fact worked from home. They cannot of course straight out define
the collective as those misclassified by the Defendant as exempt
outside salespersons, because that would create an impermissible
fail-safe class. But because they cannot, they face the obvious
problem that some of their proposed collective members were not
misclassified, and so do not share the "same injury" as the rest.
Even assuming, for example, that all outside salespeople were
misclassified during the COVID lockdowns, Judge Sweeney says that
anyone who began working for Anthem after COVID lockdowns had
lifted would not have suffered misclassification as alleged.
Because the proposed collective includes members who were not
misclassified as alleged, there is no common injury, and the
proposed collective is not "similarly situated" as defined. That
disposes of the present motion for collective certification.
The Plaintiffs might try to amend their definition to remedy the
overbreadth problem and propose a new collective definition limited
to those employed by Anthem in Indiana during its lockdown period
(March 24 to May 1, 2020, according to the Plaintiffs' allegations)
and classified as outside salespeople.
For these reasons, Judge Sweeney denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Collective Certification. Without a certified
collective, named Plaintiffs Fillipo and Kraft have only
"individual actions."
The Court will decide any further collective or class certification
issues when raised by separate motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mryemsra from Leagle.com.
ANTILLANA & METRO: Fails to Pay Produce Workers' OT, Huerta Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO SANTIAGO HUERTA and CLEMENTINA DURAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly-situated v. ANTILLANA & METRO
SUPERMARKET, CORP., and ALRA CORP., and OSVALDO RODRIGUEZ,
individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-00002 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wage pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs contends that the Defendant violated the NYLL by
failing to furnish employees with wage statements and wage notice.
Plaintiffs Huerta and Duran routinely worked for Defendants 54
hours per workweek. Despite the Plaintiffs routinely working over
40 hours each workweek, Defendants allegedly failed to pay for
those hours worked over 40, thus depriving them of the statutorily
required overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate.
Plaintiffs Huerta and Duran worked as produce workers from December
2020 to December 9, 2022 and from July 2, 2021 through July 21,
2021, respectively, at Defendants' supermarket.
ANTILLANA & METRO SUPERMARKET, CORP. is a retail food store license
by the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (212) 939-7229
AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Graham Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert William Graham, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05155-MHC (N.D. Ga., Dec. 30, 2022) challenges a
bait-and-switch scheme perpetrated by AT&T against its wireless
service customers.
According to the complaint, AT&T falsely and deceptively send its
customers upgrades in the form of new phones and new lines, not
disclosing and not including a suitable return method of such
unordered phones whereby AT&T imposes on all such customers failing
to have returned such phones in a time period which AT&T sets, and
AT&T through AMX charge for such phones and service charges for
such phones for a 2 year period. AT&T's scheme is tied to using
agents and RMA labels which delay the return delivery and lead to
the Plaintiff being automatically charged by AMX or forced into
contracts not agreed to providing phones and wireless telephone
services, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a public injunction to enjoin AT&T and AMX from
their false and deceptive practice and to require AT&T to disclose
to the consuming public, in advance, that its RMA return label is
NOT to be relied on as a mechanism for return of the phones AT&T
sends out to customers in order to avoid being bound by the return
policy terms of the phones and service and/or that AT&T provide a
mechanism whereby consumers can provide evidence of shipping a
return phone in a timely manner and thus suspending all charges
until confirmation of the return phone is received and confirmed
and if not received, then inform the consumer that the phone(s)
have not been received in a manner as outlined in their agreement
and providing consumer an opportunity to show proof of return prior
to charges; and that AMX and AT&T not be permitted to conspire to
automatically charge an account of Plaintiff(s) for such fraudulent
charges.
The Plaintiff further seeks, on behalf of themselves and a class of
all similarly situated consumers, an award of damages, restitution,
pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and
permanent injunctive relief.
AT&T prominently advertises upgrade exchange programs. After
customers call for an upgrade, rather than an upgrade, AT&T
actually sends the customer one or more new phones with new lines
and new numbers charges. AT&T covertly sends a notice with the
phone(s) in a box that if they return outside of the predetermined
return date by AT&T, the customers are responsible for the phone(s)
cost as well as the entire term (2 year) period, the suit added.
AT&T Mobility is an American telecommunications company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. William Graham, Esq.
A PATENT LAWYER LLC
150 Governors Square
Peachtree City, GA 30269
Telephone: (937) 241-5300
E-mail: billg@apat1.com
AVAYA HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Avaya
Holdings Corp. ('Avaya" or the 'Company") (NYSE: AVYA) securities
between November 22, 2021 and November 29, 2022, inclusive (the
'Class Period"). Avaya investors have until March 6, 2023 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.
'substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern."
Investors suffering losses on their Avaya investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On July 28, 2022, Avaya announced the termination of its Chief
Executive Officer. The Company also announced that preliminary
financial results for its third quarter 2022 fell below previously
given guidance and withdrew its fiscal 2022 guidance.
On this news, Avaya's stock price fell $1.19, or 57%, to close at
$0.90 per share on July 29, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
Then on August 9, 2022, Avaya disclosed that there was 'substantial
doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern."
The Company also announced that its audit committee was
investigating a whistleblower letter as well as the circumstances
surrounding its recent earnings report. Avaya also stated that it
would not timely file its financial statements for the quarter
ended June 30, 2022.
On this news, Avaya's stock price fell $0.51, or 45.5%, to close at
$0.61 per share on August 9, 2022, thereby injuring investors
further.
Then, on November 20, 2022, Avaya disclosed that there were
material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting. Specifically, the Company did not maintain effective
controls to ensure effective communication between certain
functions and did not maintain effective controls over the ethics
and compliance program.
On this news, Avaya's stock price fell $0.16, or 14.3%, to close at
$0.96 per share on November 30, 2022.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the Company's internal control over financial reporting
("ICFR") was deficient in several areas; (2) as a result of these
deficiencies, the Company had failed to design and maintain
effective controls over its whistleblower policies and its ethics
and compliance program; (3) the Company's deteriorating financial
condition was likely to raise substantial doubt as to its ability
to continue as a going concern; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Avaya securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
BARRETT ROOFS: Cajilema Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Manuel Cajilema, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BARRETT ROOFS, INC., and THOMAS DELANCEY, individually,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00080 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2023), is brought for
damages and equitable relief based upon violations that Defendants
committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the overtime
provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R.
& Regs. ("NYCRR"); the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish
employees with wage statements containing specific categories of
accurate information on each payday; the NYLL's requirement that
employers furnish employees with a wage notice upon hire containing
specific categories of accurate information; and any other claim(s)
that can be inferred from the facts.
Throughout the entirety of the Plaintiff's employment, the
Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff the wages lawfully
due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, the
Defendants required the Plaintiff to work more than forty hours per
workweek, but intentionally failed to compensate him at the
statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times her
regular rate of pay for each hour that he worked per week in excess
of forty.
The Defendants are and have been aware of the requirements to pay
Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs at an amount equal to the rate of
one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay or the
minimum wage rate, for all hours worked each workweek above 40, yet
they purposefully and willfully chose and choose not to do so.
Thus, the Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs are victims of
Defendants' pervasive practice of willfully refusing to pay their
employees overtime compensation for all hours worked per workweek
above 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a manual laborer at the
Defendants' roofing business from 2009 to December 2, 2022.
The Defendants operate a roofing business that performs roofing
projects in New York and New Jersey, with its principal place of
business located in South Hackensack, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (212) 939-7229
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Pipeling Sues Over Seresto Collars' Side Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE PIPELING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, BAYER
CORPORATION, BAYER AG, and ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00055-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., January 5, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligent misrepresentation,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, strict
liability, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Seresto flea and tick collars. Despite the emergence of reports
about Seresto's serious side effects, the Defendants continued to
advertise and market the product as safe for pets to use when it is
not. Had the Defendants disclosed the existence of the serious
safety risks associated with Seresto collars, the Plaintiff and
Class members would not have used the product and their pets would
not have suffered the injuries that they developed as a result of
using Seresto collar.
Bayer Healthcare LLC is a manufacturer of healthcare and medical
products, headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.
Bayer Corporation is the parent of Bayer Healthcare LLC, with its
main offices located in Whippany, New Jersey.
Bayer AG is the parent of Bayer Corporation, headquartered in
Germany.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an animal health company,
headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
450 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (347) 668-8445
E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
- and -
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
E-mail: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com
BHIRES LLC: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------
Tanya Perez, an individual, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated v. BHIRES, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV00167
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 4, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"),
California Labor Code for unpaid minimum wages.
The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wage for all
hours worked. The Defendant required Employees to work off the
clock and failed to pay employees for time worked off the clock and
failed to pay Employees for all time worked off the clock. The
Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with accurate wage
statements indicating all hours worked and the applicable hourly
rate. The Defendant required employees to call or text Defendant
before their shift to confirm whether they were reporting for a
shift. The Defendant failed to pay Employees reporting time and
failed to include reporting time wages on employees' wage
statements. The Defendant failed to include its correct address and
business name in employees' wage statements. The Defendants
required the Plaintiff and Employees to use their personal cell
phones and data plans as a requirement of their employment and
failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees
accordingly, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee in Los Angeles County, California.
Bhires, LLC is a limited liability company organized and formed
under the laws of the state of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
Andrew J. Kearney, Esq.
KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 424
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone (213) 473-1900
Facsimile (213) 473-1919
Email: tak@kearneylittlefield.com
pwl@kearneylittlefield.com
ajk@kearneylittlefield.com
- and -
Brandon Littlefield, Esq.
LITTLEFIELD LAW
450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 600
Glendale, CA 91203
Email: brandon@littlefieldlawpractice.com
BHS MANAGEMENT: Modification of Case Management Order Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW W. COVIELLO,
NATHAN BYRNE and VICTORIA HALSTED, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. BHS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BHS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1-20, Case No. 3:20-cv-30198-MGM (D. Mass.), the Parties ask
the Court to extend the briefing deadlines related to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
-- Plaintiffs' class certification February 23, 2023
motion shall be filed by:
-- Oppositions shall be filed by: March 27, 2023.
-- Replies, if any, shall be filed April 26, 2023.
by:
No other deadlines will be affected by this change, the Court
says.
The Court held an initial scheduling conference on August 23, 2022,
following which it entered the Scheduling Order. Among other dates,
the Scheduling Order set the due date for Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification as January 9, 2023, Defendants' opposition to
the motion is due on February 8, 2023, and Plaintiffs' reply is due
on March 10, 2023.
The Parties have conferred and believe additional time is needed to
file the motion for class certification in order to allow more time
to conduct discovery related to class certification issues.
BHS Management operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization provides various health care management.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GL0dD2 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 367-0025
Facsimile: (617) 367-2155
E-mail: Douglas.Hoffman@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Howard Shapiro, Esq.
Stacey C.S. Cerrone, Esq.
Lindsey H. Chopin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS
601 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 208-1755
Facsimile: (504) 208-1759
E-mail: Howard.Shapiro@jacksonlewis.com
Stacey.Cerrone@jacksonlewis.com
Lindsey.Chopin@jacksonlewis.com
BINANCE US: Plaintiffs File Brief Opposing Motion to Compel Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP of Reuters reports that Freedman Norman
filed its brief opposing Binance's motion to compel arbitration on
Wednesday. The brief argued primarily that Binance has not provided
any proof that Nuveen actually saw or accepted the arbitration
clause - and that merely including a citation to AAA's complex
rules for delegating threshold questions to arbitration is not fair
play in the context of a unilaterally imposed contract with an
unsophisticated consumer.
In November, Binance defense counsel from Hahn Loeser & Parks moved
to compel arbitration of claims by the court-appointed lead
plaintiff, North Dakota orthodontist and crypto investor Michiel
Nuveen. Hahn Loeser asserted arguments that will be familiar to
class action lawyers on both sides of the bar. In order to use the
Binance U.S. platform, Binance argued, Nuveen agreed to terms of
service that included a mandatory arbitration clause. That clause,
in turn, incorporated AAA rules that delegate threshold disputes
about arbitrability to the arbitrator. At the very least, according
to Binance, Nuveen's case must be dismissed so an arbitrator can
determine whether his claims belong at the AAA or can be litigated
in court.
"If a customer, after combing through the various versions of the
AAA rules, is able to determine which version applies and whether
it contains a delegation provision, his or her only option is to
accept delegation or refuse to deal with Binance U.S.," the
Freedman Norman filing argued. "Agreements with Binance U.S. are
classic contracts of adhesion presented to customers (including
plaintiff) on a take-it-or-leave it basis."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2015's Brennan v.
Opus Bank that the incorporation of AAA rules in an arbitration
agreement constitutes "clear and unmistakable intent" to delegate
threshold arbitrability disputes to the arbitrator. But Freedman
Norman argued in Wednesday's brief that the Opus Bank decision
specifically carved out arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.
And since the decision, the firm argued, trial courts in the 9th
Circuit have continued to find that the incorporation of AAA rules
in consumer contracts does not definitely settle the delegation
question.
Beyond the procedural arguments, Freedman Norman contends that the
arbitration agreement is fundamentally unfair to consumers because,
among other things, it established a cumbersome complaint, notice
and arbitration process for consumers while allowing
Binance to retain the option of litigating in court. Last year, the
brief noted, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco
refused to compel arbitration in a consumer class action against
Coinbase Inc, holding that the agreement was unconscionable because
it imposed unilateral conditions on Coinbase users.[GN]
Coinbase has since persuaded the Supreme Court to decide whether
the underlying class action must be stayed while the company
appeals Alsup's decision on arbitrability. But Freedman Norman said
Alsup's conclusions about arbitrability should nevertheless apply
to Binance's provision.
Binance counsel from Hahn Loeser did not respond to my query on the
new brief. Freedman Norman's Alex Potter said in an email statement
that the Binance case "involves a clear example of the type of
arbitration provision that, for many reasons, the federal courts
sensibly decline to enforce."[GN]
BIOLINERX LTD: Artificially Inflated ADS' Price, Peete Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
WINSTON PEETE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIOLINERX LTD. and PHILIP A. SERLIN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00041 (D.N.J., January 5, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to trade BioLine Rx Ltd. American Depositary
Shares (ADSs) at artificially inflated prices between February 23,
2021 and September 19, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was not well financed to develop
Motixafortide while at the same time advancing other pipeline
programs; and (2) BioLine would require a loan from Kreos Capital
VII Aggregator SCSP in an aggregate principal amount of up to $40
million and then also would require a $15M securities offering to
facilitate the commercial launch of Motixafortide.
When the truth emerged, the price of BioLine's stock fell 33
percent to close at $1.02 per share on September 19, 2022, damaging
investors, says the suit.
BioLine Rx Ltd. is a pre-commercial stage biopharmaceutical company
focused on oncology, headquartered in Israel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
BIOLINERX LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
BioLineRx Ltd. The class action is on behalf of shareholders who
purchased BioLineRx securities between February 23, 2021 and
September 19, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until March 6, 2023,
to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
into a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/biolinerx-ltd
There is no cost or obligation to you.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) the Company was not well financed to
develop Motixafortide while at the same time advancing other
pipeline programs; (2) BioLine would require a loan from Kreos
Capital VII Aggregator SCSP in an aggregate principal amount of up
to $40 million and then also would require a $15M securities
offering to facilitate the commercial launch of Motixafortide; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the BioLineRx class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the BioLineRx class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.
For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process please
refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
BIOLINERX LTD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of BioLineRx Ltd. (NASDAQ: BLRX) between February 23,
2021 and September 19, 2022, both dates inclusive (the 'Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for BioLine
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the BioLine class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8781 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) the Company was not well financed to
develop Motixafortide while at the same time advancing other
pipeline programs; (2) BioLine would require a loan from Kreos
Capital VII Aggregator SCSP in an aggregate principal amount of up
to $40 million and then also would require a $15M securities
offering to facilitate the commercial launch of Motixafortide; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 6,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8781 or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
BP WEST: Motion for Summary Judgment Filed in Antitrust Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berkeley Research Group LLC of GlobalCompetitionReview reports that
following the discovery proceedings, Chevron, Shell, Valero and
Phillips 66 collectively filed a joint motion for summary judgment
and were later joined by BP and Exxon. Alon and Tesoro also filed
separate motions for summary judgments. In addition, the defendants
filed motions to exclude the testimonies of the plaintiffs' experts
in the case-captioned Persian Gulf, Inc v BP West Coast Products,
LLC, et al, and Richard Bartlett, et al v BP West Coast Products
LLC, et al, Lead Case No 18-cv-1374-JO-AGS (consolidated with No
18-cv-1377-JO-AGS.
In early 2012, California crude oil markets experienced a
combination of rising production and falling demand, as well as
increasing inventories and prices (Persian Gulf, Inc v BP West
Coast Products LLC, et al, 15-ev-1749-JO-AGS, Complaint for
Violations of California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition
Law, 8 July 2015, at page 1). In May and October 2012, the state
experienced two additional gasoline price spikes, resulting in
Californian consumers paying more than $4.00 per gallon - and in
some areas more than $5.00 per gallon. Occurring while the rest of
the country experienced a decline in gasoline prices, refiners
blamed these spikes on decreased supply after refinery maintenance
shutdowns in California and fires at both BP's Cherry Point
refinery in Washington State on 18 February 2012 and Chevron's
Richmond refinery on 6 August 2012. In February 2015, California
retail gasoline prices spiked again, rising more than $1.25 per
gallon and diverging considerably from the average US gasoline
price.
On 7 July 2015, plaintiff Persian Gulf, the operator of a retail
gas station, filed an antitrust lawsuit on behalf of all retail
stations in California. Concurrently, individual consumers - Joshua
Ebright, Paul Lee and David Rinaldi (consumer plaintiffs) - filed
separate lawsuits on behalf of consumers who purchased gasoline in
California. These lawsuits alleged that eight current and former
gas refiners in California - Chevron USA (Chevron), Exxon Mobil
Corporation and ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Co (Exxon), Phillips
66, BP West Coast Products (BP), Tesoro Refining & Marketing
Company (Tesoro), Equilon Enterprises (doing business as Shell Oil
Products US) (Shell), Valero Marketing and Supply Company (Valero)
and Alon USA Energy (Alon) (collectively, defendants) - conspired
to control supply and therefore the price of gasoline in California
from 2012 to present, in violation of Section 1 the Sherman Act,
the Cartwright Act and various other statutes.
On 25 July 2018, the court consolidated the consumer plaintiffs'
case into one action (Persian Gulf, Inc v BP West Coast Products,
LLC, et al, and Richard Bartlett, et al v BP West Coast Products
LLC, et al, Lead Case No 18-cv-1374-JO-AGS (consolidated with No
18-cv-1377-JO-AGS), order granting defendants' motions for summary
judgment, 30 September 2022). Shortly thereafter, given the nearly
identical allegations proffered by Persian Gulf and the consumer
plaintiffs, the court ordered coordination of the cases for
discovery and motion briefing.
Following the discovery proceedings, Chevron, Shell, Valero and
Phillips 66 collectively filed a joint motion for summary judgment
and were later joined by BP and Exxon. Alon and Tesoro also filed
separate motions for summary judgments. In addition, the defendants
filed motions to exclude the testimonies of the plaintiffs'
experts.
Berkeley Research Group LLC
Jeffrey Klenk
Managing Director
Chris Ring
Director
Sydney Fallone
Consultant [GN]
BUTLER MOTORS: Consumers Got Settlement Pay From Illegal Fees' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Segall of 13News reports that checks are now being mailed to
Indiana consumers who recently purchased a vehicle at an auto
dealership participating in the class action settlement, and those
payout checks are legitimate. The settlement checks resulted from
lawsuits alleging that dozens of Indiana auto dealerships charged
excessive document fees.
In 2019, consumers filed class action lawsuits against dozens of
Indiana car dealerships, claiming the companies charged excessive
document fees that violated Indiana's consumer protection law. Last
July, 12 dealership groups named in the lawsuits entered into a
settlement agreement. They denied doing anything wrong, but
collectively agreed to pay about $13.5 million to settle the
lawsuits.
KCC, the settlement administrator, told 13News that 145,000 checks
will be sent to Indiana consumers who purchased a vehicle during
the qualifying time period from one of the dealership groups named
in the settlement.
Those dealership groups include: Butler Motors Inc., D-Patrick,
Inc., Dorsett Auto Sales, Inc., Ed Martin 236, Inc., Terry Lee
Companies, Inc., Twin City Dodge, Inc., Andy Mohr Automotive Group,
Inc., Bill Estes Chevrolet, Inc., Circle Buick GMC., Inc., Beck
Automotive Group. Inc., Lockhart Automotive Group., Inc., and Rohr
Indy Motors., Inc. According to the settlement agreement, the
qualifying time period for vehicle purchases was April 4, 2017 to
March 31, 2022.
Qualifying consumers will receive a proportional share of the
settlement fund based on the amount of document fees they paid.
Settlement checks started to go out Dec. 20, 2022. The checks that
Indiana consumers are now receiving from the settlement
administrator are real, according to Irwin Levin, who is listed as
class counsel for the settlement.
“If someone were to get a check and have any questions
whatsoever, there is usually a settlement claims administrator that
is identified. There's probably going to be a website that refers
to the case,” he said.
That is certainly true for this class action settlement. The
settlement checks are being mailed from Computershare/KCC, the same
class action lawsuit administrator listed in the case's settlement
agreement. That is also the same company that posted information
about the auto document fees settlement process online.
If you do receive one of the settlement checks, make sure you cash
it within six months. After that, the check is void and will not be
reissued.
Some of the document fee lawsuits filed against Indiana auto
dealerships back in 2019 are still working their way through the
courts, so more settlements or damages could be awarded to
additional consumers pending the outcome of the cases. Other
dealerships were dismissed from the document fee class action
lawsuits after arguing that the disputes should be settled by
arbitration hearings rather than in court.[GN]
CAMINO NATURAL: Johnston May Distribute Residual Unclaimed Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRUSTEE BETTY JEAN JOHNSTON, Plaintiff v. CAMINO
NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No.
19-cv-02742-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants the Class
Representative's Motion for Distribution of Residual Unclaimed
Funds and Termination of this Litigation.
On Sept. 16, 2021, the Court approved of the Final Plan of
Allocation and entered a Distribution Order in the class action.
Said order included a provision that, in the case payment could not
be made to 100% of the Class, Residual Unclaimed Funds will be
handled as set forth in the Orders and Settlement agreement,
subject to the Court's approval.
In the instant Motion, the Class Representative informs the Court
that over 93% of the Net Settlement Fund has been distributed and
seeks an order regarding the remaining $81,442.27 in undistributed
funds. The Class Representative proposes that the Court orders the
reissuing of four Distribution Checks with a total value of
$4,697.56.
The Motion also seeks reimbursement of 16,049.48 in final
Administration, Notice, and Distribution Costs incurred by JND
Legal Administration, the Settlement Administrator. Finally, the
Motion requests distribution of the final $60,695.23, plus any
further interest that is accrued prior to the closure of the
settlement account, in Residual Unclaimed Funds in this Litigation
from the Settlement previously approved by the Court in the
Judgment. The Class Representative requests these funds be
disbursed to the University of Oklahoma Foundation for the benefit
of the University of Oklahoma College of Law as specified in the
approved Settlement agreement.
After reviewing the Motion and for good cause shown, Judge Arguello
grants the Motion. The Settlement Administrator is authorized to
reissue four Distribution Checks in the total amount of $4,697.56
and to reimburse the Settlement Administrator $16,049.48 for
outstanding Administration, Notice, and Distribution Costs as
detailed in the Motion. It will disburse $60,695.23 in Residual
Unclaimed Funds, plus any further interest that is accrued prior to
the closure of the settlement account, to the University of
Oklahoma Foundation for the benefit of the University of Oklahoma
College of Law, as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
Additionally, Judge Arguello finds that the Settlement
Administrator and the Class Counsel have administered the
Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the
orders of the Court, and further finds that once the foregoing
distributions have occurred so that no funds remain in the
settlement account, the Settlement Administrator and Class Counsel
will have no further duties with respect to the administration of
this Settlement and will be expressly released from any further
duties with respect to the Settlement. Therefore, the Litigation is
terminated with no further proceedings remaining.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/25cn2n2h from Leagle.com.
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $153-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fares Alghoul of The Star reports that Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce has agreed to pay $153 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit filed more than a decade ago over unpaid overtime.
In February last year, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a
lower-court ruling that the Toronto-based bank breached Canada
Labour Code overtime policies, paving the way for the settlement.
The $153 million will be used to compensate the employees for the
unpaid time as well as pay legal fees and the cost of distributing
the settlement funds.
The agreement must be approved by the Ontario Superior Court before
it will become binding.
Under the proposed settlement, both current and former employees
who worked in the retail branch positions between February 1993 to
June 18, 2009, will be eligible for some compensation relating to
their employment during the 16-year period. [GN]
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $153-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CIBC has agreed to pay a total of $153 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit filed more than a decade ago over the bank's
overtime policies, lawyers for the plaintiffs say.
Dara Fresco, a former CIBC teller and class counsel, brought this
case in 2007.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed last year an attempt by the
bank to overturn a lower-court ruling in favour of the class-action
case on behalf of about 31,000 retail bank employees.
Fresco says the settlement is a fair compromise that will bring
meaningful compensation to thousands of class members.
CIBC spokesperson Tom Wallis says the settlement will avoid further
legal costs and allow the bank to put the matter behind it.
The agreement must be approved by the Ontario Superior Court before
it will become binding.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 5, 2023.
[GN]
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Doe Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM and CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Case
No. 22STCV41085 (Cal. Super., Dec. 30, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants shared the Plaintiff and Class members' Protected Health
Information (PHI) and Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
with unrelated companies including Facebook/Meta, Google, Microsoft
Bing, and other marketing and social media platforms or businesses,
without the patients' knowledge or consent in violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the privacy rights
protected by California's Constitution and common law.
According to the complaint, Cedars-Sinai allegedly transmitted to
third parties portions of the patients' private communications with
it through pieces of tracking code that it embedded in its Website,
for the sole purpose of sharing such information with marketing
entities. This code served as real time wiretaps on patients'
communications.
The Plaintiff and Class members never consented, agreed to,
authorized, or otherwise permitted the Defendant to disclose any of
their Private Information. The Defendant's disclosure of
Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information to entities like
Facebook and Google also violated Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA), says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a healthcare consumer who used Defendant's
Website, https://www.cedars-sinai.org/, including its patient
portal available through the Website, My CS-Link, to communicate
personal medical information to the Defendant.
Cedars-Sinai is a major healthcare organization based in Los
Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
Ferdeza Zekiri, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4559
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
E-mail: byrd@whafh.com
zekiri@whafh.com
CHEERFUL GIVER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Cheerful Giver,
Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. A Cheerful Giver, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00044 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A Cheerful Giver, Inc. -- https://acheerfulgiver.com/ -- is a
candle store in Elmer, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Ransomware Attack
------------------------------------------------------------
Giles Bruce at beckershospitalreview.com reports that Chicago-based
CommonSpirit Health has been hit with a proposed class-action
lawsuit over the recent ransomware attack on the health system.
The complaint was filed Dec. 29 in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by Leeroy Perkins, of Washington, a
patient since 2003 at Seattle-based Virginia Mason Franciscan
Health, a subsidiary of CommonSpirit.
He was among the 623,774 patients notified in December that their
data had been breached in the cyberattack against CommonSpirit,
which started in September and caused widespread EHR outages and
appointment cancellations.
The lawsuit claims CommonSpirit failed to "implement and follow
basic security procedures" and "follow its own policies" to
safeguard patients' personally identifiable and protected health
information, leaving them vulnerable to identity theft.
The complainant asked for class-action status as well as damages,
restitution and other forms of equitable monetary relief, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
A CommonSpirit spokesperson said the health system is unable to
comment at this time. [GN]
DENALI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Superintendents' OT, Guzman Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO SANTOS GUZMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. DENALI MANAGEMENT INC., 600 TRINITY AVE LLC,
JONATHAN WIENER, and DAVID TENNENBAUM, Case No. 1:22-cv-10996
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2022) seeks to recover damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from
the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation at a rate of
one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a work week.
The Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of a proposed
collective of superintendents are or were or will be employed at
Defendants' Buildings between the date that is six years prior to
the filing of this complaint and the date of final judgment in this
matter.
The Plaintiff became Defendants' employee on August 16, 2021, when
Defendants purchased 600 Trinity Avenue, Bronx, New York, where the
Plaintiff was the live-in superintendent for more than a decade.
The Defendants terminated Plaintiff's employment on February 1,
2022, says the suit.
Denali Enterprise owns, controls and operates 82 or more apartment
buildings and mixed-use properties in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 382-1600
E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com
- and -
Meredith R. Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW, PLLC
167 Madison Avenue, Suite 503
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (347) 878-2587
E-mail: meredith@millerlaw.nyc
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Settlement Claims' Filing Deadline Set April 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Ballor of DallasNews reports that claims must be submitted
by April 22, 2023. Affected customers can submit a claim at
DickeysClassAction.com to receive relief in the form of expense
reimbursement, cash payment or credit services.
Dallas-based restaurant chain Dickey's Barbecue Pit has agreed to
pay $2.35 million in a class action settlement after a data
security incident took place involving customers' credit and debit
card information.
The lawsuit says "unauthorized actors" accessed Dickey's
point-of-sales systems, allowing them to obtain customers' credit
and debit cardholder information. The security breach took place
from April 23, 2019 to Oct. 29, 2020.
Dickey's customers who used credit cards or debit cards in that
time frame are eligible to receive monetary compensation and credit
card monitoring as part of the settlement in which the company
agreed to pay $2.35 million. Dickey's denied the allegations in the
lawsuit but agreed to implement significant data security
enhancements, according to the settlement.
Dickey's Barbecue Pit has more than 550 locations throughout the
country. dickeys.com. [GN]
E.A. SWEEN: Halwix Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET HALWIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. E. A. SWEEN COMPANY, Case No. 2022LA001152 (Ill. Cir.,
Dec. 30, 2022) sues the Defendant over unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class'
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.
As an employee/worker of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required
to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having her face
scanned by a biometric timeclock.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendant has violated and continues to
violate Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) because it did not
and continues not to:
a. Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated
in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for
which their face scan(s) were being collected, stored,
disseminated and used, as required by BIPA;
b. Provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and
other similarly-situated individuals' face scan(s), as
required by BIPA;
c. Receive a written release from Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or
otherwise use their face scan(s), as required by BIPA
Because the Defendant neither published a BIPA-mandated data
retention policy nor disclosed the purposes for their collection of
biometric data, Defendant's employees have no idea whether
Defendant sells, discloses, re-discloses, or otherwise disseminates
his or her biometric data, the lawsuit claims.
On behalf of herself and the Class, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory
relief; injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect
the interests of Plaintiff and the Class; statutory damages of
$5,000 for each intentional and/or reckless violation of BIPA; and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other litigation
expenses.
E.A. Sween is the leading supplier in the ready-to-eat sandwiches
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Adam Florek, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE
CONWAY & WISE, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
aflorek@peifferwolf.com
FACEBOOK INC: Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling in Wilkinson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FACEBOOK, INC. filed an appeal from the District Court's Order
dated September 2, 2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled KATHLEEN
WILKINSON, NANCY URBANCZYK, and LAURA PERKINSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-02777, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a class action complaint against Facebook seeking restitution,
damages, an injunction, and other appropriate relief from
Facebook's ongoing participation in an illegal Internet gambling
enterprise. By allegedly utilizing Facebook for distribution and
payment processing, the social casinos entered into a mutually
beneficial business partnership. In exchange for distributing the
casino games, providing them valuable data and insight about their
players, and collecting money from consumers, Facebook (and the
other Platforms) take a 30 percent commission off of every wager,
earning them billions in revenue. By comparison, the "house" at a
traditional casino only takes 1-15 percent, while also taking on
significant risk of loss in its operation. Facebook's 22 percent
rake, on the other hand, is guaranteed for its ability to act as a
casino "host" and bankroll, says the suit.
On April 8, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss master
complaint under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
On April 22, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to
create a master docket and new caption for Facebook actions, which
the Court granted on April 25, 2022. The Clerk of court was
directed to create a Master Docket and a Master File under the
civil action number assigned to the first-filed federal case, No.
5:21-cv-2777-EJD, with the caption In re: Facebook Simulated
Casino-Style Games Litigation.
On September 2, 2022, Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part and
denied in part the Motion to Dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Kathleen Wilkinson, et al v.
Facebook, Inc. In re: Kathleen Wilkinson, et al v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 22-16888, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on Dec. 9, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Jennifer Andrews, Mary Austin, Hannelore Boorn,
Alison Koda, Ben Kramer, Paul Lombard, Frances Long, Patricia
McCullough, Dawn Mehsikomer, Sandra Meyers, Sheri Miller, Eleanor
Mizrahi, Laura Perkinson, Clotera Rogers, Steve Simons, Carol
Smith, Vanessa Sowell Skeeter, Nancy Urbanczyk, Maria
Valencia-Torres, Denise Wax, Donna Whiting, Glenna Wiegard,
Kathleen Wilkinson, Janice Williams and Janice Wilson Mediation
Questionnaire was due on December 16, 2022;
-- First cross appeal brief is due on March 20, 2023 for
Facebook, Inc.;
-- Second brief on cross appeal is due on April 20, 2023 for
Jennifer Andrews, Mary Austin, Hannelore Boorn, Alison Koda, Ben
Kramer, Paul Lombard, Frances Long, Patricia McCullough, Dawn
Mehsikomer, Sandra Meyers, Sheri Miller, Eleanor Mizrahi, Laura
Perkinson, Clotera Rogers, Steve Simons, Carol Smith, Vanessa
Sowell Skeeter, Nancy Urbanczyk, Maria Valencia-Torres, Denise Wax,
Donna Whiting, Glenna Wiegard, Kathleen Wilkinson, Janice Williams
and Janice Wilson;
-- Third brief on cross appeal is due on May 22, 2023 for
Facebook, Inc.; and
-- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Jennifer Andrews, Mary
Austin, Hannelore Boorn, Alison Koda, Ben Kramer, Paul Lombard,
Frances Long, Patricia McCullough, Dawn Mehsikomer, Sandra Meyers,
Sheri Miller, Eleanor Mizrahi, Laura Perkinson, Clotera Rogers,
Steve Simons, Carol Smith, Vanessa Sowell Skeeter, Nancy Urbanczyk,
Maria Valencia-Torres, Denise Wax, Donna Whiting, Glenna Wiegard,
Kathleen Wilkinson, Janice Williams and Janice Wilson is due within
21 days of service of Third brief on cross appeal.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
Patrick James Fuster, Esq.
Adrienne Michelle Liu, Esq.
Timothy William Loose, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
333 S Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7396
- and -
Sean David Unger, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
101 California Street, 48th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 856-7000
Plaintiffs-Appellees KATHLEEN WILKINSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Todd Logan, Esq.
EDELSON, PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
- and -
Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
John E. Norris, Esq.
Dargan Maner Ware, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
2154 Highland Avenue, South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9976
- and -
Glenn Chappell, Esq.
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
- and -
Gregory Scott Dovel, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
EDELSON P.C.
350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6375
- and -
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
- and -
Cecily Jordan, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
- and -
Jill M. Manning, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1205
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
- and -
Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue, S Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 10019
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
GAOTU TECHEDU: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Gaotu Techedu Inc. f/k/a GSX Techedu Inc.
(NYSE: GOTU, GSX), if they purchased the Company's American
depository shares ('ADSs") between March 5, 2021 and July 23, 2021,
inclusive (the 'Class Period"). Shareholders have until February
28, 2023 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities
class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-gotu/, by calling
toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Suit Transfer to Alexandria Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, declines to transfer the
case, PETER TRAUERNICHT, et al., Plaintiffs v. GENWORTH FINANCIAL
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-532 (E.D. Va.),
to the Alexandria Division.
Class Representatives Peter Trauernicht and Zachary Wright, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
bring suit against Genworth. The Complaint alleges that Genworth
breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") by selecting, retaining, and otherwise
ratifying poorly-performing investments for participants of the
Genworth Financial Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan.
The Plan is a "participant-directed defined contribution plan"
where participants have the opportunity to direct the investment of
their contributions into various investment options offered by the
Plan. The Plan included options to invest in target date funds
("TDFs"), which are portfolios of underlying funds that gradually
shift to become more conservative as the assumed target date
approaches. The BlackRock TDFs were designated as the Plan's
default, so approximately 51% of the Plan's assets were invested in
these TDFs.
The Plaintiffs allege that Genworth failed to scrutinize the
performance of BlackRock TDFs against any of the alternatives in
order to determine whether the expected performance of the
BlackRock TDFs could support continued retention in the Plan. The
BlackRock TDFs ultimately underperformed during the Class Period,
which allegedly resulted in participants missing out on millions of
dollars in retirement savings growth that would have been achieved
through investments in alternative TDFs. he Complaint alleges that
Genworth's failure to evaluate and select alternative TDFs breached
its fiduciary duty owed to Plan participants to act prudently and
solely in the interest of the participants.
The Plaintiffs filed the class action suit on Aug. 1, 2022, seeking
relief under Sections 404, 409, and 502 of ERISA, codified at 29
U.S.C. Sections 1104, 1009, and 1132. On Oct. 17, 2022, Genworth
filed an Answer and a Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b) (1) and
12(b)(6), which the Court denied without prejudice for failure to
properly divide the issues. Accordingly, Genworth filed a Motion to
Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and Motion to Dismiss under Rule
(12(b)(1) on Oct. 27, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their responses on
Nov. 10, 2022, and Genworth filed its replies on Nov. 16, 2022.
Also on Nov. 16, 2022, both parties met with the Court for an
Initial Pretrial Conference ("IPTC") to set the schedule for
litigation. During the IPTC, the Court raised the issue of transfer
sua sponte because Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division was
presiding over two other cases with common issues filed by counsel
who represents the Plaintiffs.
Following the Court's Order, Genworth filed a Position Statement on
Nov. 17, 2022, expressing that it did not consent to transferring
the case to the Alexandria Division. In accordance with a briefing
schedule set by the Court, both parties filed their respective
Statements of Position Regarding Transfer on Dec. 1, 2022, and
their respective responses on Dec. 8, 2022.
The Plaintiffs do not oppose transferring the case, arguing that
the case could have been brought in the Alexandria Division from
the start because additional members of the proposed class likely
reside in that district, so a substantial part of the events giving
rise to the claim occurred" in the Alexandria Division. Likewise,
they contend that transfer is warranted under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a) because (1) the Plaintiffs' choice of forum does not weigh
against transfer; (2) most of the evidence is stored
electronically, and even if it is not, the Alexandria Division is
close in proximity to the Richmond Division so that witnesses and
evidence would not be inconvenienced by the transfer; (3)
similarly, the parties will not be inconvenienced due to the close
proximity of the divisions; and (4) transfer is in the interests of
justice and would ensure judicial economy. The Plaintiffs also
acknowledged that the Plan contains a forum-selection clause that
may bear on the analysis.
Genworth opposes the transfer of the case to the Alexandria
Division for three reasons. First, it argues that the Plan's
forum-selection clause provides that any action in connection with
the Plan may only be brought in Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, located in Richmond, Virginia, making
the venue valid only in the Richmond Division. Second, Genworth
argues that the case could not have been brought in the Alexandria
Division because none of the events or omissions that underlie the
Plaintiffs' claims occurred in that division. Finally, it contends
that, even if the case could have been brought in the Alexandria
Division under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the interests of justice
and the convenience of the parties or witnesses do not justify a
transfer.
Judge Payne opines that it is clear that the forum-selection clause
in the Plan precludes transferring the case from the Richmond
Division. The clause clearly states that any action related to the
Plan must be brought in the "Federal District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, located in Richmond, Virginia." This "clear
language showing that jurisdiction is appropriate only in the
designated forum" shows that the clause is mandatory and must be
followed by the Court unless it is unreasonable. There is nothing
to suggest, and the Plaintiffs do not contend, that the Plan's
forum-selection clause is unreasonable, so the Court must abide by
its language as agreed upon by the parties to the Plan.
Accordingly, because there is nothing to suggest that the
forum-selection clause is invalid or unreasonable, Judge Payne
abides by the clear language of the clause and, therefore, declines
to transfer the case to the Alexandria Division.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3pbtywkh from Leagle.com.
GLOBAL PERSONALS: Faces Ulery Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ULERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL PERSONALS, LLC, d/b/a SexyFans, and
SEXY FANS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03253-MDB (D. Colo.,
December 19, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been receiving
unsolicited SPAM text messages or SMS marketing from the Defendant
at least as early as January 26, 2022. The Defendant's purpose was
to promote its services and business. However, the Defendant's text
messages were personally offensive because it contained sexually
suggestive links. Although the Plaintiff responded to one of the
Defendant's unwanted text messages sent on January 29, 2022 by
clearly and expressly replying "STOP," the Defendant continued
sending sexually offensive text messages at least one additional
time on January 30, 2022. At no time did the Plaintiff consent to
receive unsolicited telemarketing text messages from the Defendant
to his cellular telephone number ending in 7000, which was
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about
February 6, 2008, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited text messages,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were damaged
in the form of privacy invasion, annoyance, aggravation,
frustration, distraction, inconvenience, time spent investigating,
and risk of future of harm. Thus, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and
willful damages, an injunction prohibiting the Defendants' from
calling any individual whose number appears on the NDNC Registry,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
deems reasonable and just.
Global Personals, LLC is the owner and operator of Sexy Fans
website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davide, FL 33314
Tel: (954) 889-3359
E-mail: jeegnatz@justiceearned.com
mpascucci@justiceearned.com
- and -
Jordan Richards, Esq.
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 Southeast 10th Ave., Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Tel: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle 12-Year-Long Class Suit for $23-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Farley at searchengineland.com reports that consumers in a
12-year-long class action lawsuit against Google say that Google
shared their queries with third parties without their permission.
What happened. The lawsuit alleged that Google violated both the
Stored Communications Act, a federal law that governs access to
records held by internet service providers, and state laws in
California.
The settlement. Details of the settlement can be found here. In
addition to the $23 million payout, which still needs court
approval, it also requires Google to provide added disclosures to
consumers about the sharing of search terms.
Dig deeper. Read the full announcement from Bloomberg.
Why we care. We're not sure how or if this will affect advertisers
in the future. But privacy issues are still a hot topic as we move
into 2023. [GN]
H&M HENNES: May File Leave to Amend Bid to Dismiss Lizama Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABRAHAM LIZAMA, et al., Plaintiffs v. H&M HENNES &
MAURITZ LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:22 CV 1170 RWS (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants H&M an opportunity
to seek leave to amend its motion to dismiss to raise the lack of
personal jurisdiction defense.
Lizama purchased a sweater from retailer H&M's "conscious choice"
collection. According to Lizama, he believed this meant his sweater
was made using "more sustainable and environmentally friendly"
manufacturing practices. According to Lizama, however, this product
is not "environmentally friendly," and he felt so misled by the
representation that he now brings a nationwide putative class
action over the alleged misrepresentation.
Lizama asserts claims under Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act
as well as claims for unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud. He asks the Court to name him as the
class representative to prosecute the MMPA and Missouri state law
claims on behalf of a subclass of Missouri residents who purchased
any "conscious choice" product from H&M, in addition to naming him
as one of two class representatives to prosecute nationwide class
claims for unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and
fraud on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who did the
same.
Mark Doten is the second class representative named in the
complaint. He is a California resident who made a similar
"conscious choice" purchase from H&M in California. He brings
claims similar to Lizama under California law and seeks to
represent California residents who purchased "conscious choice"
items in California as well as a nationwide class on the unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud claims.
Judge Sippel finds that H&M is not a Missouri corporation and does
not have its principal place of business here. Moreover, Doten
alleges no connection to Missouri. Under Brothers and Sisters in
Christ, LLC v. Zazzle, Inc., 42 F.4th 948, 951-52 (8th Cir. 2022),
and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., S.F. Co., 137
S.Ct. 1773 (2017), to resolve issues of federal court jurisdiction)
and the circumstances of the instant case, it appears that the
Court may lack personal jurisdiction over the Defendant with
respect to Doten's claims.
H&M did not raise this defense in its motion to dismiss filed on
Dec. 6, 2022. While lack of personal jurisdiction is a waivable
defense if not timely raised, given the importance of this issue,
Judge Sippel permits H&M an opportunity to seek leave to amend its
motion to raise the defense, as the Court may exercise discretion
to grant such a motion in this newly-filed case where briefing on
the motion has just been completed. He grants H&M to file a motion
seeking leave to amend its motion to dismiss to assert lack of
personal jurisdiction as a defense.
Any such motion will be accompanied by the proposed amended motion.
Failure to file such a motion will be deemed a waiver of the
defense of personal jurisdiction and H&M's right to assert that
Zazzle and Bristol-Myers should be applied in this context to
preclude a nonresident plaintiff from bringing claims against a
nonresident defendant for activities occurring outside the forum
state. Any opposition to amendment filed by the Plaintiffs will
also address any additional arguments related to jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Judge Sippel orders the Defendant to file any motion
for leave to amend in compliance with his Memorandum and Order.
Response and reply times to the motion are governed by the local
rules. The parties are granted leave to file briefs that do not
exceed 30 pages.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mp68sv7f from Leagle.com.
HOME CLEAN: Moshe Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDAN MOSHE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HOME CLEAN HOME, INC. NICOLE LEVINE, EDERI HANANYA,
and DOES 1-3, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00078 (E.D.N.Y., January
5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages and failure to provide proper wage notice in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Minimum
Wage Act, and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a general
laborer/installer in New York from April 2022 through July 3,
2022.
Home Clean Home, Inc. is a provider of home cleaning services
headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sol Kodsi, Esq.
Roman Leonov, Esq.
111 John Street, Ste 1640
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 518-1503
(212) 240-9704
E-mail: RLeonov@VaLeLawGroup.com
S.Kodsi@kodsilaw.com
JAMES VELISSARIS: Day Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY DAY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. JAMES VELISSARIS, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04987-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 19, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as one of its film crew
members, who worked on the production of the motion picture
entitled "Black Spartans" filmed in and around Atlanta, Georgia,
from on or around August 2022 until the production wrapped up in
October 2022.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated crew members regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work
week, often working as many as 90 hours in a work week. However,
the Defendant did not compensate them for the significant work they
performed for the Defendant during the last month of filming,
specifically the federal minimum wage and/or overtime rate for work
performed in or around October 2022. In addition, the Defendant
failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to its crew
members to determine their wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment. Allegedly, the Defendant has been unjustly enriched by
refusing to compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
crew members for the valuable services they provided. Moreover, the
Defendant has breached the contracts by failing to pay them the
agreed-upon amounts, says the suit.
Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated crew
members, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover
unpaid wages in amounts to be determined at trial, as well as
liquidated damages, compensatory damages for the Defendant's breach
of contract, litigation expenses together with reasonably-incurred
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just,
equitable, and proper.
Defendant James Velissaris is the producer, co-writer, and financer
of the motion picture "Black Spartans." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael B. Schoenfeld, Esq.
James D. Fagan, Jr., Esq.
STANFORD FAGAN LLC
2540 Lakewood Avenue SW
Atlanta, GA 30315
Tel: (404) 622-0521, ext. 2244
E-mail: michaels@sfglawyers.com
jfagan@sfglawyers.com
JESS PETROLEUM: Siddique Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ABU SYED SIDDIQUE, Plaintiff v. JESS PETROLEUM, INC., and
NURUDDIN SHEIKH, an individual, jointly and severally, Defendants,
Case No. 9:22-cv-81949-XXXX (S.D. Fla., December 19, 2022) is
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees against the Defendants as a result of
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Florida Minimum Wage Act, and the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a retail store clerk
from on or about June 28, 2021 until March 2, 2022.
The Plaintiff asserts claim that despite regularly working more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay him any wages for
all hours he worked throughout his employment with the Defendant.
Instead of paying him minimum wages and overtime wages at the rate
of one and one-half times is regular rate of pay for all hours he
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Defendants allegedly
agreed to just assist him with obtaining his green card and work
permit, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, unpaid minimum wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief
as the Court deems just and equitable.
Jess Petroleum, Inc. owns and operates a retail food/fuel store
named Marathon. Nuruddin Sheikh is the owner and operator of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 NW 70th Ave., Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Tel: (954) 617-6017
Fax: (954) 617-6018
E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Pitts Appeals Order Denying Bid to Join Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff JAQUEL PITTS filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated December 16, 2022 entered in the
lawsuit entitled AARON SENNE, et al., Plaintiffs v. OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-00608-JCS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
The Plaintiffs are minor league baseball players who assert claims
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the wage-and-hour
laws of California, Arizona, and Florida against Major League
Baseball (MLB), MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, and 22 MLB franchises
(Franchise Defendants). Plaintiff Cody Sedlock is a current minor
league baseball player; the remaining plaintiffs are former minor
league baseball players.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 6, 2021, Chief
Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Cody
Sedlock's Motion for Rule 23(b)(2) Class Certification.
Mr. Jaquel Pitts seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis the
Court's decision denying his request to be registered as a member
of the Plaintiff class. On December 16, 2022, Judge Spero entered
an order denying request of Mr. Pitts to join this case.
The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Senne, et al. v. Office of
the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Case No. 23-15004, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Jan.
3, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by February 2, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on March 2, 2023;
-- Appellant Jaquel Pitts opening brief is due on April 10,
2023;
-- Appellees Craig Bennigson, Ryan Kiel, Matt Lawson, Michael
Liberto, Brad McAtee, Kyle Nicholson, Oliver Odle, Office of the
Commissioner of Baseball, Cody Sedlock, Allan Huber Selig, Aaron
Senne and Kyle Woodruff answering brief is due on May 10, 2023;
and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Movant-Appellant JAQUEL PITTS, Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff, of
San Diego, California, appears pro se.
Plaintiffs-Appellees AARON SENNE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, are represented by:
Jamie L. Boyer, Esq.
THE BRUNING LAW FIRM
555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600A
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 735-8100
- and -
Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq.
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
505 N 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101-1625
Telephone: (314) 241-4844
- and -
Rachel Jenny Geman, I, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
- and -
Samuel Kornhauser, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER
155 Jackson St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 981-6281
- and -
Brian Murray, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
77 Water Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 382-2221
- and -
Thomas Jerome Nolan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS J. NOLAN
530 S Lake Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (818) 928-1115
- and -
Clifford Harris Pearson, Esq.
Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
- and -
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
- and -
Anne Shaver, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
- and -
Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1205
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
- and -
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
205 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 899-5063
Defendants-Appellees OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, et
al., are represented by:
Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
Mark David Harris, Esq.
Adam M. Lupion, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036-8299
Telephone: (212) 969-3000
- and -
John E. Roberts, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
One International Place
Boston, MA 02110
KIND LLC: Healthy Grains Misrepresented as High in Fiber, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aimen Halim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kind LLC,, Case No. 1:22-cv-10979 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30,
2022) alleges that the Defendant misrepresented and/or omitted the
attributes and qualities of the Healthy Grains (Product), that it
would be high in fiber based on its consumption as a snack, not a
cereal, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells bags of granola sold
intended for consumption as snacks in varieties including cinnamon
oat promoted as "High in Fiber."
According to the complaint, based on the Product's correct serving
size of 30 grams, it is not high in fiber because the four grams of
fiber shown in the "Snack" column is only fourteen percent of the
percent daily value. There are several signals that Defendant does
not really believe its Product is a cereal. First, if Defendant
believed the Product was a cereal, it would not have to disclose
the basis for the high in fiber claim at the bottom of the package
because the nutrient that is the subject of the claim, fiber, meets
the criteria for a "high" claim based on the reference amount of 60
g. Assuming the Product is cereal with a reference amount
customarily consumed (RACC) of 60 g, it would still have 8 g fiber
which exceeds the twenty-percent daily value to make a high fiber
claim. Second, though the second column uses the cereal RACC to
arrive at the serving size of 65 g and describes this amount as a
"Bowl," it fails to include a column for added milk, even though
the back label shows a picture of the Product being consumed
"[W]ith milk[!]."
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, 5.99 for 312 g, excluding tax
and sales, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product at stores including Jewel-Osco,
4042 W Foster Ave, Chicago, Illinois in the fall and/or winter of
2022. The Plaintiff did not and could not see the small print at
the bottom of the label which purported to tell purchasers that its
claims about being high in fiber were only accurate if the Product
was consumed as a cereal.
Kind LLC is a leading seller of healthy snacks, known for its focus
on nutrition.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LASTPASS US: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Consumers' Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Breck Dumas at FOXBusiness reports that LastPass is facing a
class-action lawsuit filed by a former customer who says a hacker
stole tens of thousands in Bitcoin from him as a result of one of
the password manager's multiple data breaches last year.
The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts
accuses LastPass of failing to "exercise reasonable care in
securing and safeguarding highly sensitive consumer data in
connection with a massive, months-long data breach that began in
August" and impacted "potentially millions" of customers.
LastPass acknowledged in late August last year that "an
unauthorized party gained access to portions" of its network
through a developer's compromised account, and determined at the
time that no customer data or encrypted password vaults were
accessed by the hacker.
The company then admitted a second breach in late November, saying
someone used information accessed in the August hack to "gain
access to certain elements of our customers' information." LastPass
insisted users' passwords remained safely encrypted at that time.
But the unnamed plaintiff claims in the suit filed that around
Thanksgiving weekend of 2022, roughly $53,000 worth of bitcoin was
stolen from him by someone who used the private keys he had stored
on LastPass for accessing the cryptocurrency.
The lawsuit is asking that LastPass be forced to disclose
specifically all the types of private information that were
compromised during the breach and, among other things, to pay
compensatory damages and restitution for failing to keep customers'
data secure.
LastPass did not immediately respond to FOX Business' request for a
response to the suit.
In the company's latest blog update on Dec. 22 regarding the
security incidents, LastPass CEO Karim Toubba acknowledged that a
"threat actor" had copied a backup of customer vault data that
included "fully-encrypted sensitive fields such as website
usernames and passwords, secure notes, and form-milled data."
Toubba emphasized in the post last month that "these encrypted
fields remain secured."[GN]
MARS INC: Dark Chocolate Contains Heavy Metals, Millman Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARLENE MILLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00079
(E.D.N.Y., January 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for unjust enrichment and violation of New York's General Business
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
the Dove Promises Deeper Dark Chocolate 70% Cacao. The Defendant
failed to disclose to consumers that the product contained lead and
cadmium, which are known toxic heavy metals. Given the negative
effects of toxic heavy metals on child development and adult
health, the presence of these substances in dark chocolate is a
material fact to reasonable consumers, including the Plaintiff and
Class members. Had the Plaintiff and putative Class members known
the truth, they would not have been willing to purchase the product
or would have paid less for it, says the suit.
Mars Inc. is a manufacturer of candy and confectionary products,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
slitteral@bursor.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
737 Bainbridge Street, #155
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Sexual Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that Fast food giant McDonald's is facing a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois over alleged sexual harassment,
hostile work environment, and retaliation. McDonald's moved to
dismiss the case and the Judge denied the motion.
Background
In July 2021, two female employees who worked at a Sanford, Florida
McDonald's location filed the lawsuit. This particular location is
corporate owned and operated by the Illinois-based McDonald's,
which has more than 100 restaurants and employs over 6,000 workers
in Florida.
Jamelia Fairley, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, claims that
two male co-workers verbally and physically harassed her for
several years, repeatedly asking inappropriate sexual questions and
engaging in unwanted physical contact. Fairley claims her
co-workers frequently witnessed the physical sexual harassment, as
did a shift manager, who did not report it or take any steps to
stop it. Fairley also complained to additional shift managers and
the restaurant's general manager. Several shift managers allegedly
spoke to the two men accused of the harassment, but did not take
steps to prevent or stop future acts.
Eventually, the restaurant's general manager forwarded Fairley's
allegations to an operations consultant who supervised a group of
McDonald's restaurants. When confronted by the operations
consultant, one of the men accused of harassment confessed and was
terminated. But Fairley claims there was no meaningful
investigation into the accusations against the other male employee.
That worker was transferred to a different store for unrelated
reasons. Fairley further alleges that, even after the two men were
transferred or terminated, they continued visiting the Sanford,
Florida restaurant where she worked and continued to confront and
harass her. When Fairley requested a transfer, the operations
consultant offered to transfer her to the same store to which one
of the harassers had been transferred.
Ashley Reddick, the other plaintiff in the lawsuit, detailed
similar allegations of harassment. Reddick claims that she was
subjected daily to verbal and physical sexual harassment by a male
co-worker, which was not addressed. Reddick claims that, when she
reported the harassment to management, they made no attempt to
discipline the male employee and the harassment continued. She also
claims to have reported sexual harassment from customers to the
general manager, who did not take action. Reddick claims she was
terminated due to her opposition to, and reporting of, harassment
by her coworker.
Fairley and Reddick are not the only employees suing McDonald's for
sexual harassment violations. Several teenagers have reported
facing similar experiences while employed at McDonald's. An
attorney for the ACLU has noted that 'the food service industry
generally is one of the worst for sexual harassment claims." In
fact, within the past year, a survey of roughly 800 female
employees at McDonald's restaurants and franchises found that
three-fourths allege they were harassed on the job.
And 71% of those women said that they suffered consequences for
reporting the behavior. Id.
Reminders for Food & Beverage Employers
The allegations in this lawsuit underscore the importance of
maintaining and complying with sexual harassment policies and
procedures in the Food & Beverage industry. In light of, among
other societal factors, the #MeToo Movement, employers have faced
far more sexual harassment claims in recent years than
historically. Food & Beverage Employers must have proper procedures
in place to thoroughly investigate and combat sexual harassment or
subsequent retaliation.
For example, Food and Beverage employers must have a sexual
harassment training program and ensure that all employees receive
this training - as required by New York State. Annual training aids
in combating sexual harassment as it educates employees about the
different forms of sexual harassment in the workplace. Likewise,
aggrieved employees become aware of the process to file a complaint
internally and with the requisite governmental agencies. One of the
chief complaints noted in almost every claim against McDonald's is
that employees who raised sexual harassment concerns were
retaliated against or their claims were not investigated
thoroughly. It is imperative for Food & Beverage employers to have
proper documented procedures in place that address investigations
and inform employees that retaliatory conduct is prohibited under
state and federal law, and to follow these procedures each time an
incident is reported.[GN]
MDL 2873: Transfer of Dumais Suit to AFFFs Litigation Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873,
Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation denied the move by defendant United States
of America to transfer the case captioned "Dumais, et al. v. United
States of America, et al.," (C.A. No. 1:22−00112, D.N.H.) to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina for
inclusion in MDL No. 2873.
MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to
extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local
groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. Collectively,
these and other per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances are referred to
as PFAS. The MDL also includes claims by firefighters and others
alleging that direct exposure to AFFF caused them injuries.
Mr. Dumais complaint alleges that Mr. Dumais was conducting an
inspection of the fire suppression system at Pease Air National
Guard Base when a pump (allegedly manufactured by defendant ASM)
exploded. Plaintiffs allege that the explosion shot pressurized
AFFF concentrate into Mr. Dumais' eyes, nose, and mouth. The
complaint further alleges that, as a result, Mr. Dumais suffered
various injuries not alleged in the actions in the MDL--namely,
esophagitis, gastritis, chemical burns, a concussion and
post-concussion syndrome, acoustical trauma, cognitive issues, and
aggravated tinnitus.
In support of its motion to transfer, the United States argued
that, in addition to these unique injuries, plaintiffs allege that
Mr. Dumais is at severe risk of developing cancer, an injury that
is alleged by plaintiffs in the MDL. The United States also argued
that plaintiffs' claims share common factual questions regarding
AFFF with the claims by other firefighters in the MDL, and that
transfer will lead to efficiencies and prevent inconsistent
pretrial rulings.
The central issue in Dumais appears to be the maintenance and
operation of the pump that allegedly exploded and injured Mr.
Dumais. The overwhelming majority of Mr. Dumais's alleged injuries
were caused by the physical impact of the explosion and of the
pressurized AFFF, as opposed to its chemical composition. In short,
while Dumais involves AFFF, it is not an "AFFF action" similar to
those that the panel has transferred to MDL No. 2873. Plaintiffs'
single allegation that Mr. Dumais is at risk of developing cancer
does not, by itself, convert this action into an AFFF action.
Rather, given how distinct Dumais is from the actions in the MDL,
it is unlikely that transfer will yield significant efficiencies or
conveniences for the parties and witnesses.
Accordingly, after considering the parties' arguments, the panel
found that transfer of the Dumais case will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. The panel does not foreclose
the possibility that discovery and pleading practice could
demonstrate that Dumais is, in fact, more similar to the actions in
the MDL than it presently appears. Should Dumais evolve into a more
obvious AFFF action, the parties or the court at that time can
re-notice Dumais as a potential tag-along in MDL No. 2873.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 13, 2022 Order is
available at bit.ly/3Zwr6Sa
MDL 2921: Malkemes Suit Consolidated in Breast Implant Product Row
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Allergan
Biocell Textured Breast Implant Products Liability Litigation," MDL
No. 2921, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case docketed as
Malkemes v. Allergan USA, Inc., et al.," (C.A. No. 8:22−02030,
M.D. Fla.) to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Brian R.
Martinotti for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The centralized actions present common factual questions pertaining
to the allegation that Allergan's BIOCELL textured breast implants
and tissue expanders significantly increase the risk of developing
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and that
Allergan failed to warn the FDA, patients, and healthcare providers
of this risk.
Malkemes moved to vacate the panel's order conditionally
transferring the action to MDL No. 2921. Defendants Allergan, Inc.,
and Allergan USA, Inc. opposed the motion to vacate and supported
the transfer. Plaintiff argued that her action involves additional
injuries beyond the scope of the MDL, mainly a condition referred
to as "Breast Implant Illness" (BII), which she describes as a
constellation of severe autoimmune systemic symptoms such as
fatigue, memory loss, rash, brain fog, and joint pain.
The panel deemed that centralization was warranted for actions
arising out of Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement, of a
voluntary worldwide recall of its BIOCELL textured breast implants
and tissue expanders related to an investigation by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration into reports that the products posed a risk
of a cancer of the immune system. Moreover, Plaintiff's conclusory
assertion that the transferee court will not address her BII claims
is speculative. Nothing in the record suggests that plaintiff will
be denied a meaningful opportunity to pursue her claims for both
injuries in the MDL. Plaintiff's concerns are essentially case
management issues that she may bring to the attention of the
transferee court, the panel added.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 12, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at bit.ly/3ZqstSC
MDL 2924: Marlen Consolidated in Ranitidine Product Liability Row
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case docketed as MARLEN v.
VONDERHEIDE, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:22−01989 from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the Southern
District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to Judge Robin L. Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation captioned IN
RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
2924.
Marlen moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally
transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida for
inclusion in MDL No. 2924 while defendant Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Inc., USA, opposed the motion.
In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over their actions is lacking, and that
their pending motions for remand to state court should be decided
before transfer. The panel, however, held that such jurisdictional
objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer.
Plaintiff also argues that transfer is not appropriate because he
alleges that ranitidine caused his kidney cancer. Lead plaintiffs'
counsel in the MDL, in contrast, are prosecuting five different
types of cancer in the bellwether stage of the litigation.
Plaintiff contends that, because he alleges a non-designated
cancer, transfer will not result in efficiencies. This argument is
not persuasive, ruled the panel. Many cases involving
non-designated cancers remain in the MDL, and the transferee court
quite clearly has stated that common proceedings as to these claims
has not concluded, the panel added.
The panel concluded that the actions involve common questions of
fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2924, and that
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 13, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at bit.ly/3ZFFDeL
MDL 2936: Panel Denies Remand of Nationwide v. Smitty's to E.D. La.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Smitty's/CAM2
303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2936, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an
order denying the remand of NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE
COMPANY v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. C.A. No.
2:20−02890 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. Plaintiff in this case, which previously was transferred
from the Eastern District of Louisiana to the Western District of
Missouri District for inclusion in MDL No. 2936, moved for an order
remanding the action while defendant Smitty's, Inc. opposed the
motion.
This MDL involves consumer class actions against Smitty’s
involving certain of its tractor hydraulic fluid ("THF") products
and related insurance coverage actions.
Smitty's Supply, Inc. and CAM2 Tractor Supply are accused by
Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company of deceptively marketing
their Smitty's 303 tractor hydraulic fluid as meeting John Deere
303 specifications, specifically the products' anti-wear and
protective benefits and use oils and diluted additives that damage
equipment.
After considering the argument of counsel, the panel concluded that
remand is not appropriate. The transferee judge has denied
plaintiff's request for such a suggestion because additional
pretrial proceedings remain with respect to summary judgment
motions.
In support of remand, Nationwide principally argues that there are
no efficiencies to be gained from the transferee court ruling on
the pending summary judgment motions. The panel contends that the
transferee judge considered these arguments and determined that
good cause does not exist to remand this case prior to the
conclusion of pretrial proceedings, noting that summary judgment
motions remain to be resolved. Common issues of fact and law remain
between the MDL consumer actions. The panel further explained that
Smitty's knowledge of the alleged defects is relevant to the MDL
consumer plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and
request for punitive damages, and also appeared to be "directly
relevant, at a minimum, to the exclusions for 'known risk' and
'prior knowledge' in the Coverage Actions." The panel has reviewed
the record and found that none of these considerations have
changed. The overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not
just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation, are
best served by the continued inclusion of the Nationwide action in
the MDL for resolution of the motions for summary judgment.
Nationwide had also argued before the panel that remand is
warranted because of concerns about the transferee judge's
impartiality. But those are issues for a recusal motion, which
Nationwide has not filed. Moreover, it is not the panel's role to
act on a recusal motion or conduct appellate review of pretrial
proceedings in an MDL.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 12, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at bit.ly/3iyK2iH
META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Ad Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sofia Misenheimer of MTL Blog reports that Facebook has up to 60
days from the court ruling on December 22 to take action as the
Quebec Court approved a class action lawsuit against Facebook over
possible discrimination. The case will go back to the Quebec
Superior Court if they don't appeal.
Quebec's Court of Appeals has granted permission for a class action
lawsuit against Facebook to move ahead. Plaintiffs in the case
allege that the social media giant engaged in discriminatory
advertising practices on the basis of age, race and gender.
They say targeted ads that appeared only to Facebook users falling
in a pre-determined age, race or gender brackets may have
privileged certain demographics over others when it comes to job
and housing opportunities.
Thousands of Quebec residents on Facebook since 2016 who have been
hunting for jobs or housing on the site could be implicated in the
case. The Quebec Charter stipulates that every person in the
province is "equal in worth and in dignity," meaning specific
groups cannot legally be granted identity-based advantages when it
comes to employment and housing.
One plaintiff, described as "an avid Facebook user and job seeker,"
alleges they were skipped over for job ads by the platform's
algorithms due to their age and gender. It's unclear how the user
found out about the alleged discrimination, but court documents
contend the user's "dignity was deeply affected."
The Quebec judge who approved the class action justified her
decision, wrote, "new forms of discrimination are likely to emerge
in the digital world," and referenced key questions in the case —
whether Facebook had broken the law, and whether the platform
should be prohibited from "discriminatory targeting of
advertisements based on race, gender or age with respect to
employment and housing opportunities." [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Imposes Excessive Drivers' Fines, Miller Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
STANFORD MILLER, CESAR SALAS VALDEZ, FABION LEWIS, and GEORGE
NUMFOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK and DAVID DO, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Taxi and
Limousine Commission, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00065 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the
Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment by imposing
excessive civil penalties on individuals, including the Plaintiffs,
who were approached or solicited for rides by undercover New York
City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) officers, as part of the
TLC's undercover sting operations. These operations are designed to
entrap innocent individuals into violations of N.Y.C. Admin. Code
Sec. 19-506(b) (the Street Hail Law), which, inter alia, prohibits
street hails without the appropriate TLC license and penalizes the
drivers and owners of the vehicles who allegedly violated the law.
Almost all violations of the Street Hail Law result in a penalty of
$1,500 for a first offense, and often a 60-day suspension of a
driver's license, or $2,000 for a second offense, often with the
TLC also seizing the person's vehicle. The Defendants have imposed
the fines to maximize revenues for the TLC, and not to protect the
public. As a result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the
Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered damages, says the suit.
City of New York is a municipality in the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
2001 K Street, NW
Suite 850 North
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 888-1741
Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
E-mail: peter@guptawessler.com
- and -
Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
Bernadette Jentsch, Esq.
Belinda Luu, Esq.
MOBILIZATION FOR JUSTICE, INC.
100 William Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 417-3866
Facsimile: (212) 417-3890
E-mail: bluu@mfjlegal.org
- and -
Christopher K. Leung, Esq.
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
111 Broadway, Suite 1804
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (917) 985-3995
E-mail: chris@pollockcohen.com
PIONEER MERGER: Suit Seeks to Enjoin Distribution of SPAC's Assets
------------------------------------------------------------------
FUNICULAR FUNDS, LP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PIONEER MERGER CORP., PIONEER MERGER SPONSOR
LLC, JONATHAN CHRISTODORO, RICK GERSON, OSCAR SALAZAR, RYAN KHOURY,
SCOTT CARPENTER, MATTHEW COREY, MITCHELL CAPLAN, and TODD DAVIS,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10986 (S.D.N.Y., Dec 30, 2022) seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from distributing any of the special purpose acquisition
company's (SPAC's) assets other than the IPO proceeds held in the
SPAC's trust account and asks the Court to require the Defendants
to distribute the SPAC's net assets, including the Termination Fee,
to holders of Class A Public Shares.
In May 2021, Defendants announced a proposed transaction with
Acorns Grow Incorporated, a fast-growing wealth manager with a
novel application to make investing and saving easier than
traditional investment accounts.
According to the complaint, by late 2021, it appears that Acorns
regretted the deal, and the parties announced in January 2022 that
the Transaction had been mutually terminated. Rather than enforce
the SPAC's right to force Acorns to close the transaction,
Defendants quickly negotiated a termination agreement under which
Acorns would pay a termination fee of up to $32.5 million -- $17.5
million upfront and an additional $15 million if the SPAC were
unable to identify a replacement transaction. Shortly thereafter,
Acorns completed a private fundraising round at a higher pre-money
valuation, demonstrating that the loss of the Transaction had
deprived public stockholders of significant value. However, while
stockholders had lost the value of the Transaction, they had
ostensibly gained the value of the Termination Fee in exchange.
Following the Termination, Defendants initially attempted to find a
new transaction but were ultimately unsuccessful. In December 2022,
Pioneer announced that the SPAC would dissolve, triggering the
remaining $15 million Termination Fee payment from Acorns. Having
failed to make a deal, Defendants were required to take a loss and
return the SPAC's assets to investors. Instead, they decided to
extract a consolation prize for themselves: Defendants have stated
that they will award the entire $32.5 million Termination Fee from
Acorns to themselves as holders of the Class B Founder Shares,
while holders of the Class A Public Shares will be redeemed and
will receive only the IPO proceeds (with minimal interest), says
the suit.
The Defendants have no legal or equitable entitlement to the
Termination Fee or any other corporate assets of the SPAC, and
Defendants' planned misappropriation violates their contractual and
fiduciary duties. Moreover, given that the SPAC waived its legal
remedies against Acorns to obtain the Termination Fee in the first
place, permitting Defendants to keep the proceeds would render the
Termination an utterly disloyal, self-dealing transaction through
which Defendants traded away a corporate asset solely to line their
own pockets. The Defendants have stated that they plan to redeem
the Class A Public Shares on or about January 13, 2023, and
thereafter distribute any remaining assets, including the
Termination Fee, to themselves, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff is a Delaware limited partnership and currently the
largest disclosed holder of Class A Public Shares of Pioneer.
Pioneer is a special purpose acquisition company organized as a
Cayman Islands exempted company. It was formed by Alpha Wave for
the purpose of completing a business combination. Alpha Wave is a
global alternative asset manager that offers a variety of
investment products in different asset classes, themes, and
geographies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron T. Morris, Esq.
Andrew W. Robertson, Esq.
MORRIS KANDINOV LLP
1740 Broadway, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (877) 216-1552
E-mail: aaron@moka.law
andrew@moka.law
- and -
Angus F. Ni, Esq.
AFN LAW, PLLC
506 2nd Ave., Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (646) 453-729
QUALITY FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Holguin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Camilo Holguin, and Astrid Coello, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated in the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) Collective Action v. Quality Furniture NY LLC, Bargain House
by Quality Furniture Inc., Bargain House by Quality Furniture NY
Inc., and Issa Nasrallah, Case No. 1:23-cv-00004 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 1,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft
Prevention Act, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief,
liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
From June 2021 to November 2021 Mr. Holguin worked five-six days a
week, for a total of 50-60 hours during each of the weeks. From
December 2021 to June 2022, Mr. Coello worked 7 days a week at
Bargain House-Rockland Plaza, for a total of 74-81 hours during
each of the weeks.
The Plaintiffs further seek recovery against Defendants under the
New York state law for breach of contract, arising out of
Defendants' failure to pay sales commissions for nearly three
months.
The Plaintiffs worked as sales representative and general worker at
"Bargain House by Quality Furniture".[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
RIVERBEND CORRECTIONAL: Boyd Ordered to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVIOUS MARQUES BOYD, Plaintiff v. RIVERBEND
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00451-TES-CHW
(M.D. Ga.), Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, requires
the Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint.
Boyd, a prisoner at Riverbend Correctional Facility in
Milledgeville, Georgia, filed a document in the Northern District
of Georgia, which was docketed as 42 U.S.C Section 1983 complaint.
That civil action has now been transferred to the Court. The
Plaintiff did not pay a filing fee nor did he request leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Thus, in order to
proceed, he must either pay the $402 filing fee or file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis with the required statutory supporting
documentation.
First, Judge Weigle holds that if the Plaintiff's "witness
statement" is an attempt to raise constitutional claims under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, the document sent to the Court is wholly
insufficient to do so. He says the Plaintiff's complaint is written
in small print and is often indecipherable. More importantly, his
pleading is a collection of rambling and conclusory allegations
about several unrelated events from several different prisons and
fails to link claims to any specified Defendants.
Second, the Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has further run afoul of Rule
10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require that a
party must state its claims in paragraphs limited to a single set
of circumstances. In short, this complaint is a typical shotgun
pleading. The Plaintiff's complaint is a shotgun pleading because
it asserts multiple, unrelated claims against numerous yet unnamed
defendants without specifying which of the defendants are
responsible for which acts or omissions or which of the defendants
each claim is brought against.
Third, because the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, Judge Weigle
affords the Plaintiff one opportunity to remedy the defects. Thus,
the Plaintiff is now required to submit an amended complaint on the
Court's standard Section 1983 form if he wishes to proceed with
this civil action. He is notified that one sole operating complaint
is permissible. Thus, the Plaintiff's amended complaint will take
the place of his original complaint, including all exhibits or
attachments.
Thus, the Plaintiff must keep in mind that he may include only
related claims when redrafting his complaint. The various claims
that he presently raises in his pleading do not presently appear to
be related. Just because alleged events occur in one prison does
not necessarily make claims about those allegations related under
Rule 20. If the Plaintiff wishes to pursue unrelated claims, then
he is advised that these would be separate actions that must be
filed in separate complaints on the Court's required 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 form and cannot be consolidated under the above civil
action number. The filing fee must also be addressed in each new
civil action.
The Plaintiff should state his claims as simply as possible
referring only to the relevant allegations against the named
defendants in the case and need not use legal terminology or cite
any specific statute or case law to state a claim. The Court will
presume that the Plaintiff's claims are brought under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 unless otherwise specified. Additionally, the
Plaintiff must thoroughly and completely answer each question
presented in the Court's standard Section 1983 complaint form. The
total complaint must be no longer than 10 pages. He is not to
include any exhibits or attachments.
Lastly, Judge Weigle notes that within approximately 60 days, the
Plaintiff has filed at least nine lawsuits, including the present
action -- Boyd v. GeoGroup, 5:22-cv-387-MTT-MSH (filed October 6,
2022), Boyd v. Bailey, 5:22-cv-00447-TES-CHW (filed Nov. 23, 2022);
Boyd v. Riverbend Correctional Facility, 5:22-cv-00448-TES-CHW
(filed Nov. 23, 2022); Boyd v. Riverbend Correctional Facility,
5:22-cv-00449-TES-CHW (filed Nov. 23, 2022); Boyd v. Riverbend
Correctional Facility, 5:22-cv-00450-TES-CHW (filed Nov. 23, 2022);
Boyd v. Riverbend Correctional Facility, 5:22-cv-00451-TES-CHW
(filed Nov. 25, 2022); Boyd v. Riverbend Correctional Facility,
5:22-cv-00452-TES-CHW (filed Nov. 30, 2022); Boyd v. Riverbend
Correctional Facility, 5:22-cv-00453-TES-CHW (filed Dec. 1, 2022).
Some of these actions raise duplicative claims, are impermissible
shotgun pleadings or purported pro se class action suits, and
request relief not available from the Court, such as state prison
transfers or mailing Plaintiff IRS forms and stimulus funds.
Judge Weigle cautions the Plaintiff that he will be responsible for
satisfying the filing fees in each of these suits, regardless of
whether any proceed beyond frivolity review or whether any are
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. He is also cautioned that
should he have three lawsuits dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or
for failure to state a claim, he will be barred from pursuing any
future federal civil rights actions in forma pauperis unless he is
found by a Court to be under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.
The Plaintiff should carefully review each of his suits to be sure
they are specifically pleaded to state a constitutional claim, that
they do not combine unrelated claims as prohibited by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and that they do not present duplicative
claims. Should he find that any of his suits are duplicative of
another suit or that any may otherwise need to be withdrawn, he may
file a motion to have the case voluntarily dismissed.
If the Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he will have
14 days from the date of the Order to (1) refile his Complaint on
the Court's standard Section 1983 form as instructed, and (2)
either pay the filing fee or properly seek leave to proceed in
forma pauperis that includes a certified account statement for the
previous six months, signed by a prison official.
While this action is pending, the Plaintiff must also immediately
inform the Court in writing of any change in his mailing address.
Failure to fully and timely comply with the Order may result in the
dismissal of the Complaint. There will be no service of process in
this case until further order of the Court.
Judge Weigle directs the Clerk of Court to forward a copy of his
Order, a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint form, and an application
to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, along with the
appropriate certification form (with the civil action number shown
on all) to the Plaintiff.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hnhm58ee from Leagle.com.
SAXE MGMT: Court Orders Return of Razilou's $2.5K Security Bond
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JEREMY BAUMAN, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAXE MANAGEMENT, LLC, et
al., Defendants. BIJAN RAZILOU, et al., Plaintiff v. V THEATER
GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 2:14-cv-01125-RFB-BNW,
2:14-cv-01160-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), Judge Richard F. Boulware of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada orders that the
$2,500 security bond, plus interest, be returned to the Legal Owner
designated in the certificate of cash deposit,
2:14-cv-001160-RFB-BNW.
On Aug. 27, 2014, the Court ordered Razilou to post a security bond
for each defendant in the amount of $500, for a total deposit of
$2,500, in case number 2:14-cv-01160-RFB-BNW. On Sept. 10, 2014,
Paul C. Williams posted a security bond on the Plaintiff's behalf,
receipt number NVLAS028930, for $2,500 for case number
2:14-cv-001160-RFB-BNW.
On Aug. 25, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating case
number 2:14-cv-01160-RFB-BNW to this instant matter, case number
2:14-cv-001125-RFB-BNW, and on July 16, 2021, case number
2:14-cv-01160-RFB-BNW was ordered closed. On July 2, 2020, the
Order granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Dismissing Class Plaintiffs' Claims was filed, and Judgment was
entered on July 9, 2020.
As this matter is now concluded, Judge Boulware orders that the
$2,500 security bond, plus interest, be returned to the Legal Owner
designated in the certificate of cash deposit,
2:14-cv-001160-RFB-BNW to: Bailey Kennedy, LLP 8984 Spanish Ridge
Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89148, unless a party objects to his Order by
no later than 10 days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3zaum7ju from Leagle.com.
SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: Creme Pies Contain Preservatives, Martin Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NIYA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCHWAN'S CONSUMER BRANDS, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-00469-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Dec. 31, 2022) alleges that
Defendant made false and misleading representations that key lime
pie and strawberry crème pie (Products) contain "No Preservatives"
because their ingredient lists reveal sodium citrate and citric
acid.
Citric acid and sodium citrate are acidulants, increasing the
acidity of the Product by lowering the pH level. Citric acid and
sodium citrate are antioxidant additives, which prevent oxidation
and keep the Product from spoiling prematurely. Citric acid and
sodium citrate are produced synthetically through fermentation of
the mycelial fungus Aspergillus niger or Candida spp., then
neutralized with sodium hydroxide and crystalized, chemical
reactions.
According to the complaint, by not disclosing the use of chemical
preservatives, and further asserting the Product contains "No
Preservatives," the Defendant misleads reasonable consumers. As a
result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is
sold at a premium price, $6.99 for 708 g, or one pie, excluding tax
and sales, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is like many Americans who seeks to avoid foods with
preservatives for reasons including health, nutrition and to avoid
chemical ingredients.
Schwan's Consumer manufactures, markets, and sells key lime and
strawberry crème frozen under the Edwards brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Alexander J. Korolinsky, Esq.
AJK LEGAL
1560 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy Ste 400
Sunrise FL 33323
Telephone: (877) 448-8404
E-mail: korolinsky@ajklegal.com
SIMON PROPERTY: All Remaining Pretrial, Trial Deadlines Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAFE, GELATO & PANINI LLC
v. Simon Property Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-60981 (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order staying all
remaining pretrial and trial deadlines contained in the Court's
Order Following Status Conference pending the Court's ruling on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.
Simon Property is an American real estate investment trust that
invests in shopping malls, outlet centers, and community/lifestyle
centers.[CC]
SUNWING AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Flight Delays and Cancellations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pratyush Dayal at CBC News reports that Elena Starostenko booked a
vacation in Cancun with Sunwing as a retreat for her 80-year-old
mother - who she helped flee Ukraine in April - but after being
stranded for three days, the Saskatoon woman is now seeking
justice.
"It was a nightmare. Sunwing made the trip exhausting. It was
heartbreaking to see my mom not being even given a wheelchair at
the airport as we waited. At one point even she almost passed out,"
she said.
"We were given no information even after tens of calls and just
shuffled around hotel lobbies."
Hundreds of travellers who used Sunwing to reach warm destinations
over the holiday season found themselves stranded due to flight
delays and cancellations. Sunwing announced it was cancelling all
its flights out of Saskatoon and Regina until Feb. 3.
Starostenko is now a member of a group on social media service
WhatsApp called "Sunwing Class Action." The group has more than 750
members and centres on discussion of a possible class-action
lawsuit against the airline.
CBC spoke with people from that group and other similar groups
popping up on social media. Many say they have had trouble
receiving the $500 compensation required by Canadian law, and that
even that sum would not be enough to cover what they went through.
Starostenko's plans of returning home on Christmas Eve were
significantly delayed. Like many others CBC spoke with, she has not
received any compensation.
"I seek a class action not for money, but justice for the stress my
mom and I got. It was very disrespectful and insulting of Sunwing
to absolutely ignore its customers," she said.
Mitchell Woloshyn, a salesman in Saskatoon, said he went through a
similar stressful ordeal.
"I want to pursue a class action, as it was specifically bad for my
girlfriend. Her mental health was severely impacted," he said.
"We missed out on Christmas and lost work too. Sunwing should
compensate us for all that."
He said that on Dec. 26, they were seated on a plane only to be
deboarded after one person was not on board. A Lithuanian airline
rescued them the next day.
Woloshyn said momentum toward a class action is building and group
members are gathering evidence to present to law firms.
He said many in the group find the standard $500 compensation not
enough to cover the emotional and mental distress people went
through.
"A class action will seek justice and hold Sunwing accountable.
Most people never want to fly with Sunwing again as they failed us
in every single way," he said.
"This was not weather-related, but Sunwing keeps using that as an
excuse. It was utter mismanagement."
The 32-year-old said he has tried twice to submit a claim, but that
the Sunwing website would not let him.
Medicine Hat resident Martin Cole also faced significant delays and
expenses.
"We spent $1,600 on a different airline and car ride home and were
delayed 52 hours by Sunwing, but still no compensation or
communication," he said.
CBC has reached out to Sunwing about the alleged lack of
compensation, but the airline did not respond by publication time.
'A class action is the right thing': passenger
Melissa Robertson, who was supposed to be back to Edmonton from
Mexico on Dec. 22, vehemently agreed that Sunwing should be held
accountable.
"We were awake for 40 hours calling, emailing and looking for
information, but our flight even on Dec. 24 was cancelled. It was
an awful day to tell my three kids we won't be home for Christmas,"
she said.
"We were lied to and left in a silent limbo. No correspondence,
just a long wait. The airport looked like a scene from movies."
Robertson said that even after 108 hours of delays, her flight is
"ineligible for compensation or refund." She said she is afraid to
fly again and is postponing a spring vacation.
"It was a disgusting scenario for Sunwing to treat us this way.
People were struggling with medications, baby formula and diapers,"
she said.
"A class action is the right thing. We are everyday people. Some
people had emergencies and had to book out of their pockets for
alternate flights."
Crystal Cassidy, who was stuck for two days in Punta Cana,
Dominican Republic, said the reasons they were given for the delays
kept changing from bad weather to staff shortages.
The Ajax, Ont., resident spent $4,000 on Air Canada tickets for
herself, her boyfriend and her 14-year-old daughter to get back
home on Christmas night so she could be reunited with her
four-year-old son and attend to an emergency at the business she
runs.
"Sunwing says we won't be given any refund. They are using the
weather as a scapegoat. We even asked for a refund for an upcoming
April vacation with them, but they will just give vouchers," she
said.
"I used to be their regular customer, but now I want to partake in
a class action as I want my compensation and seek justice for all,
especially children sleeping on floors outside the airport."
'A viable class action against Sunwing': lawyer
Regina lawyer Tony Merchant told CBC News that these passengers
have a "viable class action against Sunwing."
"[Sunwing's] systems got behind and they can justify problems with
bad weather on that day or next day, but they can't justify that
for six days later," he said.
"They stretched themselves too far in the first place and then
tried to justify that and blame it on weather issues."
Merchant said it is "misrepresentation" to tell passengers - day
after day - that they will get a flight home, only for them to wait
almost a week.
Merchant said it would also be worthwhile to learn from Sunwing why
the airline is cancelling all of its flights from Saskatchewan
until Feb. 3, further hampering plans for many.
"My expectation is that they are putting their limited airplane
capacity in more lucrative markets, and that won't be a
justification for saying we are under-providing to Regina and
Saskatoon," he said. [GN]
TORTI FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hidalgo Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, YOVANNY HIDALGO, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORTI FOOD CORP., dba MIRADOR
RESTAURANT, and DEMETRIA CHAPMAN, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-10668 (S.D.N.Y., December 19, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a delivery person
and general helper beginning in November 2021 and ending on or
about December 9, 2022.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked 60 or
more hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay him an
overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Instead of paying him overtime, the Defendants paid him straight
time regardless of the number of hours worked. In addition, the
Defendants refused to pay him any wages for the last week of his
employment. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to provide
him wage notices and wage statements, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated delivery persons
and general helpers, seeking to recover unpaid wages, minimum wages
and overtime due under the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages for failure to provide wage notice and wage
statements, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, litigation costs and expenses together with reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court determines to be
just and proper.
Torti Food Corp. operates Mirador restaurant. Demetria Chapman is
an owner, shareholder, officer, director, supervisor, and/or
managing agent of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street – 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
TRIGRAM EDUCATION: Fails to Pay Employees' Wages, Marchese Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MARCHESE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TRIGRAM EDUCATION PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a TRIGRAM
EDUCATION PARTNERS, MINERVA INFLECTION STRATEGIES, AMPLE LUCK
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL GROUP, STANFORD SILVERMAN and YING MA a/k/a
ANNIE MA, Case No. 2:22-cv-00425-LEW (D. Me., Dec. 30, 2022)
alleges that Trigram willfully declined to pay the collective and
class members' earned wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Maine law.
The Plaintiff contends that rather than admit that it had no
intention of paying its employees, Trigram engaged in a prolonged
period of deception via a serious of fraudulent written
communications whereby it falsely assured its employees that their
unpaid wages would eventually be paid, even after it lost its
accreditation status and was unable to operate its business.
On June 26, 2020 Trigram acquired substantially all of Premier's
assets, including the vocational schools. Trigram agreed to assume
all of Premier's liabilities, including "any and all liabilities
relating to the operating of the Business whether before or after
the Closing Date, including all liabilities related to alleged or
actual violation of any laws, regulations, or requirements," and
with respect to "any and all debts and liabilities related to the
Business and Purchased Assets," says the suit.
Ms. Marchese was first employed by Premier as an hourly instructor
in 2009, and was promoted to the position of Campus President at
Premier's Sanford, ME location in January 2017. Ms. Marchese was
still employed by Premier when the sale of its assets to Trigram
was finalized, and she was hired by Trigram effective June 27, 2020
with the same title and compensation she received with Premier.
Through an ongoing series of alleged fraudulent and otherwise
patently misleading communications extending through at least May
2021, Defendants continued to falsely assure Trigram employees that
they would be paid in full. Accordingly, Defendants Trigram,
Minerva, Ample Luck, Ma and Silverman were in possession of the
necessary funds to pay their employees, or had ready access to
these funds. Instead of making good on their obligations as
employers and otherwise under the applicable laws, Defendants
willfully and intentionally refused to pay the wages earned by
their employees, the suit alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Douglas, Esq.
DOUGLAS MCDANIEL
& CAMPO LLC, PA
P.O. Box 410
Westbrook, ME 04098
Telephone: (207) 591-5747
E-mail: tdouglas@douglasmcdaniel.com
UNIFI AVIATION: Walkes Seeks Security Personnel's Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAKEISHA WALKES, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. UNIFI
AVIATION, LLC (d/b/a Delta Global Services), Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-07739 (S.D.N.Y., December 19, 2022) alleges the Defendant
of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security personnel
and security supervisor at LaGuardia Airport for Delta Global
Services from on or around May 20, 2020 through March 8, 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated manual
workers regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. But they
never received an overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendant did not post any notice
regarding their wages, and failed to provide them wage statement as
required by NYLL.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief, for herself and all other similarly situated
security personnel and security supervisors, and to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.
Unifi Aviation, LLC provides aviation ground handling services.
[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
Tel: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Insurance Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emilie Shumway at hrdive.com reports that in a class-action lawsuit
filed Dec. 21, health insurance beneficiaries accused
UnitedHealthcare of a 'self-serving scheme . . . . to fuel its own
profits at the expense of the members" (Popovchak et al. v.
UnitedHealth Group Inc., No. 1:22-cv-10756 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21,
2022)).
According to the complaint, UHC uses 'repricer" data - based on
discounted rates insurance companies have paid for services -
rather than competitive fees in a provider's geographic area to
determine how much to pay for out-of-network charges. Because the
provider is not obligated to accept the discounted rate as full
payment, the complaint alleges, the plan member becomes liable for
the unpaid portion of the bill.
UHC subsequently collects a 'savings fee" from the plan, the
complaint alleges - up to one-third the difference between the
provider's billed charge and UHC's reimbursed amount.
The lawsuit alleges the scheme violates the terms of members' plans
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
UnitedHealth Group has faced a number of similar lawsuits and
investigations in the past.
In April 2020, a group of behavioral health providers and patients
in California charged UnitedHealth - along with Cigna - with
systematically underpaying out-of-network providers for mental
health and substance abuse treatment (L.D. et al. v. United
Behavioral Health et al., No. 4:20-cv-02254 (N.D. Calif. April 2,
2020)). That case remains tied up in court, according to an update
from law firm Hall Benefits Law, which specializes in ERISA cases.
Separately, in August 2021, UnitedHealth settled for $15.6 million
after a U.S. Department of Labor investigation into reduced
reimbursement rates for out-of-network mental health services.
ERISA requires that healthcare providers meet certain fiduciary
obligations to plan participants. The law 'imposes a strict
fiduciary duty of loyalty on administrators like United, requiring
it to discharge its duties with respect to the plan solely in the
interests of plan participants and beneficiaries, and for the
exclusive purpose of providing benefits to plan members and
defraying reasonable expenses of plan administration," the Dec. 21
lawsuit said. 'ERISA fiduciaries must scrupulously avoid all
self-interest, duplicity, and deceit; and must fully disclose to,
and inform plan members of, all material information, and may not
make misrepresentations to plans or plan members."
UnitedHealthcare did not respond to a request for comment by press
time. [GN]
VELOCITY SERVICE: Dominguez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Laborers' Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
FABIANA V. DOMINGUEZ, ALEXI FERRER, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. VELOCITY SERVICE GROUP, FL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00803-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla., December 19,
2022) bring this complaint as a collective action to recover
monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and
retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as non-exempted,
full-time construction laborers approximately between October 2,
2022 and November 3, 2022.
The Plaintiffs claim that despite regularly working more than 40
hours weekly, the Defendant denied them of overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Plaintiff Ferrer was
fired on or about November 3, 2022 due to unfair accusations, while
Plaintiff Dominguez tendered his resignation from her position on
the same date. The Defendant allegedly refused to pay them one week
and four days of hard-earned wages when they stopped working,
thereby failing to pay them minimum wages, allege the Plaintiffs.
Velocity Service Group, FL, LLC provides catastrophe cleanings,
demolitions, renovations, and construction services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
WILMINGTON, NC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Red Light Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wect.com reports that running a red light is not only illegal but
also extremely unsafe; T-bone accidents can be devastating and
cause serious injuries or even kill drivers and passengers. That's
why some cities in North Carolina have set up red-light cameras to
deter drivers from running through traffic lights - but these
programs are facing increasing scrutiny and now only a couple of
cities still use them - Wilmington and Raleigh.
It's unlikely that people running red lights are doing it on
purpose, still, carelessness can cause serious damage and doesn't
excuse the action but legal challenges across the state have led
cities to shutter their camera systems.
In November of 2022 both the City of Greeneville and Fayetteville
shut down their camera programs. Greeneville's camera system was
found illegal by the North Carolina Court of Appeals due to the
revenue stream the city provided to schools.
Wilmington faces two lawsuits in court right now for their use of
the camera systems, one is a class action suit that also lists
North Carolina State Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger as
well as Speaker of the House Tim Moore. This suit claims the camera
systems are unconstitutional because the North Carolina
Constitution says the General Assembly can't make special
exceptions for cities for certain acts.
'The General Assembly shall not enact any local, private, or
special act or resolution: (a) Relating to health, sanitation, and
the abatement of nuisances;" The Constitution reads.
Right now the class action suit is in Raleigh awaiting a panel of
three judges to determine the legality of the traffic cameras, and
another is in New Hanover County Court as well.[GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honx Inc. Stays in Chapter 11 to Resolve Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akiko Matsuda of The Wall Street Journal reports that a bankruptcy
judge allowed a Hess Corp. subsidiary, Honx Inc., to stay in
Chapter 11 to resolve mass asbestos injury claims stemming from an
oil refinery the company previously owned in the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Judge Marvin Isgur of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Houston, Texas, ruled against asbestos-injury claimants who had
challenged the chapter 11 filing by Honx Inc., a defunct Hess unit
that once operated the company's oil refinery on the island of St.
Croix.
*********
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 2023. 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 ***