/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230208.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 8, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 29
Headlines
11 TRADING COMPANY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AFFORDABLE MECHANICS: Egan Sues Over Car Mechanics' Unpaid OT
AINSLEY GROUP: Vallian Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
ALDI INC: Faces Byers Suit Over Mislabeled Coffee Creamers
ALLERGAN PLC: Files Cross-Appeal in Securities Litigation
ALLIED ACCOUNT SERVICES: Deutsch Sues Over FDCPA Violation
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Li Sues Over Deceptive Sales of Illegal Drugs
AMERICAN PRIMARY: Battle Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
AMERICAN PROFIT: Similien Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Fredericks Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
AMEZIEL INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANGELCARE USA: Davis Sues Over Underfilled and Mislabeled Products
APPLE INC: Dluzak Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
APPLEGREEN USA: Faggionato Seeks Fast-Food Attendant' Unpaid Wages
ATWOOD DISTRIBUTING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUDIO46 LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AWESOME DIECAST: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BARRIO CHINO: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BAY BRIDGE ADMINISTRATORS: Kohl Files Suit in W.D. Texas
BCE-MACH III: Sagacity Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
BETMGM LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Grippa Suit Says
BLINK HEALTH INC: Katz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
BLOCK INC: Hart Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
BRINK'S HOME SECURITY: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CANADA DRY: Escalet Sues Over Merchandisers' Unpaid Wages
CAPITAL MUSIC GEAR: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CARHARTT INC: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Moore Claims
CASH LINK USA: Tarpley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
CITY BEAUTY LLC: Roland Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: White Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: McAlpine Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
DALE'S DRUM SHOP: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIMES LOGISTICS: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE: Appeals Case Dismissal Bid Denial in FSO Suit
ENDURANCE WARRANTY: Duncan Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
FAIRSHARE SOLUTIONS: Green Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
FIRST HERITAGE: Elbrecht Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Safai Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
FLGREEN LLC: Deya Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FORNEY INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Allen Class Suit Granted in Part
GASTROMED HEALTHCARE: Cortelyou Alleges Unpaid OT, Discrimination
GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Cantu Sues Over Secret Reporting of Details
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Amick Labor Suit Removed to D.S.C.
MILHAUS DEVELOPMENT: Herring-Dancy FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
MONTAUK BULK: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Ceballos Claims
NICK'S MGMT: 2nd Bid to Dismiss Naranjo Class Suit Granted in Part
REVERSE MORTGAGE: Strack Sues Over WARN Act, Labor Law Violations
SIDWELL AIR: Madsen Sues Over Courier Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
SKYLIGHT DINER: Faces Bravo Suit Over Busboys' Unpaid Wages
TG THERAPEUTICS: Shapiro Complaint Dismissed W/o Leave to Amend
TOPPS CO: S.D. New York Dismisses Wheeler Class Suit With Prejudice
US MED-EQUIP: Ambrose Seeks Customer Service Staff's Unpaid Wages
VALLEY HEALTH: Elder Alleges Illegal Disclosure of Personal Info
VES GROUP: Faces Grant Suit Over Quality Analysts' Unpaid OT
ZOOM VIDEO: Gonzalez Appeals Privacy Suit Final Settlement Approval
*********
11 TRADING COMPANY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 11 Trading Company
LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. 11 Trading
Company LLC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00775 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
11 Trading Company (11 TC) is a subsidiary of Premium Audio
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
AFFORDABLE MECHANICS: Egan Sues Over Car Mechanics' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Egan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Affordable Mechanics of America, Inc., and
Ohana America Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
8:23-cv-00178-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla., January 25, 2023) seeks to
recover all overtime wages and damages that Defendants owe
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals during the
previous three years pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendants automatically deducted 1-hour
per shift from Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
individuals for a meal period they could not take. The Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated individuals often worked more than
40 hours per week and were not completely relieved of their duties
for a 1-hour meal period that was automatically deducted from them.
As a result of this policy, Defendants unlawfully deprived
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of federal
overtime wages during the course of their employment, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Ohana to work for Ohana
Corporation and Affordable Mechanics as a full-time automotive
technician/car mechanic from May 30, 2022 until November 4, 2022.
Affordable Mechanics is an automotive service company that
primarily provides automotive repair and maintenance in several
states in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Jake S. Blumstein, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
AINSLEY GROUP: Vallian Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ainsley Group &
Associates. The case is styled as Natasha Vallian, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ainsley Group &
Associates, Case No. 3:23-cv-00229-M (N.D. Tex., Jan. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Ainsley Group & Associates -- https://ainsley-group.com/ -- is a
company that operates in the Financial Services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Yusko, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
ALDI INC: Faces Byers Suit Over Mislabeled Coffee Creamers
----------------------------------------------------------
Carol Byers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Aldi Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-60143
(S.D. Fla., January 25, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant for false and misleading advertising; breaches of express
warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a
particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; negligent
misrepresentation; fraud; unjust enrichment; and violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and State Consumer
Fraud Acts.
Aldi Inc. manufactures, markets, labels, and sells coffee whitener
identified as a coffee creamer under the Barissimo brand.
According to the complaint, the product's representation as a
"Coffee Creamer" is misleading because it lacks cream or dairy
ingredients beyond a de minimis amount of sodium caseinate. In
place of cream, the product substitutes water and soybean and/or
palm oil, the first and third ingredients, to reduce costs. The
product is not labeled in a way that distinguishes it from coffee
creamers made from cream, through conspicuous statements such as
"non-dairy" or "a vegetable product - contains no milk or milk
fat," says the suit.
The Plaintiff believed and expected the product she purchased
contained cream, a dairy ingredient because that is what the
representations and omissions said and implied, on the front label
and/or the absence of any reference or statement elsewhere on the
front label. As a result of the false and misleading
representations and omissions, the product is sold at for a price
premium, approximately no less than no less than $2.75 for 32 FL OZ
(946 mL), excluding tax and sales, the suit asserts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ALLERGAN PLC: Files Cross-Appeal in Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan PLC filed a cross appeal from the District Court's
Decision and Order dated September 8, 2021, entered in In RE
ALLERGAN PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-12089-CM-GWG,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
The lawsuit is a federal securities class action brought on behalf
of the Class for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
It asserts that Allergan misled investors by boasting about various
"pharma and device approvals" while concealing from investors the
fact that the Company's CE Mark for its textured breast implants
and tissue expanders was expiring in Europe. The truth was revealed
on December 19, 2018, when the Company announced that it had
suspended the sale of these products and that it was withdrawing
all remaining supplies from European markets, says the suit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Colleen McMahon entered an order on September 8, 2021, granting
DeKalb County Pension Fund's motion to certify a class of: "All
individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Allergan preferred stock or common stock between January 30, 2017
and December 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were
damaged thereby." DeKalb's attorneys at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was
also appointed as class counsel.
This is the second motion for class certification in this putative
class action, in which plaintiffs accuse Allergan PLC and
associated individual Defendants of securities fraud for allegedly
failing to disclose information about a potential link between the
company's textured silicone-gel breast implants and a rare form of
cancer. The Court previously denied a motion for certification
filed by the former lead plaintiff, Boston Retirement System, on
the ground that the lead plaintiff would be unable to adequately
represent the interests of the class.
Judge McMahon held that, "There is absolutely no question that this
action should proceed as a class action. It is a garden-variety
securities fraud suit, a type of action particularly well suited to
class treatment." And as the inadequacy issues do not exist for the
replacement lead plaintiff, the motion to certify the class is
GRANTED, Judge McMahon adds.
Subsequently, Judge McMahon granted Allergan's motion for summary
judgment, and dismissed the plaintiff's case in its entirety on
December 12, 2022. The court held that the plaintiff had not
produced sufficient evidence to show that there was a genuine issue
of material fact on three of the required elements of a Section
10(b) claim: falsity, materiality, and loss causation.
DeKalb County Pension Fund appealed the District Court's December
12, 2022 Order and Judgment. That appellate case was captioned In
Re: Allergan PLC Securities Litigation, Case No. 23-59, filed in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on
January 11, 2023.
The cross-appellate case is captioned In Re Allergan PLC Securities
Litigation, Case No. 23-117, filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 26, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants Allergan PLC, Brenton L. Saunders, William
Meury, Maria Teresa Hilado, Matthew M. Walsh, Frances DeSena, Mark
Marmur, and Paul Bisaro are represented by:
Jared Gerber, Esq.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 225-2507
Plaintiff-Appellee DeKalb County Pension Fund is represented by:
James Milligan Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
ALLIED ACCOUNT SERVICES: Deutsch Sues Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Menachem Deutsch, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALLIED ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC., Case No.
503225/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kinga Cty., Jan. 31, 2023), is brought
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a result of the
Defendant's deceptive, misleading, unfair, unconscionable, and
false debt collection practices.
On May 6, 2022, Defendant sent Plaintiff a debt collection letter
indicating that it was attempting to collect on a debt allegedly
owed to National Grid in the amount of $1,473.67. The Plaintiff
denies the existence of the 21. debt and avers that it was wholly
improper for the same to have ever been sent for collection.
Specifically, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, various
assistance programs were created and relied upon by the public.
One such program was the New York State Emergency Rental Assistance
Program ("ERAP") which would assist individuals impacted by
COVID-19 in paying past due rental and utility charges. The
Plaintiff attempted to obtain the ERAP assistance at his now-prior
residence. As the Plaintiff prepared to move from said residence,
he requested that National Grid keep the related account open so
that when his ERAP application was accepted, the program would
cover the arrears associated with the account.
Despite the fact that Plaintiff requested that the account remain
open in order to effectuate payment, which National Grid failed to
do, and despite the fact that National Grid informed the ERAP
representative that Plaintiff did not owe any arrears, the alleged
debt was ultimately sent to Defendant for collection.
The Plaintiff denies the existence of the alleged debt in its
entirety. The Defendant's attempt to collect the debt from the
Plaintiff was therefore an illegal practice. The Defendant's
attempt to collect a debt from the Plaintiff further constituted a
threat to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not
intended to be taken because the Defendant was aware or should have
been aware that Plaintiff did not owe this debt. The Defendant's
attempt to collect the alleged debt from the Plaintiff constituted
harassment and unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The Defendant's attempt to collect a debt from the Plaintiff was
deceptive and misleading, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Kings.
The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christofer Merritt, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Li Sues Over Deceptive Sales of Illegal Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Li and Anita Medal, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00441 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2023), is brought for violation
of California consumer protection laws, and under common law
negligent and strict product liability, relating to Defendant's
unlawful, deceptive and misleading, sales of illegal drugs on its
Amazon.com on-line marketplace.
The Defendant operates a marketplace for
consumers--Amazon.com—that provides listings for consumer
products, including products purporting to be dietary supplements
(the "Products"), as they are defined by the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act of 1938, (the "FFDCA" or the "Act"), as amended by
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
Directly, under the Fulfilled by Amazon ("FBA") program, and
otherwise, Amazon promoted, placed into the stream of commerce,
sold and delivered to the Plaintiffs, products purporting to be
legal, safe, and therapeutic dietary supplements when the opposite
was true: the products were defective drugs--illegal and unapproved
by the FDA—that injured Plaintiffs monetarily and also exposed
them to risk of physical injury, including to serious bodily harm.
In doing so, the Defendant engaged in transactions intended and
which did result in the sale of deceptive and unlawful goods to
consumers. The Plaintiffs were foreseeably injured by Defendant's
conduct and suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of
it.
The Plaintiffs saw and believed the representations, on product
labels and otherwise, that the Products harbored therapeutic value,
and/or that they and the marketing claims were reviewed by and
approved by the FDA. She also believed that the Products were
lawful and legally sold into interstate commerce. The Plaintiffs
relied on Amazon's stature, representations, and reputation, as
well as the marketing and Product labels and its omissions from the
same, and was misled thereby. The Plaintiffs purchased more of,
and/or paid more for, the Products than she would have had she
known the truth about the Products. The Plaintiffs was injured in
fact and lost money as a result of Amazon's improper conduct. In
addition, she was exposed to risk of serious bodily injury. If The
Plaintiffs knew that Amazon's marketing and sale was lawful,
truthful and non-misleading in the future, she would purchase
dietary supplements from it. At present, however, she will not
purchase dietary supplements because she cannot be confident that
the marketing and sale of the Products is, or will be, legal, and
truthful and non-misleading, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased a multitude of illegal drugs masquerading
as therapeutic dietary supplements from Amazon.com.
Amazon is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maia C. Kats, Esq.
JUST FOOD LAW
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Ste. 440
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 243-7910
Email: mkats@justfoodlaw.com
- and -
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (213) 401-4100
Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
AMERICAN PRIMARY: Battle Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHAMPAGNE BATTLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN PRIMARY HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00422-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 25, 2023) is
brought by the Plaintiff arising from the Defendant's failure to
pay her and other employees overtime wages, seeking all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Wage Act, and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of
Defendant as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts primarily in the
position of home health aide from approximately February 2020 to
June 2020.
American Primary Healthcare, LLC is a community-based primary
healthcare service agency that provides personal care services,
supported living services, skilled nursing services, and other
direct care services to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Contreras, Esq.
CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 787-4878
Facsimile: (614) 957-7515
E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
AMERICAN PROFIT: Similien Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Profit
Recovery, Inc. The case is styled as Guirlaine Similien,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Profit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10256-DJC (D.
Mass., Jan. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
American Profit Recovery -- https://www.americanprofit.net/ -- is a
national debt collection agency when diplomacy and low cost drive
impressive results.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 300
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (203) 246-2887
Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Fredericks Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Fredericks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERIFLIGHT, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01042
(D.P.R., Jan. 30, 2023), is brought seeking to hold Ameriflight
accountable for its conduct and seeks unpaid compensation, all
available damages, remedies, and penalties under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Texas Business & Commercial Code; and Texas common
law prohibiting unenforceable penalties.
The Defendant has attempted to turn basic tenet on its head by
requiring all new pilot hires to sign a training repayment
agreement provision ("TRAP") that charges pilots between $20,000
and $30,000 if they dare to leave Ameriflight before giving
Ameriflight 18 to 24 months of their work, or even under some
circumstances if Ameriflight fires them before they've served out
their full 18- to 24-month "term." Ameriflight tells employees that
these charges are necessary to reimburse it for the training that
it provides to pilots. But this training is not for pilots'
benefit. Rather, it is for Ameriflight's own benefit.
Another bedrock principle of the American labor market and Texas
law which is the state law Ameriflight selected to govern its
TRAP—is that employers must compete for workers through wages and
benefits, and not by unreasonably restraining their workers' right
to seek out better opportunities. But the TRAP turns that principle
on its head too. The effect, and the intent, of the TRAP is to
penalize pilots who seek out other opportunities and to keep pilots
stuck in their jobs despite Ameriflight's below-market wages and
working conditions. This violates state and federal law, undermines
pilots' bargaining power, and deprives other employers of qualified
pilots at a moment when airlines and customers are suffering from a
pilot shortage, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Ameriflight from May to December 2021
and resided in Puerto Rico.
Ameriflight is a cargo airline based out of Dallas, Texas.[BN]
Myriam E. Matos-Bermudez, Esq.
DTS LAW LLC
221 Ave Ponce de León Ste 801
San Juan, PR 00917-1804
Phone: (787) 754-8700
- and -
David Seligman, Esq.
Rachel W. Dempsey, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
PO Box 371680, PMB 44465
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Phone: (720) 441-2236
Email: david@towardsjustice.org
rachel@towardsjustice.org
- and -
Persis Yu, Esq.
STUDENT BORROWER PROTECTION CENTER
1025 Connecticut Ave NW, #717
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 670-3871
Email: persis@protectborrowers.org
- and -
Rachel Smit, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South St. Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111, USA
Phone: (617) 841-8188
Email: rachel@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Ashley Tremain, Esq.
TREMAIN ARTAZA PLLC
4925 Greenville Ave Ste. 200
Dallas, TX 75206
Phone: (469) 573-0229
Email: ashley@tremainartaza.com
AMEZIEL INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameziel, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Ameziel, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00804
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ameziel Inc. is an e-commerce company that focuses on the
manufacturing and selling of Furniture, Homeware, and Pet
Products.[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
ANGELCARE USA: Davis Sues Over Underfilled and Mislabeled Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessi Davis, Allyson Halperin, Emily Paige Page, Brianna Aaron,
Leanna Rose, and Ashley Franco, individually on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Angelcare USA, LLC,
and Playtex Products, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00119 (D. Conn., Jan.
30, 2023), is brought on behalf of purchasers of Playtex Baby
Diaper Genie Refill cartridges (collectively, the "Refill Products"
or "Refill Cartridges") against the Defendants for manufacturing,
distributing and selling underfilled and mislabeled Refill
Products.
The disposable diaper market is a massive, multi-billion market
industry. Playtex is one of the biggest baby product manufacturers
and distributors in the nation, and its Diaper Genie line is the
"#1 selling Diaper Pail brand" in the United States. Diaper pails
are effectively trash bins designed to store used disposable
diapers.
While Defendants market the Refill Products as providing a "1 YEAR
SUPPLY" of diaper bags for its diaper pales, the Refill Products
provide far less than advertised. The deception is stark, and preys
on new parents yearning to simplify their lives, believing that
they are buying a product that will ensure they do not have to
repeatedly run to the store to buy more diaper disposal bags.
Instead, parents pay a premium for an advertised year's worth of
product, but receive a small fraction of what Defendants promise on
the Refill Products' labels and advertising.
Consumers, typically parents or guardians of babies, look to diaper
pail systems to limit odor in their homes and ensure that the
constant diaper-changing process is no more difficult than
necessary. Thus, when shopping for such a system, consumers are
drawn to any marketing that suggests simplicity, and Defendants
have certainly capitalized on that demand. The Defendants falsely
label their Refill Products with the advertisement "1 YEAR SUPPLY,"
even though the Refill Products are incapable of holding the number
of diapers that all but the smallest minority of babies go through
in a year. The vast majority of consumers that use Defendants'
Refill Products do not receive a one-year supply of the Products
even when following all stated instructions and using the Products
as intended. Defendants are accordingly misleading consumers into
purchasing a stated, precise sum of Refill Products, but delivering
far less than promised.
All of Defendants' Refill Products feature the same deceptive
advertising. These include Defendants' Diaper Genie Refills
available in in packs of 1 through 8. All Refill Products that are
labeled as providing a "1 YEAR SUPPLY" consist of 8 individual
refill cartridges. Thus, according to Defendants' labeling and
marketing, 8 refill cartridges will provide an entire year's supply
of Refill Products. The front label of the Refill Products also
states that each individual refill cartridge "HOLDS UP TO 270
DIAPERS" (these statements collectively, the "Duration Claims").
Refill Products that contain less than 8 cartridges do not bear the
"1 YEAR SUPPLY" representation, but still represent on the labels
that each individual refill cartridge "HOLDS UP TO 270 DIAPERS," or
an effectively identical Duration Claim. All of Defendants'
Duration Claims, are false and misleading.
The Defendants engaged in widespread false and deceptive marketing
and labeling of their Playtex Baby Refill Products. The Defendants
employ a classic bait-and-switch scheme by promising more product
than is actually delivered to unsuspecting consumers. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually, and on behalf
of all purchasers of the Defendants' Refill Products, for the
Defendants' violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), New York's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, New York General Business Law
("NYGBL"), North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act ("NCUDTPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act ("ICFA"), the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("CUTPA"), the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and for breach of
express and implied warranties, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendants' Refill Products.
Angelcare is a leader in the baby care industry and has more than
several well-known brands in its portfolio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Phone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
APPLE INC: Dluzak Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------
Nathan Dluzak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00426-NC (N.D. Cal., Jan.
30, 2023), is brought against Apple arising from its long-standing
and ongoing invasion of the privacy of consumers who use Apple
mobile devices, despite leading such consumers utilizing its mobile
devices and related proprietary applications ("Apps")--including
the App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV, Books, and Stocks--to believe
that their privacy was and is protected once they chose to indicate
through the mobile device settings that they do not want their data
and information tracked by Apple or consequently shared with third
parties.
Privacy is an important right and expectation of citizens. Contrary
to its express privacy promises, Apple tracks and collects an
enormous wealth of data and personal information from its mobile
device users while they are using its propriety applications
(hereinafter "Mobile Device Consumers"), irrespective of the fact
that Mobile Device Consumers--the Plaintiff and Class Members
herein--have their user privacy settings set so as to intentionally
stop or preclude any tracking of their usage and consequent sharing
or transmission of their data usage with third parties. Apple
aggressively collects, transmits, exploits, and uses for its
financial gain, details about Mobile Device Consumers' usage,
browsing, communications, personal information, and even
information relating to the Mobile Device itself (collectively
"User Data"), without the consent or authorization of Mobile Device
Consumers.
Apple flagrantly engages in such conduct even though it knows that
consumers want to keep their User Data private, and expect and
demand control over their own such data, out of an increasing
concern that companies are using such information without their
knowledge or permission, and, worse yet, profiting from such
exploitative tracking. Hypocritically, Apple has portrayed and has
attempted to distinguish itself from competitors by various
representations to its Mobile Device Consumers that they are able
to control the information stating: "At Apple, we respect your
ability to know, access, correct, transfer, restrict the processing
of, and delete your personal data."
Nonetheless, Apple contradicts these and other explicit privacy
promises by tracking and collecting large amounts of personal
information in violation of Mobile Device Consumers' wishes.
Indeed, such Mobile Device Consumers--including Plaintiff and Class
Members--are deceived into believing that they have protected
themselves by disabling the sharing of their User Data once they
toggle or turn off "Share iPad Analytics" on an iPad, "Share
iPhone, and Computer Analytics," or similar settings on other Apple
mobile devices like the iPhone, or by turning off "Allow Apps to
Request to Track," ostensibly disabling Apple from collecting and
using User Data without their consent.
The Plaintiff is an individual whose mobile app usage was tracked
by Apple after he had affirmatively elected to turn off the "Allow
Apps to Request to Track" and/or "Share Device Analytics" options.
Apple's tracking and hoarding of the User Data of Plaintiff and all
other Class Members, and collecting and monetizing their
information without their consent, is a violation of Apple's
promises and a violation of the law for which it is liable.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all citizens nationwide, and all citizens of the State of
Illinois, whose User Data was tracked and collected by Apple,
without their consent, and seeks all civil remedies provided under
the causes of action, including but not limited to compensatory,
statutory and/or punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly accesses Apple Apps including the App
Store, Apple Music, Maps, and Weather.
Apple has been and remains the world's largest technology
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
Email: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
APPLEGREEN USA: Faggionato Seeks Fast-Food Attendant' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER FAGGIONATO, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. APPLEGREEN USA WELCOME CENTERS
CENTRAL SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00151 (N.D. Ohio,
January 25, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unlawfully
retained tips, and liquidated damages that Defendant owes to
Plaintiff and the putative class members and has failed to pay, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.
The Plaintiff is a current fast-food attendant employed by the
Defendant last October 17, 2022 to work at its Erie Island location
in Clyde, Ohio.
Applegreen USA Welcome Centers Central Services LLC is a petrol
forecourt retailer with operations in the Republic of Ireland, the
United Kingdom, and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jmikalov@barkanmeizlish.com
ATWOOD DISTRIBUTING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atwood Distributing,
L.P. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Atwood Distributing, L.P., Case
No. 1:23-cv-00807 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Atwood Distributing, L.P. doing business as Atwoods Ranch & Home --
http://www.atwoods.com/-- is a farm and ranch supply store chain
based in Enid, Oklahoma.[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
AUDIO46 LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audio46, LLC. The
case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Audio46, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00677-NRM-PK (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Audio46 -- https://audio46.com/ -- carries a wide selection of
major top brand headphones and earbuds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
AWESOME DIECAST: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Awesome Diecast, LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Awesome Diecast, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00810 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Awesome Diecast, LLC -- https://www.awesomediecast.com/ -- is a
source for real life replicas of cars, trucks, planes, buses, and
more.[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
BARRIO CHINO: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barrio Chino, LLC.
The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Barrio Chino, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00680 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barrio Chino offer Chinese food, fortune cookies, ice cream. I went
to some stores, and people speak Spanish with Chinese accent.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BAY BRIDGE ADMINISTRATORS: Kohl Files Suit in W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Bridge
Administrators, LLC. The case is styled as Austin Kohl, Minor Child
M.K., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Bay Bridge Administrators, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00100 (W.D. Tex.,
Jan. 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Bay Bridge Administrators -- https://www.bbadmin.com/ -- is a
full-service, nationally recognized, third party administrator of
fully-insured employee benefit plans.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
BCE-MACH III: Sagacity Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BCE-Mach III LLC. The
case is styled as Sagacity, Inc., Bollenbach Enterprises Limited
Partnership, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. BCE-Mach III LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00039-KEW (E.D.
Okla., Jan. 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
BCE-Mach III LLC doing business as Mach Resources --
https://machresources.com/ -- is an independent oil and natural gas
producer focused on acquiring, exploring and developing
high-return, low-cost products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON, PLLC
431 W Main St., Ste. D.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 698-2770
Fax: (405) 234-5506
Email: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
BETMGM LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Grippa Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Grippa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BetMGM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00468-JXN-CLW (D.N.J., January 26, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, violation of state statutes, and
declaratory judgment arising from its failure to secure the
sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and all other current
and former customers.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally
identifiable information provided by and belonging to their
customers, including, without limitation, name, email address,
postal address, phone number, date of birth, hashed Social Security
number, account identifier, and information related to transactions
after a third party actor in May 2022 gained entry to Defendant's
network systems, accessed the personally identifiable information
(PII) stored therein, and exfiltrated information.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i)
adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class members; (ii)
warn Plaintiff and Class members of their inadequate information
security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware
containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security
procedures free of vulnerabilities. The Defendant's conduct amounts
to at least negligence and violates federal and state statutes
designed to prevent or mitigate this very harm, says the
Plaintiff.
BetMGM, LLC is a sports betting and gaming entertainment
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Heo, Esq.
Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
E-mail: aheo@barrack.com
jgolan@barrack.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
BLINK HEALTH INC: Katz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blink Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Bruce Katz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Blink Health, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00795 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Blink Health -- https://www.blinkhealth.com/ -- is a digital
pharmacy that offers discounted prescription prices on over 15000
medications.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
275 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor, Suite 410
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ross@kazlg.com
BLOCK INC: Hart Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Michael Hart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLOCK, INC., formerly known as Square Inc.,
JACK DORSEY, ANTHONY EISEN, and AMRITA AHUJA, Case No.
3:23-cv-00455 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2023), is brought on behalf of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Block
securities during the period November 4, 2021 and April 4, 2022,
including all former shareholders of Afterpay securities who
acquired unregistered Block, Inc. Class A common stock (and/or
corresponding SQ CHESS Depository Interests ("CDI")) ("Block
Shares" or "Square Securities") in direct exchange for Afterpay
shares pursuant to Block's January 31, 2022 acquisition and
stock-for-stock merger with Afterpay (the "Merger" or
"Acquisition"), asserting non-fraud, strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of against Block and certain current and former
Block and Afterpay officers and directors, as well as scheme
liability claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On January 31, 2022, Block completed its Acquisition of Afterpay,
then an Australian limited company listed on the Australian Stock
Exchange, pursuant to a scheme of arrangement under Australia's
Corporations Act 2001 (the "Scheme"). Pursuant to the financial
terms of the Scheme, Block acquired all outstanding ordinary shares
of Afterpay in exchange for 0.375 of a share of newly issued SQ
class A common stock or corresponding SQ CDI.
But contrary to their representation to Afterpay's Board and
shareholders, defendants did not satisfy the mandatory conditions
necessary to exempt them from registration and permit the issuance
and sale of unregistered Block Shares. Nevertheless, and in
violation of the Securities Act, no registration statement has been
filed with the SEC or been in effect with respect to these Block
Shares issued, solicited, and sold by means of the Merger.
Had Block's Board and shareholders known at the time that
defendants' representation concerning registration of the new Block
Shares was false, Afterpay's Board and shareholders would not have
agreed to the Merger at the price and exchange ratio stated. Had
Afterpay's Board and shareholders known the truth, the Merger
either would have been scrapped altogether, substantially delayed
until these SEC compliance issues were resolved, or it would have
occurred at a more favorable price to Afterpay shareholders.
In order to push the Acquisition through, defendants failed to
comply with the Securities Act's mandatory preconditions in several
respects. Foremost, defendants affirmatively misrepresented and
withheld critical information from the NSW Court conducting the
purported fairness hearing. As detailed below, defendants omitted a
bevy of material facts concerning the Company's long history of
derelict data security, inexcusable failure to comply with baseline
industry and regulatory data security standards, and the
consequently massive yet undisclosed data breach that had Block had
already suffered well before the date of the NSW Court fairness
hearing.
The Defendants' grossly negligent failures deprived the NSW Court
of critical information necessary to any genuine appraisal of the
Merger's supposed "fairness," and furthermore deprived plaintiff
and other Afterpay shareholders of their statutory right to appear
and present to the NSW Court the host of serious concerns and
material (yet undisclosed) information ahead of the Merger. The NSW
Court had no opportunity to consider this material information
because defendants failed to disclose it.
By misrepresenting and withholding critical information from the
NSW Court, and by otherwise failing to ensure strict compliance
with each of the enumerated conditions of the Securities Act,
defendants' own affirmative conduct rendered the so-called
"fairness" hearing anything but and thus exemption under the
Securities Act unavailable and invalid. Consequently, defendants'
corresponding offer and sale of unregistered Block Shares to
plaintiff and other former Afterpay shareholders in connection with
the Merger was in direct violation of the Securities Act and
plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged thereby. Accordingly,
defendants are strictly liable under the Securities Act for the
illicit offer and sale of unregistered Block Shares by means of the
Merger, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Block securities during the Class Period.
The Defendant Block (formerly known as Square Inc.) is a technology
and financial service company that provides apps, tools, and
services for credit card, in app, and other digital card payment
process.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Hall, Esq.
Armen Zohrabian, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415/766-3534
Fax: 415/402-0058 (fax)
Email: dhall@hedinhall.com
azohrabian@hedinhall.com
- and -
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
Email: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com
BRINK'S HOME SECURITY: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brink's Home Security
Of California, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Christopher
Robinson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brink's
Home Security Of California, Inc., Brinks Home Security, Does
1–10, Case No. 34-2023-00333901-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Jan. 31, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil."
Brinks Home Security -- https://brinkshome.com/ -- is a free
website anyone can visit to find answers to home security
questions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
CANADA DRY: Escalet Sues Over Merchandisers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR ESCALET, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CANADA DRY POTOMAC CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00329 (E.D. Pa., January 26, 2023) seeks to recover
damages for Defendant's violations of the wage and hour provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and all other similarly situated
non-exempt employees of Defendant are entitled to unpaid wages
including overtime premiums for all hours worked exceeding 40 in a
workweek, entitled to liquidated damages, and entitled to all
legally permitted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022 class
period.
Plaintiff Escalet was hired by Canada Dry Potomac, as a
merchandiser, beginning January 2021.
Canada Dry Potomac Corp. manufactures soft drinks and carbonated
waters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3679
E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
- and -
Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 766-5585
Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
E-mail: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
- and -
Tracey F. George, Esq.
DAVIS GEORGE LLC
1600 Genessee St., Suite 328
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 569-2629 ext. 2
Facsimile: (816) 447-3939
E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com
CAPITAL MUSIC GEAR: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Music Gear
LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Capital Music
Gear LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00776 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Capital Music Gear -- https://www.capitalmusicgear.com/ -- sell
music instruments and related gear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
CARHARTT INC: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Moore Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MOORE, JR., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARHARTT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00145-L-DEB (S.D. Cal., January 26, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and the
California Invasion of Privacy Act in relation to the unauthorized
interception, collection, recording, and dissemination of Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated consumers' communications and
data.
The case stems from Defendant's unauthorized interception and
connection to Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications through the use of "session replay" spyware that
allowed Defendant to read, learn the contents of, and make reports
on Plaintiff's and Class Members' interactions on Defendant's
website http://www.carhartt.com/
According to the complaint, the Defendant utilized session replay
spyware to intercept Plaintiff's and the Class Members' electronic
computer-to-computer data communications. The Defendant procures
third-party vendors, such as Quantum Metric, to embed snippets of
JavaScript computer code on Defendant's website, which then deploys
on each website visitor's Internet browser for the purpose of
watching, intercepting, and recording the website visitor's
electronic communications with Defendant's website.
Carhartt, Inc. manufactures apparel products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 222-7429
E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com
CASH LINK USA: Tarpley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cash Link USA LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Antonia Tarpley, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cash Link USA LLC, John
Does 1-10, Case No. 3:23-cv-00233-M (N.D. Tex., Jan. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Cash Link USA -- https://www.cashlinkusa.com/ -- is a
state-licensed direct lender for short-term online loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
Marwan Daher, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
CITY BEAUTY LLC: Roland Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Justin Roland, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. City Beauty, LLC, Case No.
2022-CA-002242 was removed from the 19th Judicial Circuit, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Jan.
30, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-14022-AMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
City Beauty -- https://citybeauty.com/ -- is a luxury brand
dedicated to formulating skincare that are designed with anti-aging
benefits in mind.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq.
1547 Brooksbend Drive
Wesley Chapel, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 789-4413
Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
20900 NE 30th Ave
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie Singer Brady, Esq.
Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER
200 S Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
PO Box 112
Orlando, FL 32802-0112
Phone: (407) 649-4000
Fax: (407) 841-0168
Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com
ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com
CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: White Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHARLENE WHITE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS,
LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BCV-22-103334, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Kern to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
January 25, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00109-JLT-CDB to the proceeding.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, 10 total causes of action, 9 of which
are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one for
"Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions
Code.
Conduent Commercial Solutions, LLC provides business process
services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Heather D. Hearne, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM
10233 South Parker Rd, Suite 306
Parker, CO 80134
Telephone: (720) 447-6628
Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: McAlpine Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumer Portfolio
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Troy McAlpine, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consumer
Portfolio Services, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00436-CAP-CCB (N.D. Ga.,
Jan. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. (CPS) --
http://www.consumerportfolio.com/-- is a specialty finance company
that provides indirect automobile financing to vehicle purchasers
with past credit problems, low incomes or limited credit
histories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Phone: (404) 500-7861
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
DALE'S DRUM SHOP: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dale's Drum Shop,
Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Dale's Drum Shop,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00777 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dale's Drum Shop -- https://dalesdrumshop.com/ -- is one of the
largest drum shops in the US.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
DIMES LOGISTICS: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dimes Logistics LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Myonna Aaraine White, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dimes Logistics LLC, Does 1–10, Case
No. 34-2023-00333871-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Jan. 31, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil."
Dimes Logistics LLC is a freight shipping Trucking Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE: Appeals Case Dismissal Bid Denial in FSO Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, et al., filed an appeal from
court rulings entered in the lawsuit entitled FIRST STATE
ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, et
al. Defendants, Case No. S19C-01-051 CAK, in the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff First State
Orthopaedics, P.A. ("FSO") filed a Complaint alleging violation of
the Delaware Workers' Compensation Act by the Defendant insurers.
FSO proposes to proceed as a class action.
In general terms, Delaware law requires worker's compensation
claimants, or their health providers, to submit medical bills for
medical treatment alleged to be related to the work injury to the
responsible insurance carrier. The carrier then either pays the
bill or gives a reason for not paying. The Complaint alleges that
the Defendants when refusing to pay routinely gave the following
reason (or one substantially similar): "The service is not
authorized by case manager. They should contact the case manager
for further information."
FSO alleges it provides medical services to many injured workers
and received the notice, along with many other health care
providers. FSO is seeking a judgment, and nothing else, for itself
and the class of medical providers, declaring that Defendants'
conduct violates Delaware Workers' Compensation law.
The Defendants' initial response was to seek removal to Federal
District Court. The Federal Court remanded the case back to the
Court in late August 2019. The Defendants then moved to dismiss the
Complaint. Briefing ensued and oral argument was held in February
2020.
Judge Craig A. Karsnitz allowed additional briefing on the issue of
whether the Plaintiff's claim was moot, and that briefing was
concluded in March. The Defendants claim the controversy is moot
because they stopped the complained-of practice before the
Complaint was filed when they stopped using a certain computer
software program.
The Defendants file this appeal seeking a review from the following
opinions, orders, and judgments issued by Judge Karsnitz:
-- the Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss dated May 12, 2020;
-- the Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Reargument dated
June 15, 2020; and
-- the Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment and Granting Sua Sponte Summary Judgment for
Plaintiff dated December 29, 2022.
The appellate case is captioned as EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
WAUSAU; HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; LIBERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; LM INSURANCE
CORPORATION; THE FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION; AND WAUSAU
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants v. FIRST
STATE ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. 27,2023, in the
Supreme Court for the State of Delaware, filed on January 25,
2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU;
HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION;
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; LM INSURANCE CORPORATION;
THE FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION; AND WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:
Kevin J. Connors, Esq.
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 600
P.O. Box 8888
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 552-4302
E-mail: kjconnors@mdwcg.com
- and -
Tiffany Powers, Esq.
Andrew Hatchett, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
E-mail: tiffany.powers@alston.com
andrew.hatchett@alston.com
ENDURANCE WARRANTY: Duncan Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raesheena Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Endurance Warranty Services, LLC,
an Illinois Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00505 (N.D.
Ill., January 26, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum
and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Endurance as a sales representative
from approximately May 1, 2019 through approximately September 30,
2020.
Endurance Warranty Services, LLC provides vehicle insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza, Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
FAIRSHARE SOLUTIONS: Green Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairshare Solutions,
LLC. The case is styled as Siwana Green, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Fairshare Solutions, LLC, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00165-RDM (M.D. Pa., Jan. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Fairshare Solutions -- https://fairshare.solutions/ -- manages
servicing, collections, and portfolio finance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 300
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (203) 246-2887
Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com
FIRST HERITAGE: Elbrecht Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Elbrecht, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FIRST HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
6:23-cv-06081 (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant over the improper assessment and collection of overdraft
fees ("OD Fees") on debit card transactions authorized on
sufficient funds and violation of Regulation E of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that because Defendant provided inaccurate
and untruthful overdraft information to Plaintiff and the Classes
regarding the overdraft practice, under Regulation E of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Defendant was not authorized to
assess OD Fees to consumers for debit card and non-recurring debit
card charges. However, Defendant did charge its customers overdraft
fees for ATM and debit card charges. Through the imposition of
these fees, Defendant has made substantial revenue to the tune of
millions of dollars, seeking to turn its customers' financial
struggles into revenue. Unfortunately, Plaintiff, like thousands of
others, has fallen victim to Defendant's fee revenue maximization
schemes.
At the moment debit card transactions are authorized on an account
with positive funds to cover the transaction, Defendant immediately
reduces consumers' checking accounts for the amount of the
purchase, sets aside funds in the checking account to cover that
transaction, and adjusts the consumer's displayed "available
balance" to reflect that subtracted amount. As a result, customers'
accounts will always have sufficient funds available to cover these
transactions because Defendant has already held the funds for
payment.
However, Defendant still assesses crippling $30 OD Fees on many of
these transactions and misrepresents its practices in the Contract.
Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card
transactions at the time those transactions are authorized,
Defendant later assesses OD Fees on those same transactions when
they settle days later into a negative balance, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has maintained a checking account with the
Defendant.
The Defendant is a bank with more than $671 million in assets, and
its principal place of business is in Corning, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 558-5500
Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 280-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AK 72201
Phone: (501) 372-1300
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
tyler@yourattorney.com
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Safai Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Saravenaz Safai, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., Flagstar
Bank FSB, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-00165 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan on Jan. 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10241-LVP-EAS to
the proceeding.
The nature suit is stated as Other Contract.
Flagstar Bank -- https://www.flagstar.com/ -- offers a range of
banking and lending solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seyed Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
FLGREEN LLC: Deya Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Rayvick Deya, and other similarly situated individuals v. FLGREEN
LLC, And Felix Alvarez, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-20376-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2023), is brought to recover monetary damages
for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under United States laws
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was paid weekly his daily rate, regardless of the
number of hours worked, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as
required by law. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but
Defendants were in absolute control of his schedule and activities.
The Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals were working. Therefore, the
Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages, at
the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that
he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA the Plaintiff
seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages for every hour
worked over 40 during his entire employment, retaliatory damages,
liquidated damages, and any other relief as allowable by law, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time employee, from August 01, 2022, to December 23, 2022.
FLGREEN is a landscaping company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
FORNEY INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Allen Class Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLAS ALLEN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. FORNEY INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00421-RK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Roseann A.
Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The lawsuit is a putative class action seeking economic damages for
an allegedly defective bonded abrasive wheel manufactured,
produced, distributed, and sold by the Defendant. It alleges that
the Defendant's bonded abrasive wheels are defective because they
do not include a clear expiration label despite having a shelf-life
or expiration date after which the bonded abrasive wheels fail if
used.
The Defendant manufacturers, produces, distributes, and sells
bonded abrasive wheels that are used with power tools like angle
grinders and chop saws to cut metal and concrete. When used, the
bonded abrasive wheels spin at speeds from 4,400 RPM to 19,100 RPM.
The bonded abrasive wheels have a shelf-life or expiration date. If
used after the wheel has expired, "it will give way, crack, split,
explode and fail. Industry standards require a clear expiration
date be placed on the label of the bonded abrasive wheels.
The Defendant's bonded abrasive wheels are sold in more than 20,000
retail stores nationwide. Some bonded abrasive wheels are sold
despite having already expired. The Plaintiff alleges he has
purchased "one or more" of the bonded abrasive wheels "within the
last two years." He alleges that when he purchased the bonded
abrasive wheels, he did not know that they could not be safely used
after their shelf life expired. He alleges that he "wishes to
continue purchasing" the bonded abrasive wheels but without "clear
and understandable advertising, packaging and/or labeling"
regarding the wheels' expiration date, he will be unable to ensure
that the abrasive wheel products purchased from the Defendant are
not expired or nearly expired at the time of purchase and used
prior to expiration.
Both individually and on behalf of the class, the Plaintiff seeks
recovery for economic injury in the form of a refund of monies paid
and injunctive relief; the complaint specifically excludes damages,
losses, and relief arising from personal injuries.
The Plaintiff asserts six claims for relief: Count I - violation of
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"); Count II —
unjust enrichment; Count III - strict liability (design defect);
Count IV - strict liability (failure to warn); Count V —
negligence; and Count VI - breach of implied warranty.
Now before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The
Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed
under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. It
also argues that his class action allegations must be stricken
under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(f).
As to the Defendant's first argument, Judge Ketchmark holds that at
this early pleading stage, the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded
an Article III injury in fact in light of the Eighth Circuit's
manifest-defect rule, to the extent the Plaintiff's complaint
includes allegations that when the bonded abrasive wheels reach
their expiration date or shelf-life, if used after that time they
will fail. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction in light of the Eighth Circuit's manifest-defect rule
is therefore denied.
As to the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff fails to state a
claim, first, Judge Ketchmark finds that the Plaintiff fails to
state a claim for violation of the MMPA because he does not
adequately allege the primary purpose for which he purchased any of
the bonded abrasive wheels. He pleads no facts beyond a purely
conclusory allegation that the bonded abrasive wheels he purchased
were primarily purchased for the three statutorily mandated
purposes, and thus fails to state a claim under the MMPA. The
Defendant's motion to dismiss Count I is therefore granted.
Second, Judge Ketchmark finds that the Plaintiff's claims for
unjust enrichment, strict liability, and negligence are barred by
Missouri's economic loss doctrine. Among other things, she says
federal district courts in Missouri have held the economic loss
doctrine bars unjust enrichment claims like the one Plaintiff
assert and under Missouri law, recovery is available if at all
under the UCC's warranty provisions. Hence, the Defendant's motion
to dismiss Counts II to V for failure to state a claim is granted.
Finally, Judge Ketchmark holds that the Plaintiff does not allege
that any bonded abrasive wheel he purchased expired and that it
failed when he used it after its expiration or that he stopped
using or could not use any of the wheels that he had purchased, for
example. His conclusory allegations that the bonded abrasive wheels
were not merchantable is not sufficient. The Defendant's motion to
dismiss Count VI is therefore granted.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Ketchmark denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, and grants its motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim. Because Counts II to V are barred by
the economic loss doctrine, she dismisses them with prejudice. She
dismisses Counts I and VI without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4f9fs94t from Leagle.com.
GASTROMED HEALTHCARE: Cortelyou Alleges Unpaid OT, Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HALEY CORTELYOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GASTROMED HEALTHCARE, P.A. and NICOLE GREEN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00413 (D.N.J., January 25, 2023) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants
alleging certain acts of verbal and physical abuse and disability
discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination, and for Defendant's failure to pay its
employees required overtime payments pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.
Ms. Cortelyou began her employment with Gastromed at their
Bridgewater, New Jersey location on December 27, 2021, and was
forced to resign on September 12, 2022. She was employed as a
receptionist and uncertified medical assistant, during the
applicable limitations periods.
Gastromed Healthcare, P.A. is a full-service group medical practice
specializing in the field of gastroenterology, with at least two
locations located in New Jersey, employing a variety of doctors,
nurses, technicians, medical support staff, and administrative
support staff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher M. Malikschmitt, Esq.
DRESSEL/MALIKSCHMITT LLP
11 E. Cliff Street
Somerville, NJ 08876
Telephone: (848) 202-9323
Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
E-mail: chris@d-mlaw.com
GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Cantu Sues Over Secret Reporting of Details
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Cantu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL ATLANTIC FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV01984 (S.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2023), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act as a result of the Defendant who secretly report all
the details of the visitors' identity, the titles watched, and more
without warning visitors or obtaining their consent.
Whenever someone watches a video on www.globalatlantic.com (the
"Website"), Defendants secretly report all the details to Facebook:
the visitor's personally identifiable information ("PH"), the
titles watched, and more. When the Plaintiff watched videos on the
Website, Defendants disclosed event data, which recorded and
disclosed the video's title, description, and URL, to Facebook.
Alongside this event data, the Defendants also disclosed
identifiers for the Plaintiff, including the c_user and fr cookies.
In other words, the Defendants did exactly what the VPPA prohibits:
they disclosed the Plaintiff's video viewing habits to a third
party. Visitors would be shocked and appalled to know that the
Defendants secretly disclose to Facebook all of the key data
regarding a visitor's viewing habits.
The Defendants' conduct is illegal, offensive, and contrary to
visitor expectations: indeed, a recent study conducted by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, a respected thought leader
regarding digital privacy, found that: nearly 9 in 10 adults are
"very concerned" about data privacy, and 75% of adults are unaware
of the extent to which companies gather, store, and exploit their
personal data. By disclosing the Plaintiff's event data and
identifiers to Facebook, the Defendant knowingly disclosed
Plaintiff's PII to a third-party, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited the Website and watched one or more videos.
The Defendants own, operate, and or control the Website,
www.globalatlantic.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Amick Labor Suit Removed to D.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled J. Bradley Amick and Taylor Kitchens, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Lexington County, Defendant, Case No. 2022-CP-32-04209, was removed
from the Court of Common Pleas for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit,
Lexington County, State of South Carolina, to the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina on January 26,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-00336-CMC to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor
policies and practices.
Lexington County is the sixth-largest county in South Carolina by
population and is part of the Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical
Area.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael D. Malone, Esq.
Charles F. Thompson, Jr., Esq.
Lake E. Summers, Esq.
MALONE, THOMPSON, SUMMERS & OTT L.L.C.
339 Heyward Street, Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 254-3300
Facsimile: (803) 254-0309
E-mail: malone@mtsolawfirm.com
MILHAUS DEVELOPMENT: Herring-Dancy FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDRE HERRING-DANCY, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILHAUS DEVELOPMENT
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22CN-CV00071, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Clinton County, Missouri, to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri on January 25, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-06010-FJG to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and Missouri law.
MILHAUS DEVELOPMENT LLC is a real estate developer.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Samantha J. Monsees, Esq.
Lauren M. Sobaski, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4622 Pennsylvania, Suite 910
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 842-8770
Facsimile: (816) 842-8767
E-mail: smonsees@fisherphillips.com
lsobaski@fisherphillips.com
MONTAUK BULK: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Ceballos Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CEBALLOS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MONTAUK BULK CARRIERS INC., MONTAUK BULK
TRANSPORTATION LLC, MUTLU KOCAL, and USTUN O. KOCAL a/k/a AUSTIN
KOCAL, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00524 (E.D.N.Y., January 25,
2023) is brought by the Plaintiff to recover from the Defendants
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt driver and delivery worker from June 2020 until January
12, 2023.
Montauk Bulk Carriers Inc. owns and operates a licensed and
Department of Transportation registered intrastate trucking and
freight company, which delivers hazardous gases and liquids to
purely local gas stations and business solely within the State of
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
NICK'S MGMT: 2nd Bid to Dismiss Naranjo Class Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AYDEE NARANJO, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NICK'S MANAGEMENT, INC.; NICK'S
CLUBS, INC. f/k/a ADVENTURE PLUS ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PT'S MEN'S
CLUB; and NICK MEHMETI; Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-2883-B
(N.D. Tex.), Judge Jane J. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss.
The lawsuit is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case. From
approximately June 2020 to May 2021, Naranjo worked as an exotic
dancer for the Defendants. Naranjo signed a license and lease
agreement (the "Licensing Agreement") with Defendant Nick's Club's,
Inc. d/b/a PT Men's Club ("PT") on June 30, 2020. The Licensing
Agreement stated Naranjo was not an employee; instead, Naranjo was
to perform as an exotic dancer for PT as a "licensee" and "tenant"
in exchange for entertainment fees and tips from patrons. It
contains a class and collective action waiver and an arbitration
clause.
On May 7, 2021, Naranjo's counsel advised the Defendants' counsel
that Naranjo intended to assert claims for unpaid wages against
them. On July 30, 2021, the Defendants' counsel sent Naranjo's
counsel a letter in an attempt to avoid delays or potential
litigation. The letter explained that the Defendants were sending
Naranjo the wages they would have owed Naranjo had she been an
employee. Enclosed with the letter was a check for $2,350.38. But
this money was offered subject to an offset in the amount of the
fees and tips Naranjo received under the Licensing Agreement.
Naranjo's counsel sent a letter to the Defendants' counsel on Aug.
3, 2021, informing them that Naranjo would not be cashing the
check. Naranjo's counsel further stated, "The overwhelming weight
of authority holds that the type of offset described in your letter
is unlawful," and advised that unless Defendants wanted to discuss
settling Naranjo's claims, Naranjo would file her claims in court.
On Nov. 17, 2021, Naranjo filed her Original Complaint, on behalf
of herself and all other exotic dancers who have worked for the
Defendants, alleging that they misclassified Naranjo and other
exotic dancers as independent contractors, did not pay them minimum
wage or overtime compensation as required by the FLSA, and
subjected them to kickbacks that were unlawful under the FLSA. The
Defendants moved to dismiss.
On June 28, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed Naranjo's
claim for unlawful kickbacks with prejudice to the extent kickbacks
were pleaded as an independent cause of action. It denied the
motion in all other respects but ordered Naranjo to file an amended
complaint alleging facts to support her contention that she is not
bound by the Licensing Agreement's collective action waiver.
Naranjo filed an Amended Complaint, and the Defendants filed a
Second Motion to Dismiss. In their motion, they suggested that
Naranjo never rejected the payment that the Defendants offered by
check. On Oct. 14, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to submit
supplemental briefing on whether Naranjo had standing to bring the
suit.
The Defendants present three arguments why Naranjo's claims should
be dismissed in whole or in part. First, they implicitly argue
that, because they sent Naranjo a check for the amount of wages
sought, Naranjo lacked standing to bring her claims in federal
court. Second, they argue that Naranjo's claims should be dismissed
because she failed to satisfy multiple conditions precedent before
filing suit. Finally, they argue that Naranjo's collective action
allegations should be dismissed because she signed an enforceable
collective action waiver.
First, Judge Boyle finds that when Naranjo brought the suit, she
had an injury in fact (the alleged unpaid wages) that is fairly
traceable to the alleged conduct of the Defendants (improperly
classifying and paying her as an independent contractor) that could
be redressed by a favorable determination by the Court.
Accordingly, Naranjo had standing to bring her claim when it was
originally filed. And at no point during the litigation did Naranjo
accept the check tendered by the Defendants. Therefore, her claims
are not moot and a live case and controversy exists.
Second, although there is persuasive precedent suggesting the Court
may not consider the Licensing Agreement, Judge Boyle notes that
Naranjo does not contest the Defendants' argument. She therefore
considers the issue waived and considers the Licensing Agreement in
evaluating the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Moreover, the letter, which communicated a settlement offer, is not
central to Naranjo's claims because it is not necessary to
establish an element of one of her claims. Judge Boyle therefore
does not consider the letter in evaluating the Motion to Dismiss.
Third, Judge Boyle declines to dismiss Naranjo's complaint for
failure to explicitly plead conditions precedent, and Naranjo's
individual FLSA claims survive the Motion to Dismiss. She finds
that Naranjo is not required to plead the performance or occurrence
of conditions precedent to state her FLSA claim. And, to the extent
that the Defendants argue Naranjo's claims should be dismissed
because she did not perform conditions precedent (as opposed to
Naranjo failed to state a claim by not pleading performance of
conditions precedent), she declines to consider the argument at
this time saying the issue is properly raised at this stage, as a
party must raise nonperformance of a condition precedent in his
first responsive pleading.
Fourth, as to Naranjo's collective action allegations, Judge Boyle
holds that because the section title mentions arbitration and
collective action separately, the collective action provision's
surrounding language does not address arbitration, and the phrasing
indicates the provision is not merely a consequence of arbitration,
the collective action provision is enforceable against Naranjo.
Moreover, because equitable estoppel is available to enforce a
collective action waiver and the case presents both independent
bases for equitable estoppel, Mehmeti can enforce the collective
action waiver.
For these reasons, Judge Boyle grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' Motion. She concludes that Naranjo had standing to
bring the suit because she had an injury in fact that is fairly
traceable to the alleged conduct of the Defendants and could be
redressed by a favorable determination by the Court. And Naranjo is
not required to explicitly plead satisfaction of conditions
precedent to state a claim under the FLSA. Therefore, her
individual FLSA claim survives the Motion to Dismiss.
However, because Naranjo signed an enforceable collective action
waiver and all the Defendants can enforce it, her FLSA collective
action allegations are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/532x4prw from
Leagle.com.
REVERSE MORTGAGE: Strack Sues Over WARN Act, Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Strack and Nallely Hanna, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Reverse Mortgage
Investment Trust Inc., Reverse Mortgage Funding LLC, RMIT Cash
Management LLC, RMIT Operating I LLC, and RMIT Operating II LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 23-50012-MFW (D. Del., January 26, 2023),
which alleges Defendants' violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act and the New Jersey Millville Dallas
Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act, the New York Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the California Labor Code.
The suit is a class action adversary proceeding filed against
Defendants in In re: REVERSE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST INC., et
al., Debtors, Chapter 11 Bankr. Case No. 22-11225 (MFW).
Reverse Mortgage Investment Trust Inc. operated as a full service,
non-bank mortgage lender that originated residential mortgages
through a national platform.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Grant Dick, IV, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
PO Box 1680
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
E-mail: gdick@coochtaylor.com
SIDWELL AIR: Madsen Sues Over Courier Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER MADSEN, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIDWELL AIR FREIGHT, INC, and DHL EXPRESS
(USA) INC., d/b/a DHL EXPRESS, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00008-CMR (D. Utah, January 26, 2023) seeks all available
remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all other non-exempt
employees all wages owed including overtime.
Plaintiff Madsen worked for Defendants as a courier driver in Utah
from June 2021 to December 2022. She asserts that DHL's policies
and expectations regarding payment and delivery goals dictated the
delivery vendors' ability to pay courier drivers properly for their
overtime work.
Sidwell Air Freight, Inc. provides last-mile delivery services to
Defendant DHL.
DHL provides domestic and international parcel pickup, delivery,
and return solutions for business customers and individual
customers, as well as e-commerce solutions and facilitation
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
April L. Hollingsworth, Esq.
Katie Panzer, Esq.
HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC
1881 South 1100 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Telephone: (801)415-9909
Facsimile: (801) 303-7324
E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com
katie@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com
- and -
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Michael J. Anderson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
manderson@bm.net
SKYLIGHT DINER: Faces Bravo Suit Over Busboys' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
BAUDEL BRAVO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKYLIGHT DINER INC. (D/B/A SKYLIGHT DINER),
GEORGE PAPAIONNOU, TEDDY PAPAIONNOU, and JAMES PAPAIONNOU,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00651 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The complaint alleges the failure of the Defendants to pay
Plaintiff and others similarly situated applicable minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide written wage notice, failure to
furnish accurate wage statement, and failure to reimburse costs and
expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and "tools of the
trade."
Plaintiff Bravo was employed as a busboy by Defendants at Skylight
Diner from approximately June 2017 until June 2019 and then from
approximately September 2022 until October 29, 2022.
Skylight Diner Inc. owns, operates, and controls an American diner
in New York under the name "Skylight Diner."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: catalina@csmlegal.com
TG THERAPEUTICS: Shapiro Complaint Dismissed W/o Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EUGENE SHAPIRO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. TG THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
MICHAEL S. WEISS, SEAN A. POWER, and ADAM WALDMAN, Defendants, Case
No. 22-cv-6106 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York enters an
Opinion and Order that explains the Court's reasons for granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim.
The lawsuit is a putative class action brought against TG
Therapeutics, a biotechnology firm, and three of its officers,
Michael Weiss, Sean Power, and Adam Waldman. The FAC alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the
development of two new drugs, Ublituximab and Umbralisib. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' misrepresentations violated
(1) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
TG Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company. It focuses on
treatments for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases such as
cancer and multiple sclerosis. Its common stock trades on the
NASDAQ Stock Market.
By February 2021, TG Therapeutics had developed two drug
candidates, Umbralisib (known in the business as "UKONIQ") and
Ublituximab. On their own, UKONIQ and Ublituximab had shown promise
as potential treatments for certain kinds of lymphoma and multiple
sclerosis, respectively. But TG Therapeutics had even greater
ambitions for them. TG Therapeutics believed that when UKONIQ and
Ublituximab were combined (in a package called "U2"), they could
jointly treat certain kinds of leukemia and perhaps other B-cell
disorders as well. Investors believed that U2 had "blockbuster
potential."
But, the FAC alleges, UKNONIQ (and, therefore, U2) also posed risks
to patients' health. UKONIQ treated patients by inhibiting the PI3K
receptor. This pharmaceutical mechanism was known to pose risks of
serious side-effects. In light of these and other risks, the Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") required TG Therapeutics to submit
a New Drug Application ("NDA") or a Biologics License Application
("BLA") with respect to these treatments for FDA approval before
the treatments could be brought to market.
To secure FDA approval, TO Therapeutics submitted UKONIQ and U2 to
a series of clinical trials. As alleged in the FAC, these trials
revealed that patients suffered many "adverse events" and "serious
adverse events" when they took UKONIQ and U2. TG Therapeutics
tracked such adverse events and serious adverse events that arose
and reported them to the FDA. These (serious) adverse events were
logged in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, which is publicly
available. While clinical trials were still ongoing, TG
Therapeutics touted the fact that the FDA had put UKONIQ on an
accelerated timeline for approval, and it repeatedly asserted that
UKONIQ was safe.
On Nov. 30, 2021, TG Therapeutics disclosed that the FDA had
concerns about the safety of U2. More specifically, TG Therapeutics
disclosed that the FDA planned to host a meeting of the Oncologic
Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") in connection with its review of
the U2 BLA and NDA for the treatment of chronic lymphoma leukemia.
On this news, the price of TG Therapeutics' stock declined by $8.16
per share, or approximately 34.93%.
More bad news followed. On April 15, 2022, TG Therapeutics
announced that it had voluntarily withdrawn the biologics license
application and the supplemental new drugs application for U2. Just
before market opening on April 18, 2022, it also announced that it
was shuttering its oncology division. On this news, TG
Therapeutics' stock price fell by $1.93 per share, or 21.81%, to
close at $6.92 per share on April 18, 2022.
On May 31, 2022, TG Therapeutics disclosed that the FDA had pushed
back a key milestone for approval of Ublituximab, after which the
price of TG Therapeutics' stock fell by $0.75 per share, or 14.51%.
Finally, on June 1, 2022, the FDA revealed that it had removed its
approval of UKONIQ due to concerns about UKONIQ's safety. The price
of TG Therapeutics' stock fell by a further $0.51 per share, or
11.54%.
On July 18, 2022, Mr. Shapiro filed the Complaint, which was
subsequently amended on Oct. 28, 2022. The FAC asserts two claims:
(1) That TG Therapeutics, as well as the Individual
Defendants, made false or misleading statements of material fact,
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder; and
(2) That the Individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by controlling TG Therapeutics when it made false
or misleading statements of material fact.
Judge Rakoff explains that to survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim that is plausible on its face. There are six
elements of a private claim brought under Section 10(b). A
plaintiff must prove: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission
by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5)
economic loss; and (6) loss causation.
The Defendants argue their omission of adverse events in press
releases was not material, because TG Therapeutics had already
disclosed those adverse events to the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting
System, which is publicly accessible. Mr. Shapiro responds that
disclosure to the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System was
insufficient.
Judge Rakoff opines that the FAC fails to state a claim for
wrongful omission under Section 10(b). He finds that because the
market for shares traded on NASDAQ is, in general, efficient, and
because drug candidates regularly go through the winnowing of the
FDA regulatory process, it is very unlikely that the opportunity
for arbitrage existed. Instead, the unavoidable inference is that
the adverse events were already priced into TG Therapeutics' shares
and that further disclosure of them would not have significantly
altered a reasonable investor's total mix of information.
The FAC also asserts the Defendants made several statements that
were materially false. These allegedly wrongful misstatements
concerned both the safety of UKNONIQ and U2 and the prospects of
FDA approval for U2.
Judge Rakoff opines that some of the Defendants' allegedly wrongful
misstatements are not actionable because they are covered by the
PSLRA safe harbor for forward-looking statements. He also says the
facts alleged in the FAC concerning the Individual Defendants'
compensation do support a strong inference of scienter. The FAC
does not allege that TG Therapeutics was anything less than fully
forthcoming in its reporting of adverse events to the FDA's Adverse
Event Reporting System. The facts alleged in the FAC also do not
provide "strong circumstantial evidence of conscious behavior or
recklessness."
Put together, the facts alleged in the FAC do not support a strong
inference of scienter. Thus, it fails to state a claim for
fraudulent misstatement.
Mr. Shapiro also claims that the Individual Defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because they had control over TG
Therapeutics when it allegedly violated Section 10(b) by making
materially false omissions and misstatements. Since this allegation
presupposes that TG Therapeutics violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and since the FAC fails to state a claim for such a
violation, Mr. Shapiro's Section 20(a) claim must also be
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rakoff concludes that the FAC
fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Thus, he
reaffirms the Court's Order of Jan. 13, 2023 and dismisses the FAC,
without leave to amend.
The Clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close the
case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yfcstc4m from Leagle.com.
TOPPS CO: S.D. New York Dismisses Wheeler Class Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BELINDA WHEELER, Plaintiff v. THE TOPPS COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 2264 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G.
Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Wheeler brings the consumer action on behalf of herself and a
putative class of fellow purchasers. Topps sells trading cards
offering entry into no-purchase necessary ("NPN") contests. The
contests offers to win randomly selected trading cards, including
rare and expensive cards. It sells trading cards for around $20 per
box and $8 per pack, a price that reflects the value of entering
the NPN contest.
To avoid running afoul of New York law, which bars lotteries where
players pay for a chance to win something of value, these contests
do not require potential entrants to purchase Defendant's products.
The Defendant advertises the contests on its products, accompanied
by language that states "NO PURCHASE NECESSARY" to enter a contest.
Nevertheless, aspects of its packaging and marketing practices
belie this claim. Alternatively, the Defendant sometimes makes it
impossible for anyone to have a chance at winning the contest.
Finally, the Defendant does not disclose information regarding its
contests' completion, winners or the dates prizes are distributed.
It also does not ensure that retail establishments selling its
products prominently post notices of the number and value of prizes
available.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Washington, D.C. She purchased the
Defendant's products from its website and from physical stores in
the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and "elsewhere on the East
Coast." She purchased its products to enter the NPN contests and
paid a premium for the chance to win rare prizes through these
contests.
In this diversity action, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant
mislabels its products regarding the contests. Her First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") alleges violation of New York's General Business
Law ("GBL"), breach of express and implied warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. The Defendant moves
to dismiss the action.
With respect to the New York GBL claims, Judge Schofield finds that
the locus of the challenged transactions is Washington, D.C., where
the Plaintiff resides and purchased some of the Defendant's
products. She opines that the allegations in the FAC fail to
establish the required nexus to New York needed to pursue claims
under Sections 349 and 350. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to
dismiss these claims is granted.
Regarding the breach of warranty claims, Judge Schofield grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the common law and statutory breach
of warranty claims. She finds that the allegations that the
Plaintiff "provided or will provide notice" and that the Defendant
"received notice" are insufficient because they do not allege that
the Plaintiff actually provided notice as required under New York
law.
Moreover, as the FAC does not plead that the Plaintiff provided
pre-suit notice of the breach, the breach of warranty claims are
deficient. There is also no allegation of physical injury, making
the retail sales exception inapposite. And, because the FAC fails
to plead a sufficient breach of warranty claim under state law, the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim fails.
As to the fraud claim, Judge Schofield opines that the FAC fails to
plead any facts showing the requisite fraudulent intent for a
common law fraud claim, even under the standard of Rule 9(b)
allowing "intent to be alleged generally." Accordingly, the fraud
claim is dismissed.
Regarding the unjust enrichment claim, Judge Schofield holds that
the case does not present the unusual situation where an unjust
enrichment claim should be allowed to proceed as a matter of
equity. She opines that the Plaintiff asserts conventional contract
and tort claims based on the same set of facts. All claims in the
FAC are based on the same alleged acts and omissions by Defendant.
The FAC's unjust enrichment claim is dismissed as duplicative.
Finally, in response to the Defendant's pre-motion letter
describing the legal arguments, supported by case law, as to why
the GBL, breach of warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment claims
should be dismissed, the Plaintiff chose to file an amended
complaint, the FAC. Despite being on notice from the Defendant's
letter, the FAC did not correct the deficiencies listed, which are
the same reasons that the FAC is now dismissed. Judge Schofield
accordingly finds that any amendment would be futile and grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at
Docket No. 26 and to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5h8c6x2d from Leagle.com.
US MED-EQUIP: Ambrose Seeks Customer Service Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR AMBROSE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US MED-EQUIP, LLC, a Texas Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00114-SAB (E.D. Cal., January 26, 2023) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants pursuant
to California Code of Civil Procedure.
The complaint was filed by Plaintiffs over the Defendants' failure
to pay all minimum wages; failure to pay all overtime wages;
failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period
premiums; failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal
period premiums; failure to maintain accurate employment records;
failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to pay all
wages earned and unpaid at separation; failure to indemnify all
necessary business expenditures; failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements; and violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants within the statutory
Class Period, working as an hourly, non-exempt customer service
worker for Defendants. The Plaintiff's duties included distributing
hospital supplies.
US Med-Equip, LLC offers medical equipment rentals, hospital
equipment rentals, medical equipment sales, biomedical services,
and asset management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Megan E. Ross, Esq.
Hannah Becker, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
megan@melmedlaw.com
hb@melmedlaw.com
VALLEY HEALTH: Elder Alleges Illegal Disclosure of Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ELDER, individually on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM,
INC. d/b/a THE VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., VALLEY HOME CARE, INC.,
VALLEY MEDICAL GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00408-EP-LDW
(D.N.J., January 25, 2023) arises from the Defendants' systematic
violation of the medical privacy rights of Plaintiff and similarly
situated patients, exposing highly sensitive personal information
to third parties without those patients' knowledge or consent, in
violation of the Electronic Communications Act and the New Jersey
Statutes Annotated.
The Defendants maintain a website www.valleyhealth.com which allows
patients of Valley Health System, Inc., Valley Home Care, Inc, and
Valley Medical Group to access Defendants' digital platforms and
communicate with their healthcare providers.
According to the complaint, the Defendants disclosed information
about their patients -- including their status as patients, their
physicians, their medical treatments, the hospitals they visited,
and their personal identities -- to Facebook and other third
parties without its patients' knowledge, authorization, or consent.
The Defendants disclosed this private information by embedding
various digital marketing and automatic rerouting tools on its
website that purposefully and intentionally send its patients'
private information to third parties who exploit that information
for advertising purposes, says the suit.
On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
seeks an order enjoining Defendants from further unauthorized
disclosures of his personal information; and granting an award of
monetary relief, attorney's fees and costs; and granting any other
preliminary or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate.
Valley Health System is a regional healthcare system that serves
residents in northern New Jersey and southern New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
737 Bainbridge Street #155
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
VES GROUP: Faces Grant Suit Over Quality Analysts' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GRANT, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VES GROUP, INC. and MAXIMUS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00290 (S.D. Tex., January 26, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all current and former employees who
performed work for Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendants in October 2018 and is
currently employed as a quality analyst and quality analyst team
lead. He asserts that Defendants fail to include the bonus
compensation into the regular rates of their other quality analysts
and other non-exempt employees when calculating the overtime paid
to employees.
Ves Group, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Maximus,
Inc. The Defendants' principal lines of business is the review of
benefit claims veterans file with the Veterans Administration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Neuman, Esq.
Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8630
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Gonzalez Appeals Privacy Suit Final Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Objector ALFRED GONZALEZ filed an appeal from a district court's
final approval order and judgment dated April 21, 2022, and order
dated December 16, 2022, entered in IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-02155-LB,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The complaint is a consumer-privacy class action filed on March 30,
2020 against Zoom Video Communications. The Plaintiffs allege that
Zoom improperly shared their data through third-party software from
companies such as Facebook and Google; claimed to have end-to-end
encryption when it did not; and failed to prevent "Zoombombing"
(disruptions of Zoom meetings by third-party actors).
Subsequently, the parties settled the case, and the court granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
The Plaintiffs then moved for final approval of the settlement and
for attorney's fees, expenses, and service payments
The Court held a fairness hearing on April 21, 2022, after which
the Court entered an Order finding the settlement fair, adequate,
and reasonable and approved the final settlement, including the
fees, costs, and service payments. There were approximately 150
million Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Administrator
received 2,242 requests for exclusion.
Nine objections to the settlement were filed with the court. One of
the objections was from Judith Cohen, a mental-health counselor.
Ms. Cohen argued for a subclass for those who used Zoom "as part of
a business that was legally or contractually required to maintain
client confidentiality as part of the services the business
provided." However, the Court held that some objectors lack
standing to object or submitted untimely objections, and the others
put forward unavailing arguments. The Court held that the
objections were untimely because they were filed after the
Objection and Exclusion Deadline of March 5, 2022. Also, these
objectors lack standing to object because they did not provide "an
explanation of the basis upon which [they] claim[] to be a
Settlement Class Member," as required by the Settlement Agreement
and the Court's preliminary-approval order, ruled that Court.
Objector and unnamed class member Alfred Gonzalez filed a notice of
appeal of the Court's order approving the objector settlements and
changes to the class settlement.
The appellate case is captioned as ALFRED GONZALEZ,
Objector-Appellant v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 23-15103, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 25,
2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by February 23, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be filed by March 23, 2023;
-- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
filed on May 1, 2023;
-- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
filed on June 1, 2023; and
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief, pursuant
to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.
Failure of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order
will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
*********
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 ***