/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230308.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 8, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 49
Headlines
116 WEST HOUSTON: Faces Worrapong Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
A.B. BAKERY RESTAURANT: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AG CONSULTING: Kovalez, et al., Seek Conditional Certification
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Loera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Rosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
APPLE INC: Robinson Suit Transferred to N.D. California
ASCENSION HEALTH: Illinois Nurses File Wage Class Action
ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUSTIN CARD: Hess Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Willner Suit Removed to C.D. California
BIOSKIN LASER: Polanco Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BLACKSTONE LABS: Tabai Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Dixson Sues Over Discrimination on Disabled Persons
BRAIDWOODS LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRIGHT HORIZONS: Rutter Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Indigenous Women Sterilizations
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Vickers Sues Over Deceptive Promises
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
CATALENT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 25
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Caro Sues Over Massive Data Breach
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Health Info
CENTRIC HEALTH: Cordova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHRISTMAS MOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CIRCLES OF CARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
CREDIT COLLECTION: Lackey Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
CULTURAL ELEMENTS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
D.W.M. INTERNATIONAL: Wang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DABUR INTERNATIONAL: Rose Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
DARTMOUTH CO-OPERATIVE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DECKER AND SONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEL MONTE FOODS: Bryan Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Practices
DLOCAL LIMITED: Zappia Sues Over Materially Misleading Documents
DNC PARKS: Perez Class Cert Bid Reset to March 27
DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Wins Class Certification Bid
DUNGARVIN OHIO: Second Joint Bid for Conditional Cert. OK'd
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Gomez, et al., Seek FLSA Conditional Certification
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Files Bid for Class Certification
ETHEREUMMAX: Celebrities File Motion to Dismiss Fraud Class Action
ETHOS GROUP: Fedorys Suit Consolidated with Gorman, Harper Suits
EVOLUTION WELL: Settlement Agreement in Copley Gets Initial OK
EXPERIAN INFO: Case Management Conference Scheduling Order Entered
FALCONS MANAGEMENT: Ware Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
FIRST UNITED BANK: Kerrigan Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
FMA ALLIANCE: Genger Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
FRANK STRADA: Hart Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California
FRUTH PHARMACY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FUTURE ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Illicit Activities
GENERAL MOTORS: Preliminary Pretrial Order Modified in Riley
GENESCO INC: Grajales Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
GOOGLE LLC: Stellman Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GRAND CANYON: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Recommended
GUNNAR OPTIKS: Gimenez Sues Over Defective Eyeglasses
HANES BRANDS: Ramon Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina
HEALTH & WELLNESS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HIGHMARK HEALTH: Waruszewski Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
HIGHMARK INC: Marshall Sues Over Data Breach
HOLIDAY INN CLUB: Lingard Sues Over Unlawful Timeshare Loans
HONEST COMPANY: Sucharow Files Bid for Class Certification
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Teague Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Filing Settlement Claims in Fires Suit Until July 7
IAVARONE ENTERPRISES: Puntaloro Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
INMAR INC: Holmes Amended Bid to Certify Class OK'd
INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Ulery Sues Over Unwanted Prerecorded Message
INTERFACE INC: Court Vacates Steamfitters' Bid to Certify Class
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Pre-Motion Conference Class Cert. Sought
ISLAND JAY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Lightoller Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
JILL-EST: Class Certification Scheduling Order Amended in Smith
JMJ ENTERPRISES: Seeks to Decertify Wade Collective Action
JOHN DEERE: DOJ Supports 'Right To Repair' Class Action Suit
JOHN HANCOCK: Stipulation for Leave to File FAC OK'd in Kroetz
JUUL LABS: Agrees to Settle E-Cigarette Class Suit for $438.5-Mil.
KANSAS CITY TREE: Court Overrules Bid to Decertify as Untimely
KENTECH CONSULTING: Abrogina Seeks to File Class Cert Exhibit
KEURIG DR PEPPER: $10-M Recyclable Pod Settlement Granted Final OK
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Verdin Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1
KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
KNOX COUNTY: Court Disallows Class Certification in Day Suit
KROGER CO: Class Certification Deadliness Amended in Womick Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Supplementation of Record in Anderson Suit OK'd
LEFT LEAD: Court OKs Boyll Bid to Certify Class
LENOVO (UNITED STATES): Filing of Class Status Bid Extended
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court OKs Sealing of Class Cert Materials in TVPX
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
LOREAL USA: Edwards Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
LOREAL USA: Wall Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
LUMIO INC: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Simons Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
M & R PIZZA: Marquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
MAKER ECOSYSTEM: Black Thursday Class Suit Dismissed
MANITOBA: Faces Class Suit Over Overcharge Photo Radar Tickets
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Robinson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
MATCO TOOLS: Munger Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Brixey Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Poppe RPNS Suit
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Shaffer v. Mattel
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Wray RPNS Suit
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Clayton v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Cohen v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Duranko v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Eisen v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Faszczewski v. Blackbaud
MEC HOLDING: Sends Mass Automated Marketing Calls, Perez Claims
MEDCAN HEALTH: Class Action Over Vacation, Holiday Pay Certified
MEDILODGE GROUP: Witte Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Michigan
META PLATFORM: Westport District Joins Youth Mental Health Suit
MG BILLING: Class Certification Deadline Extended to Oct. 31
MI CASA: Pardini Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification
MICKS IN COOPERSTOWN: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MIDDLESEX WATER: Scheduling Order Entered in Lonsk Class Suit
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Settles CRT Class Action Suit for $33-Mil.
MUNDI 910 VICTORIA: Exclusion With Fire Class Action Until May 24
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class Cert Responses Due March 23 in Sweeney
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Sanchez Files Suit in C.D. California
NESTLE WATERS: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Nov. 16
NEW HAMPSHIRE BOWL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Sow Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
NEW YORK, NY: Yates Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
NEWBURY COMICS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fisher Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
NORTHPOINT SENIOR: Summers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NUMERADE LABS: Ghanaat Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Information
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Carroll Class Certification Gets Final OK
OUR OWN CANDLE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
P.F. CHANG'S: Cookson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
PANERA LLC: Ladonski Sues Over Deceptive and Untruthful Promises
PARTNERS BANCORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Linkbancorp Sale
PATREON INC: Court Dismisses in Part Stark's 1st Amended Complaint
PEPSICO INC: Gumner Sues Over Unlawful Marketing
PFLUG PACKAGING: Bahena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PISA GROUP: Court Certifies TCPA Class Action Suit
PRO CUSTOM: Ct. Adopts Recommendations to Certify Class in Murrell
R&L CARRIERS: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Johnson
RAGAN & RAGAN: Class Action Settlement in Rubino Gets Final OK
RCX LLC: Cline-Thomas Bid to Dismiss Class Action Tossed
REALPAGE INC: Deadline Suspended to Respond to Complaint
RELIANCE FIRST: Bid to Dismiss Davis Complaint Nixed
RICE DRILLING: Court Resets Class Certification Hearing in J&R
RIVERBEND OIL & GAS: Black Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mark Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Murray Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
SANTA MONICA, CA: Scheduling Order Entered in Murcia Class Suit
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Order Continuing Hearing Entered
SCRANTON QUINCY HOSPITAL: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fernandez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Scheduling Order Entered in Evans Class Suit
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: O'Keefe Sues Over Cryptocurrency Exchange Fraud
SETTON PISTACHIO: Judge Recommends Denial of Ali Class Cert. Bid
SIG SAUER: Court Tosses Ortiz Bid for Class Certification
SMUGGLER LLC: Costa FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Bid to Compel Astrom's Claims Granted
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Drummond Suit
SRG GLOBAL COATINGS: Peeler Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
ST. JOHN KNITS: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Ostrovskaya
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Jones Complaint
STATE FARM: M&M Rental Sues Over Underpaying Policyholders
STONEWALL KITCHEN: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUTTER HEALTH: Lockhart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SYNCHRONY BANK: Williams FCRA Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
SYNGENTA CROP: Status Conference in Generic Class Suit Set April 6
TASTE INC: Jarrell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
TASTY PALATE: Hsu Sues to Recover Unpaid Tips and Minimum Wages
TAXACT INC: Smith-Washington Suit Removed to N.D. California
TESLA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 28, 2023
TESLA INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Autopilot Tech
TJ INSPECTION: Cox Sues to Recover Unpaid Lost Wages
TMONE LLC: Randolph Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
TOM VILSACK: Chen Files Suit in S.D. New York
TOP QUALITY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TRIAD HUNTER: Starcher Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
TRUGREEN LP: Motion to Strike TCPA Class Action Granted
TWITTER INC: Weitzman Data Breach Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
UNITED PARCEL: Rietheimer Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo.
UNITED STATES: $1.175-M Deal in Immigration Suit Granted Final OK
UNITED STATES: Class Action Filed v. ICE Over Alleged Retaliation
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Levine Seeks to Certify Class of Asst. Managers
WALDORF ASTORIA: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Violations
WALGREENS CO: Reaches $54.1-Bil. Prelim. Settlement in Opioid Suit
WASHINGTON COUNTY, AL: Lang Files Bid for Class Certification
WASHINGTON: Reaches Settlement for Youth in Foster Care
WHITE CASTLE: Court Rules Claims Accrue Under BIPA in Cothron Suit
YALE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Checks Sent to 6,000 Union Workers
ZIPRECRUITER INC: Approval of Settlement Deal Pending
*********
116 WEST HOUSTON: Faces Worrapong Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
POONYA AUP PAPHAT WORRAPONG A/K/A PAUL, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 116 WEST HOUSTON
CHEFSCAPE NYC LLC (D/B/A THAIMEE LOVE) and HONG THAIMEE A/K/A
NGAMPROM THAIMEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01432 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 21, 2023) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
violations of the New York Labor Law, and the spread of hours and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs.
Plaintiff Worrapong was employed as a cook and server at the
Defendants' restaurant located in New York from approximately June
8, 2022 until on or about October 2, 2022.
The Defendants own and operate a New York-based Thai restaurant
under the name "Thaimee Love."[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
A.B. BAKERY RESTAURANT: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Reyes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. A.B. BAKERY RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a JACQUELINE'S BAKERY
RESTAURANT, R&R 1579 BAKERY CORP. d/b/a JACQUELINE'S LOUNGE, and
REYNALDO BRAVO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01612 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023),
is brought pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages,
including overtime, due to a fixed salary; unpaid spread of hours
premium; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys'
fees and costs.
Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was
not always paid the overtime premium of one-and-one-half times
their regular rate of pay for their hours worked in excess of forty
per week due to an improper fixed salary as required under the FLSA
and NYLL. The Plaintiff regularly worked days that exceeded ten
hours in length, but the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members the spread of hours premium for
workdays that exceeded ten hours in length. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying the Plaintiff the proper overtime wages at a rate that
is at least one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of forty per workweek due to paying a fixed
salary in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a baker for
the Defendants' Bakery.
The Defendants own and operate a bakery and bar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
AG CONSULTING: Kovalez, et al., Seek Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN KOVALEV and MINTIWAB
HILL, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly-Situated, v.
A.G. CONSULTING ENGINEERING, P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-05954-MKV
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for conditional certification and authorizing
Plaintiffs to issue notice of this action to all field employees
who worked for Defendant within the last 3 years.
The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated field employees were
misclassified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
did not receive pay at a rate of time-and-a-half for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a week, and were not paid for off-the-clock
work.
The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification on behalf of all
field employees who were paid on an hourly rate, and either did not
receive overtime pay at time and a half, or received no
compensation for hours worked off-the-clock.
Once the Defendant has produced collective action members' names
and contact information and notices have been issued, collective
action members should have a 90-day window to return a signed
opt-in consent form. Courts routinely approve a 90-day opt-in
period.
The Plaintiffs worked as field employees for Defendant A.G.
Consulting Engineering.
The Defendant is a professional engineering firm that employes over
60 employees providing services for federal, state, and city
agencies and for the private sector.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J3Y4mN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
elechtzin@edelson-law.com
- and -
James A. Wells, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (717) 585-7823
E-mail: jayw@capozziadler.com
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Loera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
----------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Loera, Jr. and Charlotte Daniels, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a political
subdivision of the State of California, Case No. 4:23-cv-00792
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's
failure to pay Sheriff's Safety Aides assigned to work shifts at
the Oakland International Airport, including the Plaintiffs, for
all of their overtime hours worked.
The Defendant has maintained a policy, plan, and/or practice of
requiring Sheriff's Safety Aides to work uncompensated overtime.
During the relevant time period, Defendant has required Sheriff's
Safety Aides to arrive at a station at least 15 minutes before
their scheduled shifts to perform job duties. The Defendant has
also required Sheriff's Safety Aides to perform work after the end
of their scheduled shifts. The Defendant's uniform policy, plan,
and/or practice results in Sheriff's Safety Aides regularly working
30 minutes or more of uncompensated time per shift, which typically
amounts to more than two-hours of uncompensated overtime per week
per employee. The Defendant was aware, or should have been aware,
that Plaintiffs and similarly situated Sheriff's Safety Aides
performed work that required payment of overtime compensation, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Sheriff's Safety
Aides for the Alameda County Sheriff's Office.
County of Alameda is a government entity in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sharon R. Vinick, Esq.
LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 318-7700
Fax: (510) 318-7701
Email: sharon@levyvinick.com
- and -
Rachel Terp, Esq.
TERP LAW
2831 Telegraph Avenue
Oakland, CA 94609
Phone: (510) 550-5103
Email: rachel@terplaw.com
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Rosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Medical
Response of Inland, et al. The case is styled as Sharde Rosa, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. American Medical Response of Inland, American Medical Response
of San Diego, Inc., American Medical Response of Southern
California, American Medical Response West, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2023-00335120-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb.
22, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
American Medical Response is America's leading provider of medical
transportation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
APPLE INC: Robinson Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Barry Robinson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00877 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on Feb. 22, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00795-NC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Harris Markowitz, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jordan Scott Joachim, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING
620 8th Ave., 42nd Floor, #4204A
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 841-1086
Email: jjoachim@cov.com
- and -
Kathryn Cahoy, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: (650) 632-4700
Email: kcahoy@cov.com
ASCENSION HEALTH: Illinois Nurses File Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Halleman, writing for HealthcareDive, reports that four
Illinois nurses have filed a federal class action lawsuit against
Ascension Health, alleging that the system failed to pay correct
wage amounts while the defendants were employed at Ascension's
Illinois-based Saint Joseph hospital.
The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, pointed to
Ascension's cost-cutting practices more broadly, claiming that the
Missouri-based nonprofit Catholic health system engages in "a
variety of improper cost-cutting practices" in order to maximize
its revenue and executive compensation, despite having $18 billion
in cash reserves.
The class action suit comes after The New York Times reported that
Ascension had spent years cutting its staffing levels in an effort
to trim costs before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dive Insight:
The class action lawsuit, citing the NYT report, alleges that
Ascension's "improper" cost-cutting measures, including cutting its
nursing staff by 23% over the past five years, led to complex nurse
payment structures as the health system attempted to incentivize
nurses to "work longer hours to make up for the staff shortages."
The lawsuit alleges that as a result the defendant nurses, all
former and current employees at Joliet, Illinois-based Ascension
Saint Joseph, experienced "regular and repeated" compensation
errors, which Ascension did not contest but still failed to pay.
The undercompensation is "systemic" and may have impacted "dozens,
perhaps hundreds," of hospital employees, according to the
lawsuit.
Ascension failed to compensate one of the lawsuit's defendants,
former interventional radiology nurse Desiree Lehr, over $2,000 in
incentive shift pay, in addition to another $762.50 that was
discovered during the course of the lawsuit investigation,
according to the suit.
Another defendant, a current psychiatric nurse at Ascension, has
still failed to receive her contractually obligated raise intended
to go into effect July 11, 2022, according to the suit.
In a statement to Healthcare Dive, a spokesperson for Ascension
said that the system recently became aware of the litigation and
was looking into the issues raised.
"We pride ourselves on paying every associate a fair wage," the
spokesperson said.
The federal lawsuit is the latest spotlight on the nation's
hospitals, especially nonprofits, as systems reckon with dismal
financial outlooks heading into this year.
In September, the NYT reported another investigation, which found
that one of the nation's largest healthcare systems, Providence
Health, routinely pressured patients into paying their medical
bills -- even if they were eligible for financial assistance. [GN]
ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATC Healthcare
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ATC Healthcare
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01531 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ATC Healthcare -- https://atchealthcare.com/ -- has provided
leading nurses and healthcare professionals to hospitals and
facilities nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
AUSTIN CARD: Hess Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hess, and others similarly situated v. AUSTIN CARD ROOM, LLC,
and RYAN CROW, Case No. 1:23-cv-00209 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 24, 2023),
is brought against the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees the appropriate overtime wages,
minimum wage, and unlawfully retaining tips in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff and others similarly situated, occupied the position
of "Card Dealer;" did not hold a position considered as exempt
under the FLSA; were paid on an hourly basis; had tips retained by
the Defendants; were paid below the then-current minimum wage; and,
did not receive the appropriate overtime pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a week.
The Defendants retained 12% of the tips earned by the Plaintiff and
all other Card Dealers and distributed 5/6 of the retained tips to
management and supervisors. The remaining 1/6 of the retained tips
were split amongst other coworkers that were not dealing poker.
Despite retaining a portion of dealers' tips, the Defendants
claimed a tip credit. Such an arrangement is prohibited under the
FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 21, 2019
to July 29, 2022 as a Card Dealer.
The Defendants operate a card-room enterprise in Austin,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
ROSS • SCALISE LAW GROUP
1104 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 474-7677
Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Willner Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cozette Willner, in her individual capacity, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America
Corporation, Early Warning Services, LLC DBA Zellepay.com, DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV01554 was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Feb. 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01430 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The Bank of America Corporation -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/--
is an American multinational investment bank and financial services
holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate
Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew D. Benedetto, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-5300
Fax: (213) 443-5400
Email: matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com
BIOSKIN LASER: Polanco Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Viktoryia Polanco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BIOSKIN LASER LLC and BIOSKIN LASER II LLC,
and SANTA VAYNSHENKER, as an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-01525
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought to recover damages for the
Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour
laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws
arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages.
Although Plaintiff regularly worked 60 hours or more hours each
week, from July 2018 until March 2020, the Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours
regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Although
Plaintiff returned July 2021 and worked until October 2021, the
Plaintiff generally did not work in excess of 40 hours during this
period. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL
and the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an esthetician
while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.
BIOSKIN LASER LLC and BIOSKIN LASER II LLC, are both New York
domestic business corporations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
BLACKSTONE LABS: Tabai Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Tabai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-002290 (Fla.
17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), and
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act "FTSA"), as a result of the
Defendant's unsolicited text message marketing,
The Defendant engages in unsolicited text message marketing,
including to individuals who have registered their telephone
numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have
not provided Defendant with their prior express consent as required
by the FTSA. Defendant's unsolicited text message spam caused
Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their
statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their
privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion. Defendant's text messages
also occupied storage space on Plaintiffs and the Class members'
telephones. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
unlawful actions of Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that
received telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant sells and distributes fitness supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jen@jibraellaw.com
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Dixson Sues Over Discrimination on Disabled Persons
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Dixson, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, BDF ACQUISITION CORP.,
Case No. 23STCV04099 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 24,
2023), is brought on behalf of a Class of mobility
impaired/wheelchair bound persons, alleging that the Defendants are
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the
anti-discrimination state statutes of California, Unruh Civil
Rights Act ("Unruh Act") and the California Disabled Persons Act
("CDPA").
On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff patronized the Bob's Furniture
located at 16242 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA to purchase a
Southwick Curio Cabinet and suffered discrimination as a result of
being denied full and equal access. Specifically, this store denied
Plaintiff equal access because it did not provide an accessible
parking lot and/or restroom.
First, Plaintiff was deterred from parking in a handicap-accessible
parking space because the parking lot did not have an adequate
number of accessible and/or van-accessible parking spaces, nor did
the parking lot provide accessible parking signage and/or
additional signs or language below the symbol of accessibility
stating "minimum fine $250.00" so as to deter the use of handicap
accessible parking spaces by those persons who are not disabled. As
a result, Plaintiff was unable to park in a handicap accessible
parking space.
Once inside the store, Plaintiff was denied equal access to the
store's restroom. Initially, Plaintiff was unable to access the
restroom without assistance due to the excessive force required by
him to open the restroom door, and because the restroom door closer
is not adjusted to allow the bathroom door to remain open for at
least 3 seconds, making it not possible for him to wheel himself
inside, unassisted.
Once inside restroom, Plaintiff was deterred from using the
facilities because the toilet was situated such that Plaintiff was
not afforded enough stall room space to maneuver his wheelchair
and/or make transfer from his wheelchair to the toilet. As a
result, Plaintiff was deterred from using the restroom.
In an attempt to avoid litigation, the Plaintiff provided notice
and the opportunity to cure to Defendants. On November 18, 2022,
the Plaintiff sent a letter to the store manager of the 16242 Beach
Blvd., Huntington Beach Bob's Furniture location informing him/her
that this store is not accessible to him for the above reasons,
that he was aware of similar accessibility barriers at other Bob's
Furniture locations, and asking that these problems be fixed within
30 days. Plaintiff did not seek any monies or statutory damages in
his letter. Plaintiff received no response to his November 18,
2022, letter. As a result, he is now being deterred from
patronizing all of Defendants' California locations, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and requires a wheelchair to move
about and has visited and patronized Bob's Furniture stores within
the State of California.
The Defendants operate as many as 16 stores in the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH
9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (877) 534-2590
Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
BRAIDWOODS LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Braidwoods, LLC. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Braidwoods, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01472
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Braidwood LLC is a company that operates in the Management
Consulting industry.[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
BRIGHT HORIZONS: Rutter Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHELSEA RUTTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY
SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN'S CENTERS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-00002-19810-9-SEA, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of
King to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington at Seattle on Feb. 21, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00233 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this class action to remedy Bright Horizons'
widespread violations of Washington's protections against the use
of noncompetition covenants, which keep Bright Horizons childcare
workers trapped in their jobs, depress their wages, and rob them of
an important source of bargaining power, asserts the complaint.
Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. provides private childcare,
backup care, and early childhood education for children at various
locations throughout the United States, including operating
approximately thirty childcare centers in Washington.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Derek Bishop, Esq.
Rebecca Schach, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3122
Telephone: (206) 623-3300
Facsimile: (206) 447-6965
E-mail: debishop@littler.com
rschach@littler.com
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Indigenous Women Sterilizations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit
accuses the British Columbia government of "sexism and genocide"
over a decades-long practice of coercing Indigenous women into
sterilization and abortions.
The lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court says the province had a law
on the books sanctioning sterilizations for 40 years before it was
repealed in 1973, though the procedures allegedly continued
afterward.
The notice of civil claim says the practice had a "traumatic and
destructive effect" that inflicted harm on Indigenous women and
their communities and was aimed at "eradicating" their culture.
One lead plaintiff in the case says she was handed paperwork
authorizing doctors to tie her tubes for no "valid medical reason"
just moments before a caesarean section procedure in 1983 at a
hospital in Campbell River.
The woman, now in her 60s, says she was left traumatized and
untrusting of doctors after being sterilized without proper
consent, racked with guilt about the child "she might have had" if
not for the procedure.
The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court and
the province has yet to file a response to the claim.
The case was prepared by a pair of law firms, Cooper Regal in
Alberta, and Murphy Battista in B.C.
In a statement announcing the lawsuit released shortly after
filing, lead plaintiff Lorraine Davis said the case is about being
heard after years of silence and holding the province accountable.
"It's always difficult to speak truth to power but the province
must acknowledge what happened to me and others," Davis said.
"Never again can this be allowed to happen."
Stephanie Roy, another lead plaintiff in the case, said the lawsuit
is about "basic human rights" and the need for people to know their
province's blighted history.
For years and years, silence has hurt me and so many others. My
unborn child was taken away from me, against my will," Roy said.
"Now I am coming forward, to speak up."
Lawyer Stephen Cooper said in the statement that the lawsuit
highlights Canada's "oppressive colonial approach to the Indigenous
population."
"Forced and coerced sterilization and abortion is yet another
shameful chapter in Canada's past attempts to subjugate and
assimilate the First Peoples of this country," Cooper said.
The class seeks certification by the court and damages for Charter
violations.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 24,
2023. [GN]
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Vickers Sues Over Deceptive Promises
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lachae Vickers, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01440
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought to seek actual damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and an injunction to prevent Caesars
Sportsbook from continuing to engage in their illegal practices of
false and misleading representations and deceptive promises.
Caesars Sportsbook has become an industry leader in part by making
untruthful and deceptive promises to lure new bettors;
specifically, by advertising that the company will provide new
users with a $1,000 or $1,250 or even $5,000 "free bet," "risk-free
bet," or a specified amount "on Caesars." But these promises are
far from the truth: the bet is not in any respect "free" or without
risk. The Plaintiff and other consumers would not have signed up
for and made a so-called "free" or "risk-free" bet with Caesars
Sportsbook in the absence of these deceptive promises.
Large-scale marketing of Caesars Sportsbook by the Defendant,
including in television and print advertisements, in-arena
marketing, and extensive internet and social media advertising, are
and have been led with the false "free bet," "risk-free bet" and a
specified amount "on Caesars" promises. Those advertisements
contain materially deceptive representations while omitting any
warnings regarding the acute and immediate risk that an initial bet
is not without risk and not, in fact, "free." Those representations
and omissions, which Plaintiff relied upon, are false and
misleading.
These marketing representations and omissions violate state
consumer protection law and violate the duty of care owed.
Consumers, including Plaintiff, were fraudulently induced to place
bets with Caesars Sportsbook because of its misrepresentations. The
Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by signing up for
and using Caesars Sportsbook for so-called "free" or "risk-free"
initial bets that actually cost them money. The Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of themself, and the putative Classes,
because the Plaintiff should not be responsible for monetary losses
incurred because of bets that were promised to be "risk free" and
"free," says the complaint.
The Plaintiff signed up for Caesars Sportsbook.
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. is a gambling and entertainment company
with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street N W, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: 305-975-3320
Email: adam@edelsberglaw.com
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-00520-ELH (D. Md., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought against
Carnival for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors
to its website, www.carnival.com, in violation of the Maryland
Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act and constitutes an
invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors.
Carnival procures third-party vendors, such as Microsoft
Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code
("Session Replay Code") on Carnival's website, which then deploys
on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose
intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic
communications with the Carnival website, including their mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an
information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time ("Website
Communications"). These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session
Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at
Carnival's request.
After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications,
Carnival and the Session Replay Providers use those Website
Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.carnival.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video
replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to
Carnival for analysis. Carnival's procurement of the Session Replay
Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results is the
electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each
visitor to the Carnival website for the entire duration of their
website interaction.
While visiting Carnival's website, Plaintiff fell victim to
Defendant's unlawful monitoring, recording, and collection of
Plaintiff's Website Communications with www.carnival.com. Unknown
to Plaintiff, Carnival procures and embeds Session Replay Code on
its website. During her visit to Carnival's website, the Session
Replay Code instantaneously captured her Website Communications
throughout her visit. Indeed, through Carnival's procurement of
Session Replay Code, Plaintiff's Website Communications were
automatically and secretly intercepted while using Carnival's
website. Further, without her consent, Carnival procured Session
Replay Providers to obtain certain information about her device,
browser, and create a unique ID and profile for her. The Plaintiff
and Class Members did not provide prior consent to Carnival's
interception of their Website Communications, nor could they, as
the interception begins immediately upon arriving at
www.carnival.com.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all Maryland citizens whose Website Communications were
intercepted through Carnival's procurement and use of Session
Replay Code embedded on www.carnival.com, as well as its subpages,
and seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of action,
including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has visited www.carnival.com and certain of its
subpages on her computer while in Maryland.
Carnival is a cruise line that offers cruise vacations throughout
the United States and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10034
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
111 W. Washington, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Email: katrina@lcllp.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: 610.234.6486
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
CATALENT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that
purchasers or acquirers of Catalent, Inc. (NYSE: CTLT) securities
between August 30, 2021 and October 31, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until April 25, 2023 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Catalent class action lawsuit. Captioned City of
Warwick Retirement System v. Catalent, Inc., No. 23-cv-01108
(D.N.J.), the Catalent class action lawsuit charges Catalent and
certain of Catalent's current and former top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Catalent class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-catalent-inc-class-action-lawsuit-ctlt.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Catalent is a multinational corporation that
manufactures and packages drugs into delivery devices fit for human
consumption pursuant to long-term supply contracts with
pharmaceutical companies.
The Catalent class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Catalent materially overstated
its revenue and earnings by prematurely recognizing revenue in
violation of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"); (ii) Catalent had material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting related to revenue recognition;
(iii) Catalent falsely represented demand for its products while it
knowingly sold more products to its direct customers than could be
sold to healthcare providers and end consumers; and (iv) Catalent
disregarded regulatory rules at key production facilities in order
to rapidly produce excess inventory that was used to pad Catalent's
financial results through premature revenue recognition in
violation of GAAP and/or stuffing its direct customers with excess
inventory.
On August 29, 2022, Catalent disclosed that demand for its
COVID-related products was facing substantial headwinds. On this
news, the price of Catalent's stock price declined more than 7%.
Then, on September 20, 2022, the Washington Post reported that the
release of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Catalent had been delayed
by regulators because of improper sterilization at one of
Catalent's key facilities. On this news, Catalent's stock price
declined by more than 9%.
Finally, on November 1, 2022, Catalent revealed that its quarterly
earnings had declined to zero and Catalent lowered its financial
guidance, indicating falling demand. Catalent also disclosed that
regulatory issues at its key facilities were negatively impacting
its financial results. On this news, Catalent stock declined by
more than 31%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Catalent securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Catalent class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Catalent
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Catalent class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Catalent class
action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS
Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering
nearly $2 billion for investors in 2021 - more than triple the
amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in
9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms
in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion -
in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page
for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Caro Sues Over Massive Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Caro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-01113 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought seeking to
redress Defendant's unlawful and negligent disclosure of
approximately 617,000 CentraState patients' Sensitive Information
in a massive data breach that occurred on or before December 29,
2022 (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"), in violation of state
statutory and common law.
The Plaintiff and other Class Members are individuals whose
Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Personal Health
Information ("PHI"; collectively with PII, the "Personal
Information")--including name, date of birth, Social Security
number, driver's license number, financial account information,
health insurance policy number, Medical Record Number, Medicaid or
Medicare ID, and health information such as treatment and
diagnostic information--was compromised due to the Defendant's
failure to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect
such information in the Defendant's custody and control. The
Defendant's inadequate security measures allowed unauthorized
individuals to access the Defendant's computer network and obtain a
copy of the Plaintiff's and other Class Members' Personal
Information.
On February 8, 2023, CentraState announced that their patients'
information was part of the Data Breach. The Defendant has a duty
to safeguard and protect customer information entrusted to them and
could have prevented this theft with adequate security measures.
The Plaintiff and Class Members entrusted the Defendant with, and
allowed the Defendant to gather, highly sensitive information
relating to their health and other matters as part of seeking
medical treatment. They did so in confidence, and they had the
legitimate expectation that the Defendant would respect their
privacy and act appropriately, including only sharing their
information with vendors and business associates who were equipped
to protect it.
As a result of the Defendant's failure to protect the consumer
information they were entrusted with safeguarding, the Plaintiff
and Class Members suffered a loss of the value of their Personal
Information--and have been exposed to or are at imminent and
significant risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other
identity-related fraud into the indefinite future. Defendant's
intentional, willful, reckless, unfair, and negligent
conduct--failing to prevent the breach, failing to limit its
severity, and failing to detect it in a timely fashion--harmed the
Plaintiff and Class Members uniformly, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received medical services from the Defendant and
supplied the Defendant with her Personal Information as a
precondition for receiving such care.
CentraState, based in Freehold, New Jersey, is a private, not-for
profit health organization established in 1971 that serves New
Jersey patients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 228-9898
Fax: 973-228-0303
Email: mrm@mazieslater.com
- and -
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: 914-298-3284
Fax: 914-908-6722
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Health Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action accuses CentraState Healthcare System and
Executive Director of Health Information Management and Privacy
Officer Shaunna Ellison of failing to protect patients' personal
data from a December 2022 cyberattack.
According to the 46-page lawsuit, the computer system used by the
New Jersey-based healthcare provider was infiltrated by an
unauthorized third party on or around December 29, compromising the
sensitive data of CentraState's patients and their families. The
suit relays that the personal and medical information accessed in
the data breach included, but is not limited to, patients' names,
home addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers, email addresses,
demographic information, medical record numbers, patient account
numbers and treatment details.
The case charges that the highly sensitive data in CentraState's
medical record systems was stored in a "vulnerable" and "dangerous
condition," and that the cyberattack occurred as a result of the
defendants' failure to implement adequate cybersecurity practices
to protect it.
What's more, the complaint claims that CentraState was well-aware
of the threat of a ransomware attack given that the highly valuable
nature of the information stored in its systems and prevalence of
data breaches in the medical industry.
The plaintiff, a Georgia resident and former patient, received
notice on February 8, 2023, that her personal information had been
compromised in the data breach, the filing says.
CentraState's "reckless" and "wrongful" conduct and the resultant
cyberattack have put the plaintiff and other victims at an
"imminent, immediate and continuing . . . risk of identity theft,
identity fraud and medical fraud," the case contends.
The lawsuit looks to represent any current or former patients of
CentraState, or any of its affiliates, who had their personal
information compromised by an unknown third party as a result of
the December 2022 data breach. [GN]
CENTRIC HEALTH: Cordova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centric Health. The
case is styled as Tania Diane Cordova, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Centric Health, Case No.
BCV-23-100571 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 23, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Centric Health -- https://www.centrichealth.ie/ -- provides Primary
Healthcare Services to over 550,000 patients across Ireland each
year.[BN]
CHRISTMAS MOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Christmas Mouse,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Christmas Mouse, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-01519 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Christmas Mouse -- https://www.christmasmouse.com/ -- offers
Christmas ornaments, Christmas decorations and collectibles.[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
CIRCLES OF CARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Circles of Care's
Negligence to Blame for 2022 Data Breach, Class Action Claims. A
class action lawsuit claims that Circle of Care's inadequate
cybersecurity measures resulted in a cyberattack in September 2022
that affected about 61,170 patients. A proposed class action
lawsuit claims that Circle of Care's inadequate cybersecurity
measures resulted in a cyberattack in September 2022 that affected
about 61,170 patients.
The 45-page complaint says that the network servers of the
prominent Florida-based behavioral health care provider were hacked
by data thieves on September 6, resulting in the exposure of
patients' personal information. Per the suit, patients' full names,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, home addresses, phone
numbers, driver's license numbers, bank account details, medical
account numbers, provider names, service dates, diagnoses and
medical procedure codes were among the compromised data.
In its privacy policy, Circles of Care recognizes its legal
obligation to protect the personal data stored in its network and
promises to do so with utmost care, the suit says. Despite these
assurances, the health care organization failed to implement basic
cybersecurity procedures and "ultimately allowed nefarious
third-party hackers to breach [its] data servers," the case
charges.
As the filing contends, Circles of Care "opted to maintain an
insufficient and inadequate [cybersecurity] system" in spite of the
frequency of ransomware attacks in recent years, particularly
within the healthcare industry.
What's more, the defendant also purportedly failed to notify
victims of the data breach until weeks after the incident, which
only "magnified" the damages for those affected, the complaint
claims.
Per the suit, the plaintiffs, both Florida residents and former
patients, received notice on December 29, 2022, that their personal
information had been compromised in the data breach. As a result of
the cyberattack, the plaintiffs now face an "imminent, immediate,
and continuing risk of harm" from medical fraud, identity theft,
and other illegal schemes for years to come, the case states.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
received a notice informing them that their personal information
had been exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of
Circles of Care's September 2022 data breach. [GN]
CREDIT COLLECTION: Lackey Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection
Services. The case is styled as Kaila Lackey, on behalf of Herself
and all others similarly situated v. Credit Collection Services,
Case No. 2382CV00183 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., Feb. 23,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts.
Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a
nationally licensed provider of customized, performance-driven
receivables management services that was founded in 1989.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth Easley Apostola, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW, LLC
660 Broadway
Patterson, NJ 07514
CULTURAL ELEMENTS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cultural Elements,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Cultural Elements, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01476 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cultural Elements -- https://www.culturalelements.com/ -- produce
and offer culturally inspired jewelry and decoration items.[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
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health
Corporation. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Health
Corporation, Case No. 0:23-cv-00442-PAM-DTS (D. Minn., Feb. 22,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CVS Health Corporation -- https://www.cvshealth.com/ -- is an
American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail
pharmacy chain; CVS Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager; and
Aetna, a health insurance provider, among many other brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Fax: (763) 226-2515
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
- and -
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
St. Michael, MN 55330
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
D.W.M. INTERNATIONAL: Wang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Quanbin Wang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. D.W.M. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION d/b/a Friendship BBQ;
WEIMING DU a/k/a Wei Ming Du, and HONG YAN ZHANG a/k/a Hongyan
Zhang, Case No. 8:23-cv-00491-AAQ (D. Md., Feb. 22, 2023), is
brought to recover from the Defendants overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and/or attorneys' fees and costs, for violations of the
Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law ("MWCPL") and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law
("MWHL") arising from the Defendants various willful, malicious,
and unlawful policies, patterns and/or practices.
The Defendants did not keep any records of the Plaintiff's working
time. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment he was paid a flat
compensation of four thousand two hundred dollars per month. The
Plaintiff flat compensation did not include pay for any hours
worked in a week beyond the 40th hour. The Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiff a wage state statement with each payment of
wages listing the following: the dates of work covered by that
payment of wages; his name; his employer's name, address, and
telephone number; his regular and overtime rates of pay and the
bases thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary,
piece, commission, or other; her gross wages; any deductions from
her wages; any allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage; and
his net wages. The Defendants committed the foregoing acts
knowingly, intentionally, willfully and maliciously against the
Plaintiff, the collective and the class, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from about December
10, 2019 to July 18, 2021 to work as a Fry Wok at Defendants
business known as "Friendship BBQ."
DWM International Corporation is a domestic business
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Phone: (718) 762-1324
DABUR INTERNATIONAL: Rose Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carla G. Rose, Dollie Dillon, Theresa L.
Baldwin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Dabur International Ltd., Namaste Laboratories LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-02686 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 22, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01051 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Dabur International Limited -- https://www.daburinternational.com/
-- was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes the
manufacturing of soap and other detergents.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hannah Pfeifler, Esq.
Jennifer Hoekstra, Esq.
Ephraim S. Geisler, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: HPfeifler@awkolaw.com
JHoekstra@awkolaw.com
sgeisler@awkolaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Donna M. Welch, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 862-2000
Email: dwelch@kirkland.com
DARTMOUTH CO-OPERATIVE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dartmouth
Co-operative Society, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dartmouth
Co-operative Society, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01568 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dartmouth Co-operative Society, Inc. --
https://www.dartmouthcoop.com/ -- is the premier Dartmouth College
gear store with all the best spirit wear and accessories.[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
DECKER AND SONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Decker and Sons, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Decker and Sons, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01574 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Decker and Sons, Inc. -- https://www.deckersons.com/ -- is a
locally owned appliance & electronics retailer.[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
DEL MONTE FOODS: Bryan Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerstine Bryan, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00865-KAW (N.D.
Cal., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's
deceptive and misleading practices with respect to its marketing
and sale of its food products (collectively, the "Product" or
"Products").
Despite the representations made on the Products' labels which lead
reasonable consumers to believe that the Products are "natural,"
they are not. The brand has grown significantly, and this growth
was not by accident. Rather, it developed from specifically
targeting the "natural" market with intense focus. Defendant's
marketing efforts stress the purported "natural" composition of
their Products. Notably, the principal display panel of all of the
Products states that the Products are "Naturals." The word
"Naturals" is a representation to a reasonable consumer that the
Product contains only natural ingredients. This represents that the
Product is "natural" to consumers. Reasonable consumers, including
Plaintiff, interpret "natural" to mean that the product does not
include synthetic ingredients.
Despite this representation, the Products are not natural because
they include multiple synthetic ingredients. Specifically, the
Products contain the following synthetic ingredients: Citric Acid,
Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, and Methylcellulose Gum. The
Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentations that the
Products are "natural" when purchasing the Products. Reasonable
consumers purchased the Products believing, among other things,
that they were accurately represented. Specifically, reasonable
consumers believed that the Products contained accurate label
information and representations. Reasonable consumers would not
have purchased the Products if they had known about the
misrepresentations or would have purchased them on different terms,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Oregon who purchased the Products.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells its Products
throughout the United States including the States of Oregon and
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 274-4663
Email: jrg@ggallp.com
- and -
Amir Shenaq, Esq.
SHENAQ PC
3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500
Atlanta GA 30326
Phone: (888) 909-9993
Email: amir@shenaqpc.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste 102
Pittsburgh PA 15212
Phone: (888) 412-5291
Email: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
DLOCAL LIMITED: Zappia Sues Over Materially Misleading Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Zappia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DLOCAL LIMITED, SEBASTIAN KANOVICH, DIEGO CABRERA
CANAY, ALBERTO EDUARDO AZAR, ANDRES BZUROVSKI BAY, SERGIO ENRIQUE
FOGEL KAPLAN, JACOBO SINGER, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN
SACHS & CO. LLC, CITI GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., and UBS,
Case No. 151778/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired DLocal securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about June 22, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act"), arising from DLocal's materially
misleading Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO.
On May 5, 2021, DLocal filed a registration statement on Form F-1
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the IPO, which, after amendment, was declared
effective on June 2, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). On June
4, 2021, DLocal filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in
connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").
On that same day, DLocal conducted the IPO pursuant to the Offering
Documents, issuing 29,411,765 Class A common shares of the
Company's securities to the public at the Offering price of $21.00
per share, of which approximately $87,088,241 went to the Company
as proceeds before expenses and after applicable underwriting
discounts and commissions.
The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents
were false or misleading or failed to disclose that: DLocal was
misrepresenting its Total Processing Volume ("TPV"); and DLocal
misrepresented its foreign currency receivables, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired DLocal securities pursuant and/or traceable
to the Offering Documents.
DLocal purports to be an online payments manager in emerging
markets facilitating currency conversions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Joshua E. Fruchter
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
Monsey, NY 10952
Phone: 866-833-6245
Email: ifruchter@wohlfruchter.com
DNC PARKS: Perez Class Cert Bid Reset to March 27
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perez v. DNC Parks &
Resorts at Asilomar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00484 (E.D.
Cal., Filed April 12, 2019), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone
entered an order resetting motion to certify class for March 27,
2023 at 1:30 PM, to April 5 2023 at 10:00 AM.
The nature of suit states labor litigation.[CC]
DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Wins Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelli Salazar, et al., v.
Driver Provider Phoenix LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order that the
Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class certification be granted on
Claim III of the Fourth Amended Complaint, violation of the Arizona
Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), and denied without prejudice as moot on
Claim II of the Fourth Amended Complaint in violation of the
Arizona Wage Act ("AWA").
The Court further ordered:
(a) The Rule 23 Count III Claim is hereby certified as a
class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) with
respect to the following class:
"All current and former employees of The Driver Provider
who performed chauffeur services in Arizona at any time
from December 6, 2016 to the present."
Excluded from the class are all owners, managers,
supervisors, dispatchers, or other employees whose
primary job responsibilities were not the provision of
chauffeur services.
(b) The named Plaintiffs are appointed class representatives
for purposes of the Rule 23 Class claims alleged in Count
III of the Fourth Amended Complaint.
(c) The law firm of Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. is appointed
Class Counsel for purposes of the Rule 23 Class claims
alleged in Count III of the Fourth Amended Complaint.
(d) Within 14 days after entry of this Order, the Defendants
shall provide the Plaintiff's Counsel with a list of all
current and former employees and workers as described by
Paragraph (a) that includes the names, position(s) held,
employment dates, employment location(s), the entity for
whom the employee worked or works, the last known
address, e-mail address, telephone number(s) (home and
cell, if applicable), date of birth, and social security
number (the "Rule 23 List").
The Court finds that Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. has the necessary
experience in employment, wage and hour, and class action
litigation to represent this class, has committed the necessary
resources to this litigation, and has sufficiently demonstrated
their capability to understand the law and claims at hand. The
Court thus certifies Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. as Class Counsel.
Driver Provider is a car rental company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KM8BEu at no extra charge.[CC]
DUNGARVIN OHIO: Second Joint Bid for Conditional Cert. OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORA DUVALL, et al., v.
DUNGARVIN OHIO, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03372-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order granting
the second joint motion for conditional certification and to
approve the Parties' proposed notice and consent.
The Court hereby conditionally certifies the following collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
"All Ohio current and former hourly Direct Support
Professional ("DSP") employees (including those with
different titles whose primary job function was to perform
DSP duties) of Dungarvin Ohio, LLC (including anyone who
allegedly was employed by another Dungarvin entity) who
(i) worked in Ohio;
(ii) were paid for 40 or more hours of work in any workweek
since February 1, 2020; and
(iii) traveled to multiple clients' homes within the same
day during such workweek(s) ("Potential Opt-Ins").
The Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel a list (in
Microsoft Office Excel format) containing the names, last known
addresses (including zip code), cellular telephone numbers, and
personal email addresses (to the extent that the Defendants have
email addresses) of/for the Potential Opt-Ins within 14 days of the
date of this Order.
Dungarvin Ohio provides a variety of supports to children and
adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L06gWT at no extra charge.[CC]
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Gomez, et al., Seek FLSA Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE GONZALEZ GOMEZ, On
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. EPIC
LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Case No. 2:22-cv-02198-JAR-ADM (D.
Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying a class, composed of:
"all current and former lawn and landscape workers, who
worked for the Defendants at any time from three years and
120 days from the date of the Court's Order certifying
the action to the Present;"
2. Requiring the expedited issuance of the notice form as set
forth in Exhibit D to those class members, and setting a
deadline of 90 days after the date of the Court's Order
granting certification, for which putative class members
can join this matter;
3. Requiring the Defendants to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel
a list both electronically (in an Excel spreadsheet with
each item of the employee's name and address designated as
a separate field) and by hard copy, of all individuals who
meet the above class description, including their current
or last known address, phone number, and e-mail address,
within 15 days of the issuance of the order;
4. Requiring the Defendants to post notices and opt-in forms
at time clocks, and other conspicuous locations (such as
bulletin boards or bulletin boards where job notices are
posted) at Defendants' locations for a period of 90 days
where employees can see such notices;
5. Tolling the statute of limitations period for the putative
class members from the date of filing of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Class Certification until the close
of the opt-in period;
6. Designating Plaintiffs Jose Gonzales Gomez as class
representative for the collective class;
7. Approving Plaintiffs' counsel to act as class counsel in
this matter; and
8. Granting such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
This is not a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, this Motion is
brought pursuant to the collective action provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
EPIC Landscape Productions specializes in designing and building
creative, functional and fabulous landscapes.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z8NOiN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Hodgson, Esq.
THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
3609 SW Pryor Rd.
Lee's Summit, MO 64082
E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
- and -
Timothy R. West, Esq.
BERTRAM & GRAF, L.L.C.
2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1925
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 523-2205
Facsimile: (816) 523-8258
E-mail: tim@bertramgraf.com
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O.,
Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC., Case No.
1:21-cv-02056-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to certify
the action as a class action.
Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial,
consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZexrRP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren Kw Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW , LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
ETHEREUMMAX: Celebrities File Motion to Dismiss Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wahid Pessarlay, writing for Coingeek, reports that a number of
celebrities identified in promoting failed digital currency project
EthereumMax (EMAX) has asked the court to dismiss the suit from
disgruntled investors.
The celebrities, led by reality TV star Kim Kardashian and boxing
legend Floyd Mayweather, argued that the class action lawsuit filed
against them portrays the "same basic theory" that the courts have
already struck out. In 2022, the court dismissed an initial lawsuit
on the grounds that the celebrities' actions in advertising the
tokens did not amount to a pump-and-dump scheme.
"The Court otherwise dismissed the prior complaint in full due to
fundamental flaws. The addition of new claims, Defendants, and over
100 pages of largely irrelevant allegations does not cure the
defects," the defendant's filing read.
The plaintiffs argue in their updated filing that the celebrities
promoting the project influenced them to buy EMAX tokens. In their
defense, the defendants claim that aside from pushing an already
rejected basic theory, the EMAX investors "suffered no injury from
merely holding onto the tokens."
Other points from the defendants include an argument that the
plaintiff's claims are barred because they relied on state consumer
laws and an argument that the plaintiffs cannot prove that the
defendant's action caused a fall in EMAX tokens. The filing goes on
to poke holes in the plaintiff's move to advance a
"guilty-by-social-acquaintance theory" and its decision to add
"irrelevant and boilerplate allegations."
In October 2022, Kardashian reached a $1.26 million settlement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for failing to
disclose that she was paid $250,000 to promote the Ethereum Max
project on Instagram.
SEC sends strong warning note to celebrities shilling digital
currencies
On February 17, SEC Chair Gary Gensler issued a strongly worded
warning to influencers and celebrities promoting digital currencies
to properly disclose the amounts they received to make the
promotions.
"The federal securities laws are clear that any celebrity or other
individual who promotes a crypto asset security must disclose the
nature, source, and amount of compensation they received in
exchange for the promotion," Gurbir Grewal, Director of the SEC's
Division of Enforcement, said.
Grewal stated that the requirement is to allow investors to decide
whether or not the security promoter is unbiased. At the moment,
the SEC is pursuing enforcement action against NBA Hall of Famer
Paul Pierce for his role in promoting EMAX tokens. [GN]
ETHOS GROUP: Fedorys Suit Consolidated with Gorman, Harper Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL FEDORYS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ETHOS GROUP INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02573-M (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn entered an order granting consolidation
and appointing Interim Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel.
Movant requests that the Fedorys action be consolidated with two
other cases also pending before this Court, Gorman v. Ethos Group
Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-2898, and Harper v. Ethos Group Inc., Case
No. 3:23-cv-00184 (together, along with Case No. 3:22-cv-2573, the
"Related Cases").
The certificate of conference attached to the Motion for Order
Granting Consolidation indicates that Defendant Ethos Group Inc. is
not opposed to consolidation.
The Plaintiffs in Gorman and Harper have each filed a status report
in their respective cases, indicating their agreement
that consolidation of the related actions is appropriate as each
action arises out of the same factual allegations concerning
Defendant Ethos Group Inc.'s alleged failure to safeguard the
personally identifiable information of consumers and each seeks
relief on behalf of overlapping class definitions.
In light of the parties' agreement, the Court concludes that the
Related Cases present common questions of law and fact for
determination, and are appropriate for consolidation for all
purposes including trial. Accordingly, it is therefore ordered that
Case Nos. 3:22-cv-2573-M, 3:22-cv-02898-M, and 3:23-cv-184-M are
consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)
All pleadings, motions, and other papers will be filed in Fedorys
v. Ethos Group Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-2573, and bear only the
caption of Case No. 3:22-cv-02573, along with the legend
"(Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 3:22-cv-02898-M and
3:23-cv-184-M)."
Movant further requests that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g)(3), the Court appoint Scott Edward Cole of Cole &
Van Note as Interim Lead Counsel and Debbie Branscum as Liaison
Counsel. By March 7, 2023, Plaintiffs in Gorman and Harper shall
respond to Movant's request for appointment of interim class
counsel, including discussing whether the appointment of interim
class counsel prior to class certification is appropriate, and if
so, whether the Court should consider other applicants for
appointment.
Within 21 days after the Court resolves Movant's request for
appointment of interim class counsel, the Plaintiffs shall file a
consolidated class action complaint. Thge Defendant shall answer
or otherwise respond to the consolidated class action complaint
within 21 days after being served with the consolidated complaint.
Ethos Group provides franchised automotive dealerships.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IDxekd at no extra charge.[CC]
EVOLUTION WELL: Settlement Agreement in Copley Gets Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN COPLEY, PAT MCGEENEY,
JOE TILLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES OPERATING, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01442-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell
Wiegand entered an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
agreement;
2. certifying, for settlement purposes only and pursuant to
the terms of the settlement agreement, the Pennsylvania
Class and the Ohio Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and
approving final certification of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C.section 216(b);
3. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives;
4. appointing the Plaintiffs' Counsel, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr.
and Elizabeth Pollock-Avery of Lynch Carpenter LLP, as
Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23;
5. approving the form and manner of Notice to be provided to
the Settlement Class;
6. setting a deadline to opt-out/object of 60 days after
dissemination of Class Notice; and
7. setting a date for a Final Approval Hearing no sooner than
120 days after entry of a Preliminary Approval Order.
The Court will now address provisional certification of the
settlement class. The Plaintiffs define two classes -- a
Pennsylvania class and an Ohio class—as follows:
Ohio Class: All current and former rotational, non-exempt employees
who were employed by Defendant, and who worked for Defendant in the
State of Ohio on or after August 26, 2018 and who have not
opted-out of the Settlement, pursuant to Ohio state wage and hour
laws.
Pennsylvania Class: All current and former rotational, non-exempt
employees who were employed by Defendant, and who worked for
Defendant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on or after February
1, 2019 and who have not opted-out of the Settlement, pursuant to
Pennsylvania state wage and hour laws.
In this case, there is a bona fide dispute as to whether FLSA
collective members were entitled to the time spent traveling from
their homes to remote work location and from employer-sponsored
housing to their daily work sites.
In addition, the settlement amount, which constitutes approximately
80% of the alleged damages, is fair and reasonable.
Finally, the court finds that the requested attorney's fees are
reasonable, given that counsel is seeking 33% of the settlement
fund, which is 67% of their lodestar and, under 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), attorney's fees are mandatory in FLSA cases
In brief, the Plaintiffs filed their operative Second Amended
Complaint on February 24, 2021, naming as defendants Evolution
Well Services, LLC and Evolution Well Services Operating, LLC.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KCg8ph at no extra charge.[CC]
EXPERIAN INFO: Case Management Conference Scheduling Order Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY BOYCE-LAZARE, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-03752-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered a order scheduling initial case management conference:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions
to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive
relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and
in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in
Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- It appearing to the Court that no initial case management
conference has yet taken place in this action, it is hereby
ordered that an initial conference in accordance with Fed.
R. Civ. P. will be held on April 25, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.,
in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.
-- The Court further ordered that counsel shall meet and
confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later
than 21 days prior to the initial case management
conference. No later than one week (seven calendar days)
prior to the conference, the parties shall file a Pre-
Conference Statement, signed by counsel for all parties.
Experian operates as an information services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YercMH at no extra charge.[CC]
FALCONS MANAGEMENT: Ware Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Ware, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
FALCONS MANAGEMENT GEORGIA, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00302-CB (W.D.
Pa., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought challenging policies and practices
of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") by failing to pay
minimum wages.
The Defendant paid its servers the tipped minimum wage and utilized
the tip credit available under federal and state law to meet its
obligation to pay servers the mandatory minimum wage. However, the
Defendant did not satisfy the strict requirements under the FLSA or
Pennsylvania law that would allow it to take a tip credit.
Defendant also maintained a policy and practice whereby servers
were required to spend a substantial amount of time, more than 20
percent of the time or for a continuous period of time exceeding 30
minutes, performing non-tip producing side work related to the
servers' tipped occupation. By engaging in these unlawful
practices, Defendant lost all or part of its right to claim any tip
credit toward its obligation to pay Representative Plaintiff and
those similarly situated the minimum wages required by law, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by as a server at the Defendant's TGIF
restaurant.
The Defendant owns and operates a chain of TGI Fridays restaurants
in Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher St NW, Ste. B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: 330-754-1430
Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
FIRST UNITED BANK: Kerrigan Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First United Bank &
Trust Company. The case is styled as Bradley Kerrigan, individually
and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. First United
Bank & Trust Company, Case No. 6:23-cv-00071-JAR (E.D. Okla., Feb.
24, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
First United Bank is a progressive and innovative community banking
organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Waller, Esq.
WALLER JORGENSON, PLLC
401 S Boston Ave, Ste 500
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone: (918) 582-1734
Fax: (918) 582-1780
Email: mwaller@wjwattorneys.com
FMA ALLIANCE: Genger Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------
Yehuda Genger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FMA ALLIANCE, LTD., Case No. 505749/2023 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Kings Cty., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or "Act") as a result of the
Defendant's use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection
practices.
Some time prior to January 10, 2023, the Plaintiff allegedly
incurred a debt to non-party Citibank N.A. ("Citibank"). Citibank
is a "creditor." Citibank contracted with the Defendant for the
purposes of debt collection. Therefore, Defendant is a "debt
collector." On January 10, 2023, Defendant sent the Plaintiff an
initial collection letter ("the Letter"). The Letter provides
multiple addresses where the Defendant will allegedly receive
correspondence.
The bottom of the first page of the Letter includes an address in
the left corner which includes an address of DEPT 287
5544807223012, PO Box 4115, Concord, CA 94524. The presentation of
that address, immediately over the Plaintiff's name and home
address, creates the appearance that the same represents a return
address. Near that address, also on the bottom of the same page,
there is an address listed as follows: CITIBANK, N.A., PO Box 369,
Houston, Texas 77001-0369. This, alone, is misleading for the least
sophisticated consumer because the address is listed as being for
the original creditor, Citibank, rather than the Defendant, who
actually sent the Letter and is statutorily required to respond to
any dispute. Finally, in the top left corner of the Letter, a third
address is listed as FMA Alliance, Ltd., 12339 Cutten Road,
Houston, Texas 77066.
In addition to listing three separate addresses on a single
correspondence, the Letter also provides an address for the
original creditor Citibank as the entity to mail the payment coupon
to, despite the letter being mailed by the Defendant. As such, the
least sophisticated consumer would be confused as to why the bottom
address identifies the original creditor as the recipient, but the
Letter states that the dispute is to be made with the Defendant.
Additionally, in the body of the Letter, Defendant states that it
will accept the Plaintiff's dispute either on the forms attached or
via a separate written communication. However, Defendant wholly
fails to identify which address such a dispute should be sent to.
Plaintiff therefore did not know how to properly dispute the debt
and exercise his rights under the FDCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Kings.
FMA Alliance, Ltd. is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Yusko, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
FRANK STRADA: Hart Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frank Strada. The
case is styled as Curtis Daniel Hart, all other inmates similarly
situated in the T.D.O.C. v. Frank Strada, Commissioner of T.D.O.C.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00009 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Frank Strada was appointed Commissioner of the Tennessee Department
of Correction by Governor Bill Lee effective January 9, 2023.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Irene Gonzalez, Francine McGivern, Sheldon
Schlesinger, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center, Case No.
22CECG03762 was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Feb. 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00280-EPG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Fresno Community Hospital & Medical Center provides medical and
surgical hospital services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mike Montalban Arias, Esq.
Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
Michael Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos, LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Phone: (310) 844-9696
Fax: (310) 861-0168
Email: mike@aswtlawyers.com
arnold@aswtlawyers.com
anthony@aswtlawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
999 3rd Ave, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 566-7092
Email: avitruk@bakerlaw.com
FRUTH PHARMACY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fruth Pharmacy, Inc.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fruth Pharmacy, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01478 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fruth Pharmacy -- https://fruthpharmacy.com/ -- offers all the
services of large chain drug stores while maintaining principles
that make Fruth "Your Hometown, Family Pharmacy."[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
FUTURE ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Illicit Activities
------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Roy of CTVNewsMontreal reports that a proposed suit targets
Future Electronics Inc., claiming its employees were involved in
"the commission of his illicit activities," according to the
application.
"What we find is that several of their employees were involved, who
then also were promoted throughout the ranks of Future
Electronics," Consumer Law Group founder Jeff Orenstein told CTV
News in an interview. "We believe that there is vicarious liability
for the corporation."
Orenstein said the complex nature of Miller's assets also
contributed to the decision to file against the tech company.
"Just during the research, we found that his personal house is not
owned by himself. It's owned by a corporation of which the
shareholders are not disclosed," Orenstein claimed. "So there is a
lot of corporate red tape around here. And that was also one of the
reasons why our action was filed not just against Mr. Miller, but
against Future Electronics."
A class-action lawsuit request was filed against a tech company and
its founder, Robert Miller, a Montreal billionaire accused by
multiple women of paying them for sex when they were underage.
The lawsuit's applicant, who is unnamed in the request, alleges she
was paid thousands to have sex with Miller when she was between the
ages of 17 and 19.
Miller, 79, stepped down as CEO of Future Electronics early
February after a Radio-Canada/CBC report surfaced the allegations
of 10 women, some as young as 14 at the time of the alleged
events.
The report alleged that between 1994 and 2006, Miller arranged for
his associates to bring underage girls to his Montreal hotel room
and his home in Westmount to perform sexual acts.
The Canadian law firm Consumer Law Group is seeking additional
plaintiffs, aiming to grant them each $1.5 million in punitive
damages and various amounts for psychological injury.
In a statement issued earlier this month, Future Electronics said
Miller "adamantly and vehemently denies" these allegations,
claiming they result from a "bitter divorce" and are being
resurfaced for "financial gain."
Montreal police (SPVM) investigated Miller between 2008 and 2009,
but no charges were laid.
The lawsuit's applicant, now 45 years old, claims her ongoing
sexual relationship with Miller began around 1996 after she
responded to a newspaper ad for accessory models.
"She met with a man who told her that she had been 'chosen.' This
man took a picture of the Applicant, had her sign a modelling
contract, and stated that he would be in touch," the lawsuit
application alleges.
Afterwards, Miller reportedly began calling her on the phone and
told her he was a businessman from New York named Bob Adams.
Soon after, the pair allegedly began meeting in person to engage in
sexual acts. After each meeting, the applicant alleges Miller gave
her an envelope containing between $1,000 and $2,000 and, in one
instance, $3,000.
"This experience had a serious negative psychological effect on the
Applicant. She felt bad about herself and her self-worth, shameful,
guilty, she was depressed, and she self-medicated with drugs and
alcohol - though she had never been able to make the connection
between these paid sexual encounters and her negative feelings
toward herself," the application states.
It wasn't until she saw Radio-Canada/CBC's report that she was
motivated to come forward, the document continues.
"When she watched this episode, all of the negative feeling came
back, and she was re-traumatized [. . .] Now, she realizes that she
was not alone in her experience and wishes to come forward to help
others get justice." [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Preliminary Pretrial Order Modified in Riley
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order granting joint motion
to modify preliminary pretrial order:
The Parties seek to modify the Scheduling Order to extend the
deadlines
(i) for GM to disclose expert information under Rule 26(a)
(2) from March 6 to April 6, 2023,
(ii) to complete expert depositions from April 5 to April 19,
2023, and
(iii) for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification
from May 5 to May 19, 2023.
All other deadlines in the Preliminary Pretrial Order remain
unmodified.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41GiKsj at no extra charge.[CC]
GENESCO INC: Grajales Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edwin Grajales, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Genesco, Inc., Case No.
22-CA-009983 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Feb. 24,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00420-SCB-TGW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.
Genesco Inc. -- https://www.genesco.com/ -- is an American publicly
owned specialty retailer of branded footwear and accessories and is
a wholesaler of branded and licensed footwear based in Nashville,
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 422-7782
Fax: (813) 422-7783
Email: ben@thekrfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Nick Cordova, Esq.
Rand McClellan, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 228-1541
- and -
Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 649-4699
Email: ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Stellman Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Stellman, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Case No.
5:22-cv-05273 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Feb. 23, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01532-PKC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Google LLC -- https://www.google.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company focusing on online advertising,
search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software,
quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial intelligence, and
consumer electronics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Phone: (917) 336-0171
Fax: (917) 336-0177
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Carlynne A Wagner, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (310) 474-9111
- and -
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Fax: (310) 474-8585
Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 947-2000
Fax: (415) 947-2099
Email: jsessions@wsgr.com
GRAND CANYON: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 20-639-MN-CJB, Consolidated (D. Del.),
Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware recommends the denial of the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.
In this consolidated securities class action case, the Plaintiffs
assert claims against Defendants Grand Canyon Education, Inc.
("GCE"), Brian E. Muelle, and Daniel E. Bachus, pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and United States Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
Presently before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
SAC, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Lead Plaintiffs in the case are Fire and Police Pension
Association of Colorado ("Colorado FPPA"), Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System ("Oakland County ERS") and Oakland
County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust
(collectively with Oakland County ERS, "Oakland County"). Colorado
FPPA is a benefit pension plan that purchased shares of GCE stock
during the Class Period. Oakland County are entities that provide
retirement benefits to employees of Oakland County, Michigan and
that also purchased GCE stock during the Class Period. These Lead
Plaintiffs are bringing the instant action individually and on
behalf of all other persons who purchased the common stock of GCE
during the Class Period. The Class Period runs from Jan. 5, 2018
through Jan. 27, 2020.
GCE is a public company and a Delaware corporation. It operated as
a for-profit Christian University from 2004 until July 2018, when
it became an online program management company that provides
management, back-office, and other services to educational
institutions.
Mueller is GCE's CEO (having held that role since July 2008) and
Chairman (having held that role since January 2017). He also has
served as President of Grand Canyon University ("GCU" or
"University") since 2012. Bachus is GCE's CFO; he has held that
role since 2008.
The SAC alleges that the case arises from the Defendants'
materially false and misleading statements or omissions about the
Conversion. The Defendants allegedly claimed that the Conversion
would result in GCU becoming an independent, non-profit institution
under separate management from GCE, that the Conversion was
virtually identical to other approved transactions, and that after
the Conversion, GCE would merely act as a third-party service
provider to GCU.
These claims allowed the Defendants to avoid the "'stigma'" of
for-profit education and to market GCU as a non-profit for 18
months during the Class Period, which drove higher enrollment and
boosted GCE's profit margins. In reality, the SAC alleges that the
Defendants Mueller and Bachus omitted or mispresented key terms of
the Conversion, such that investors were unable to accurately
assess the risk of a DOE denial of GCU's request for non-profit
status -- even while the Defendants understood the real risks of
denial, given their knowledge of the terms of the Conversion.
Despite knowing that there was a substantial risk that the DOE
would not approve the Conversion, a risk Defendants concealed from
investors, Defendants chose to move forward with the Conversion
anyway, in light of the logistical, regulatory and financial
benefits that this approach provided to them.
In addition to misrepresenting the structure of and status of the
Conversion, the Defendants are also alleged to have misrepresented
GCE's financial performance by engaging in accounting fraud. They
are said to have falsely claimed that a post-Conversion GCU would
be a non-profit, despite the fact that GCU would violate the "'most
basic tenet of nonprofit status.'" This allowed them to treat the
new GCU as an improper off-balance-sheet entity -- which GCE then
used to hide expenses and costs while retaining a disproportionate
amount of revenue, thereby inflating GCE's financial results.
The SAC alleges that once the DOE denied the Defendants' attempt to
have GCU classified as a non-profit entity, Defendants'
misstatements and omissions came to light. GCE's inflated stock
price plummeted thereafter, all at the expense of the Defendants'
investors and shareholders.
At issue in the briefing on the Motion are the Plaintiffs'
allegations regarding: (1) the types of false and/or misleading
statements and omissions that allegedly fueled the scheme; (2)
facts demonstrating that Defendants acted with the requisite
scienter; and (3) facts regarding loss causation.
The consolidated securities class action arises out of two class
action Complaints filed in the Court on May 12, 2020 and on June
12, 2020, (Civil Action No. 20-801-MN), respectively. On Aug. 13,
2020, United States District Judge Maryellen Noreika consolidated
the two cases in the instant action and appointed Colorado FPPA and
Oakland County to serve as Lead Plaintiffs in this suit on behalf
of themselves and others.
On Oct. 15, 2020, Judge Noreika ordered that the cases be referred
to the Court to hear and resolve all pre-trial matters, up to and
including the resolution of expert discovery matters. The
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 20, 2020, which the
Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 21, 2020. The Court heard oral
argument on the first motion to dismiss on May 26, 2021.
Thereafter, on Aug. 9, 2021, it issued a Report and Recommendation
granting the first motion to dismiss in its entirety (the "first
R&R"). After neither party filed objections, Judge Noreika adopted
the first R&R on Aug. 23, 2021; Judge Noreika permitted the
Plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint to correct the
deficiencies outlined in the first R&R.
The Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept. 28, 2021,
which they thereafter amended by filing the SAC on Jan. 21, 2022.
The Defendants then filed the instant Motion on March 15, 2022. At
the Plaintiffs' request, the Court heard oral argument on the
Motion on Oct. 25, 2022. Subsequent to that, the Plaintiffs filed
an additional motion asking that the Court take judicial notice of
certain statements when resolving the Motion; briefing on the
motion for judicial notice was completed on Jan. 19, 2023.
The Defendants challenge the SAC's allegations on three grounds:
(1) failure to sufficiently plead scienter; (2) failure to
sufficiently allege actionable false or misleading statements or
omissions; and (3) failure to sufficiently plead loss causation.
Judge Burke begins by addressing whether the Plaintiffs
sufficiently alleged falsity, then moves to consider whether the
Plaintiffs plausibly alleged scienter, and finally, whether the
Plaintiffs plausibly alleged loss causation.
As to the SAC's allegations of false or misleading statements
and/or omissions, Judge Burke holds that the Plaintiffs adequately
alleged material misrepresentations/omissions. He finds that the
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the statements on GCU's
purported independence from GCE, risks to GCU's non-profit label,
the scope and risks of the DOE review, the Conversion's
similarities to the Purdue-Kaplan Deal, and GCE's compliance with
GAAP were false or misleading.
Having found that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged material
misrepresentations/omissions, Judge Burke turns to scienter. He
begins with an examination of scienter-specific legal standards,
then moves on to examine the merits. Ultimately, he concludes that
the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged scienter.
Judge Burke finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that
the Defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded facts that
contradicted their above-referenced public statements (or that
should not have been omitted from their public statements). Even
having so concluded, he nevertheless goes on to engage in the
"inherently comparative" process of considering the Plaintiffs'
theory of fraudulent conduct along with the Defendants' theory as
to why no fraud has occurred.
Among other things, Judge Burke concludes that the Plaintiffs'
overall theory (i.e., as to why Defendants had an intent to
deceive, manipulate, or defraud) is at least as cogent as the
Defendants' competing theory of no fraud. With the SAC's
allegations, the Plaintiffs have overcome the problems that beset
their prior pleading. In the SAC, the Plaintiffs have now added
numerous factual allegations meant to answer the questions. These
new allegations provide additional needed context and help
articulate how the Plaintiffs' theory of the fraud scheme is
cogent. They render it more understandable why the Defendants might
have reasonably thought that their odds for success had changed.
For all of these reasons, Judge Burke believes that with the new
allegations in the SAC, the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
scienter.
Finally, the Defendants challenge the SAC's loss causation
allegations. The SAC alleges that the Defendants artificially
inflated the price of GCU stock by falsely stating or omitting: (1)
the truth about the relationship between GCE and GCU; (2) the true
risk that the DOE would not approve the transaction; and (3) GCE's
financial results and improper accounting treatment of GCU.
Judge Burke concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
loss causation. He concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
asserted, at the motion to dismiss stage, that the Citron Report
acted as a partial corrective disclosure based, in part, on
previously undisclosed information.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Burke recommends that the Motion
be denied. Responses, if any, must be filed by March 9, 2023.
The parties are directed to the Court's Standing Order for
Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated March 7, 2022, a
copy of which is available on the District Court's website, located
at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2why335 from
Leagle.com.
GUNNAR OPTIKS: Gimenez Sues Over Defective Eyeglasses
-----------------------------------------------------
Gaston Procopio Gimenez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GUNNAR OPTIKS, LLC,
37-2023-00007453-CU-FR-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Sam Diego Cty., Feb.
22, 2023), is brought for damages relating to the Defendant's
formulation, manufacture, testing, marketing, promotion,
distribution, and sale of its defective blue light blocking
eyeglasses product including, but not limited to, the Gunnar Onyx
Vinyl Crystalline Glasses (the "Gunnar Glasses" or the "Product").
The Defendant advertises the Gunnar Glasses as doctor recommended
to "block blue light", "reduce digital eyestrain", "prevent dry
eyes", "minimize glare", and sleep better. Gunnar Glasses have
quickly grown to be one of the most widely sold blue light blocking
eyewear products in the country, primarily due to Defendant's
marketing. This includes the notable packaging and influential
ambassadors backing Gunnar Glasses'--advertising in various
channels, including through social media and big names like "Call
of Duty" and "Marvel" endorsements, and that it was featured on
"Shark Tank" and recommended by "Rolling Stone" magazine."
When used as intended, the Product does not protect the consumer as
Defendant claims with their "Gunnar Blue Light Filer ("GBLF")" or
protect it as represented in comparison with other named brands,
such as "Hyperx", "Oakley", "Gamer" and "Zenni". Per Defendant's
lens comparison, their GBLF consists of four levels of blue light
protection, 98%, 90%, 65%, and 35%, which Defendant's website makes
clear relates to the percentage of blue light it claims is blocked
by the Product.
The "GBLF scale measures eye protection at the peak of the blue
light spectrum. However, the Product falls well short of the
represented amount of blocked blue light. The Product lacks the
protections claimed and Defendant has failed to adequately inform
consumers or take adequate action to protect the public as it
continues to manufacture, market, and sell the Product even though
it does not meet these representations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Gunnar Onyx Vinyl Crystalline Product
from Amazon.
Gunnar manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells the
Product.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Chase, Esq.
Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
BISNAR | CHASE LLP
1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 752-2999
Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
Email: bchase@bisnarchase.com
isilvers@bisnarchase.com
HANES BRANDS: Ramon Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Veronica Ramon, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Hanes Brands, Inc., Case No.
5:22-cv-01770 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina on Feb. 23, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00173 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Hanesbrands Inc. -- https://www.hanes.com/ -- is an American
multinational clothing company based in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
cab@colevannote.com
sec@colevannote.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy P. Lally, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1999 Avenue of The Stars 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 595-9662
Fax: (310) 595-9501
Email: alally@sidley.com
- and -
Christopher Michael Griffin, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 896-6000
Fax: (213) 896-6600
Email: cgriffin@sidley.com
HEALTH & WELLNESS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Health & Wellness
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Health &
Wellness Center, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01487 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22,
2023)
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Health & Wellness Center offers a variety of wellness programs
and primary care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
HIGHMARK HEALTH: Waruszewski Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlyn Waruszewski, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. HIGHMARK HEALTH, Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-NR
(D. Pa., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to protect highly sensitive data.
As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former
customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for
precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's
network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant
had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate
breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals
unrestricted access to customers' PII/PHI.
Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures
placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering
them easy targets for cybercriminals. The exposure of one's PII to
cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data
breach, consumers' private information was exactly that—private.
Not anymore. Now, consumers' private information is forever exposed
and unsecure. Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, receiving a breach
notice in February 2023. She brings this class action on behalf of
herself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a current customer of the Defendant.
The Defendant is a "blended health organization" with multiple
businesses including health insurance, health care delivery,
population health management, dental solutions, and
reinsurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Bailey, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 496-8282
Fax: (215) 496-0999
Email: ebailey@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
Brittany Resch, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
HIGHMARK INC: Marshall Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
Wendy Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HIGHMARK, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-00290-NR (W.D. Pa., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought arising out
of the recent data breach (the "Data Breach") involving Highmark,
which collected and stored certain personally identifiable
information ("PII") and/or protected health information ("PHI") of
the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, all of whom have
PII/PHI on Highmark servers.
According to Highmark, the PII/PHI compromised in the Data Breach
included highly-sensitive information including but not limited to:
names, Social Security numbers, and may include enrollment
information such as group names, identification numbers, claims or
treatment information such as claim numbers, dates of service,
procedures, prescription information as well as in some cases
financial information, addresses, and email addresses.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII/PHI. Inexplicitly,
the Defendant has acknowledged that the cybersecurity attack
occurred in December 15, 2022, but it has only recently begun
contacting Class Members.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of
Plaintiff individually as well as all those similarly situated to
address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members'
PII/PHI that they collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class
Members that their information was unsecured and left open to the
unauthorized access of any unknown third party, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was a client of Defendant.
The Defendant is a national healthcare organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy E., Fl. 2,
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 772-7200
Fax: (856) 210-9088
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
HOLIDAY INN CLUB: Lingard Sues Over Unlawful Timeshare Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
Angelique L. Lingard and Sudarien D. Smith, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOLIDAY INN CLUB
VACATIONS, INC. f/k/a ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and WILSON
RESORT FINANCE, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00323 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 24,
2023), is brought seeking to void timeshare loans that violate the
Military Lending Act ("MLA"), which was enacted to protect members
of the United States Military from an epidemic of predatory lending
that endangers our Nation's military readiness and impacts
servicemember retention.
Holiday Inn sells vacations, or more accurately, the potential to
book a future vacation through a complex system of vacation club
points that are tied to timeshare properties that are owned by a
trust controlled by Holiday Inn. As part of the transaction,
Holiday Inn traps servicemembers into a loan that can never be
repaid because of accompanying maintenance fees. Accordingly,
Holiday Inn targets military consumers by, among other things,
offering free stays to military families and offering them
discounts. Once they agree to a free vacation, Military families
are lured into high-pressure timeshare sales presentations and are
frequently convinced to purchase vacation points that represent
timeshare interests at a Holiday Inn timeshare location.
Although it targets military families, Holiday Inn's standard
course of business violates the MLA. Specifically, it fails to
provide the required MLA disclosures; unlawfully requires mandatory
binding arbitration; and unlawfully refinances, rolls over or
consolidates previous timeshare loans. As a result, the timeshare
loans made to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
servicemembers are void from inception pursuant to the MLA. This
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to void the credit agreements of
Plaintiffs and the Class, as well as restitution damages to recover
the money paid to Holiday Inn, and other actual damages caused to
Plaintiffs and the Class by Holiday Inn's routine violations of the
MLA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were on active duties in the United States Air
Force.
Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc. sold, sells, and finances
timeshare interests in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Erika R. Willis, Esq.
Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
P.O. Box 1870
Lady Lake, FL 32158
Phone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
ewillis@vandwlaw.com
mpeterson@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
HONEST COMPANY: Sucharow Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody Dixon v. The Honest
Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07405-MCS-PLA (C.D. Cal.),
the Lead Plaintiff Labaton Sucharow asks the Court fan order:
1. certify the action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3);
2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as representative of the
proposed Class; and
3. appointing Labaton Sucharow as Class Counsel.
Labaton Sucharow, in its capacity as Lead Counsel, has performed
substantial work in identifying and investigating the claims
asserted in this Action, has substantial experience handling class
actions asserting claims of this type, has committed and will
continue to commit substantial resources to representing the Class,
and has worked vigorously to prosecute this Action.
Honest Company is an American digital-first consumer goods company,
based in Los Angeles and founded by actress Jessica Alba.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z8Dl6W at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
David J. Schwartz, Esq.
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
Joseph N. Cotilletta, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
dschwartz@labaton.com
afatale@labaton.com
jcotilletta@labaton.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
Rina Restaino, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2406
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Facsimile: (213) 519-5876
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
rina@schallfirm.com
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Teague Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Howard Memorial
Hospital. The case is styled as Keri Teague, Jason Teague, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Howard
Memorial Hospital, Case No. 4:23-cv-04016-SOH (W.D. Ark., Feb. 23,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Howard Memorial Hospital -- https://www.howardmemorial.com/ -- has
been providing comprehensive, patient-focused, inpatient,
outpatient and emergency care for 60 years.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Filing Settlement Claims in Fires Suit Until July 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FastCompany reports that it's important that you submit a claim on
the official settlement website by July 7, 2023, which is the
cutoff date for claims to be made.
Kia parent Hyundai Motor Group has agreed to a class action
settlement surrounding claims that ABS systems on certain models
could cause fires.
If you own a certain type of Kia, the company may owe you money.
And no, this has nothing to do with TikTok users revealing how easy
it is to steal some Kia models.
Instead, this is due to a class action settlement Kia has agreed to
after claims that the anti-lock brake systems (ABS) on certain
models sold between 2006 and 2021 could cause fires because of a
defect, according to the website Top Class Actions.
Kia owner Hyundai Motor Group hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing,
but it will nevertheless provide the owners of affected models with
one or more of the following:
A warranty extension of 5 to 7 additional years covering qualifying
repairs from the date of first use or the date of original retail
delivery.
Compensation to those who have had repairs done on their affected
Kia ABS module. If repairs were previously made, the owners can
also get reimbursements for towing costs and car rentals, if those
were needed.
A free, one-time inspection of their ABS module when they bring
their car into a Kia dealership.
If an ABS module fire was directly related to a total loss of a
vehicle, claimants are guaranteed "maximum value compensation" plus
a $140 payment
So how do you know if Kia owes you money? The official settlement
website has a VIN lookup tool that will tell you if your specific
Kia is eligible for the class action settlement. Kia vehicles that
may be eligible include:
2006-2010 Kia Sedona
2007-2009 Kia Sorento
2008-2009 Kia Sportage
2013-2015 Kia Optima
2014-2015 Kia Sorento
2014-2021 Kia Sportage
2016-2018 Kia K900
2017-2019 Kia Cadenza
2018-2021 Kia Stinger
After using the VIN lookup tool to see if your Kia is covered by
the settlement, it's important that you submit a claim on the
official settlement website by July 7, 2023, which is the cutoff
date for claims to be made. [GN]
IAVARONE ENTERPRISES: Puntaloro Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Puntaloro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IAVARONE ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a IAVARONE BROS.,
JONATHAN IAVARONE and JOSEPH IAVARONE, as individuals, Case No.
2:23-cv-01417 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought to recover
damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime wage.
Although the Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 60 hours or
more hours each week from August 2019 until January 2023, the
Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a
half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL. Further, the Plaintiff was not compensated at all by the
Defendants for his last week of employment. The Defendants
willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime
wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2019 until
January 2023.
IAVARONE ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a IAVARONE BROS, is a New York
domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the
State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
INMAR INC: Holmes Amended Bid to Certify Class OK'd
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holmes v. Inmar Inc., Case
No. 2:21-cv-02093 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce
entered an order on motion to certify class Pursuant to the court's
Text Order entered Feb. 15, 2023
-- The court construes the filing of as Plaintiff's amended
motion to certify Class.
-- The Clerk is directed to moot the original motion.
-- The Defendant's deadline to file a response to remain
March 23, 2023.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property diversity
fraud.
Inmar develops technology and data analytics services.[CC]
INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Ulery Sues Over Unwanted Prerecorded Message
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Ulery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INSURANCE SUPERMARKET, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00490 (S.
Colo., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought for damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
including for playing prerecorded messages during autodialed calls
to Plaintiff and others, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.
While promoting and selling its services, Defendant and/or its
agents placed thousands of nonconsensual automated or prerecorded
calls to consumers' telephone numbers nationwide using an automatic
telephone dialing system in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff
and each Class Member received unwanted telephone robocalls from
the Defendant without proper regard to the TCPA, the Do-Not-Call
Rules, and in disregard for individual privacy. The Plaintiff and
Class Members' phone numbers were registered with the National
Do-Not-Call Registry. This lawsuit challenges all calls that were
sent by Defendant to Plaintiff and Class Members from approximately
February 2019, through the date of preliminary approval of class
certification, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's domicile is in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
INSURANCE SUPERMARKET operates a website known as insurance
supermarket.com, which describes itself as a company that provides
a full range of life insurance and investment products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954-889-3359
Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
mpascucci@JusticeEamed.com
- and –
Jordan Richards, Esq.
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Avenue, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 871-0050
Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
INTERFACE INC: Court Vacates Steamfitters' Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Swanson v. Interface, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05518 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 12, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan entered an order vacating Steamfitters'
motion to certify class in light of the scheduling order.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Interface is a global manufacturer of commercial flooring with an
integrated collection of carpet tiles and resilient flooring,
including luxury vinyl tiles and nora brand rubber flooring.[CC]
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Pre-Motion Conference Class Cert. Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALLACE et al. v
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKE, LLC, d/b/a iHop et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-06993-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs file a letter motion
requesting a pre-motion Conference for their motion for conditional
collective class Certification.
The parties have conferred and agree to the following briefing
schedule:
-- Opening Brief: March 15, 2023
-- Defendants' Opposition: April 3, 2023
-- Plaintiffs' Reply: April 17, 2023
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SC7klj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com
ISLAND JAY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Island Jay, Inc. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Island Jay, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01498
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Island Jay -- https://islandjay.com/ -- offers a unique mix of
beach clothing and accessories.[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
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Lightoller Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Lightoller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Case No.
3:23-cv-00361-H-KSC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought against
JetBlue for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors
to its website, www.jetblue.com, in violation of the Invasion of
Privacy Act and constitutes the torts of invasion of the privacy
rights and intrusion upon seclusion of website visitors.
JetBlue procures third-party vendors, such as FullStory, to embed
snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on
JetBlue's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's
internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the
website visitor's electronic communications with the JetBlue
website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such
as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs
of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in
real-time ("Website Communications"). These third-party vendors
(collectively, "Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the
Session Replay Code at JetBlue's request.
After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications,
JetBlue and the Session Replay Providers use those Website
Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.jetblue.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay
of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to JetBlue for
analysis. JetBlue's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to
secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic
equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the
JetBlue website for the entire duration of their website
interaction.
While visiting JetBlue's website, Plaintiff fell victim to
Defendant's unlawful monitoring, recording, and collection of
Plaintiff's Website Communications with www.jetblue.com. Unknown to
Plaintiff, JetBlue procures and embeds Session Replay Code on its
website. During the website visit, Plaintiff's Website
Communications were captured by Session Replay Code and sent to
various Session Replay Providers. Plaintiff and Class Members did
not provide prior consent to JetBlue's interception of their
Website Communications, nor could they, as the interception begins
immediately upon arriving at www.jetblue.com.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons in California whose Website Communications
were intercepted through JetBlue's procurement and use of Session
Replay Code embedded on the webpages of www.jetblue.com and seeks
all civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including
but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has visited www.jetblue.com on her computer and/or
smartphone while in California to, inter alia, obtain information
on flight pricing.
JetBlue operates the website www.jetblue.com. JetBlue is a
commercial airline which provides both national and international
flights to the public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10034
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Stephen B. Murray, Esq.
Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
Thomas M. Beh, Esq.
THE MURRAY LAW FIRM
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250
New Orleans, LA 70139
Phone: (504) 525-8100
Email: Tbeh@Murray-lawfirm.com
JILL-EST: Class Certification Scheduling Order Amended in Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Jill-Est Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00980 (N.D. Tex., Filed May 2, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an amending class certification
scheduling order as follows:
-- The mediation deadline is extended April 10, 2023
to:
-- All proceedings in this matter are April 28, 2023
stayed until:
-- The parties Must file a Joint Status April 28, 2023
Report on or before:
-- The parties shall submit a proposed April 28, 2023
scheduling order to conclude the
remaining deadlines in the class
certification phase of discovery
on or before that same day:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
JMJ ENTERPRISES: Seeks to Decertify Wade Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tiffany Wade, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. JMJ Enterprises, LLC
and Traci Martin, Case No. 1:21-cv-00506-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order decertifying the
Plaintiffs' conditional collective action.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JexJmp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Angela Newell Gray
GRAY NEWELL THOMAS, LLP.
7 Corporate Center Court, Suite B
Greensboro, NC 27408
Telephone: (336) 285-8151
Facsimile: (336) 458-9359
E-mail: angela@graynewell.com
JOHN DEERE: DOJ Supports 'Right To Repair' Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Bode of TechDirt reports that DOJ supports 'Right To Repair'
class action against John Deere.
U.S. consumer protection in general has had an ugly few decades.
One bright spot however has been the shift in the "right to repair"
movement from niche nerdy fare to the mainstream.
Not only have corporate efforts to monopolize repair resulted in a
flood of proposed state and federal laws, the Biden
Administration's executive order on monopoly power and competition
urged the FTC to tighten up its rules on repair monopolization
efforts, whether it's ham-fisted DRM, or making repair manuals,
parts, and diagnostics hard to come by.
At the receiving end of much of the movement's ire has been John
Deere, whose draconian repair restrictions on agricultural
equipment often result in customers having to pay an arm and a leg,
or drive hundreds of additional, costly miles to get their tractors
repaired.
Last week, the DOJ announced it had filed a "Statement of Interest"
in a class action lawsuit currently waddling through the Northern
District of Illinois, alleging John Deere of illegally monopolizing
the repair of its tractors. In it, the DOJ makes clear that "right
to repair" is lodged squarely in the heart of the government's
painfully inconsistent interest in antitrust reform:
"Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, the policy of the United
States is 'to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive
concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the
harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony -- especially as these
issues arise in . . . agricultural markets, . . . repair markets,'
and elsewhere too."
Regardless, right to repair activists like U.S. PIRG say they
appreciate the help:
We thank the DOJ for standing up for farmers and pointing out
something that should be common-sense: We should be able to fix our
stuff. Farmers rely on this equipment to grow our food, and make a
living doing so. Selling farmers equipment and then refusing to
allow them to access the materials necessary to keep it running is
simply unacceptable. The facts continue to show that is the case,
and so Right to Repair continues to move forward. This filing sends
Deere a strong signal.
Granted not all is well in the right to repair movement. The
federal effort to pass a new right to repair law appears stuck in
neutral, and in states where a law has been passed -- such as in
New York State -- lobbyists have shown how easy it was to get NY
Governor Kathy Hochul to water down the legislation after it
passed, rendering it little more than a performative victory. [GN]
JOHN HANCOCK: Stipulation for Leave to File FAC OK'd in Kroetz
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SILVINA KROETZ, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.) and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter
Jr. entered an order granting joint stipulation for leave to file
first amended complaint substituting proposed class representative
and modifying case schedule to account for substitution.
-- The Plaintiff Silvina Kroetz's claims against Defendant
shall be dismissed without prejudice to her proceeding as a
putative absent class member in this action.
-- The Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment shall
be deemed withdrawn without prejudice.
-- The Parties shall meet and confer and propose a case
schedule to the Court 20 Defendant determines whether it
will file a motion to dismiss or motion for summary
judgment.
John Hancock is a Boston-based insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y98iXn at no extra charge.[CC]
JUUL LABS: Agrees to Settle E-Cigarette Class Suit for $438.5-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
OpenClassActions.com reports that a nearly half-Billion dollar
class action settlement has been agreed upon with Juul. Juul Labs,
a leading e-cigarette maker that's taken the globe by storm, is
ready to pay this hefty price for its monumental rise in the
tobacco, nicotine and cigarette market. As part of the Juul Class
Action Settlement, a $438.5 Million fund will be established after
class action lawsuits and investigations that lasted 2 years.
The Juul class action lawsuits made claims that Juul and other
e-cigarette manufacturers unlawfully marketed their products to
minors and did not adequately disclose potential health risks. Juul
has also agreed to own an independent monitor oversee its business
practices going forward. It's also one more signal that regulators
are moving past catch-up mode when it involves controls on
e-cigarettes and taking a harder look at how companies like Juul
advertise their products. The case was first filed as an
investigation into whether Juul had violated New York's public
health law.
This settlement doesn't mean that Juul is banned from selling
flavored e-cigarettes. However, it does mean that the venture must
limit selling flavored e-cigarettes and nicotine pods, including
mint and candied flavors. This represents a big blow to Juul. Not
only does it need to pay out almost half a billion dollars, but it
also should surrender equity to try and do so and comply with
having an independent monitor oversee its business practices. It's
also a large complication, because the company seeks FDA approval
for its own e-cigarettes. While Juul has maintained that its
products are intended for adult smokers, the venture is
additionally aware that the products are very hip with teens and is
trying to avoid a crackdown just like the one that followed the
increase of e-cigarettes during the last decade.
One report found that 72% of youth who vape have tried Juul a
minimum of once. To make matters worse, they're also relatively
easy to induce hold of; Juul has been hawking its products in
convenience stores across America with no age restrictions or
warnings about the health risks related to vaping. The settlement
could lead to Juul putting in additional efforts to keep more
minors away from addictive substances like nicotine. The venture
has already taken some steps in this direction, like removing some
flavors from its website and adding an ID check when someone tries
to form a procurement online. Juul is additionally working with the
FDA to assist combat underage use of its products. As a part of
that agreement, Juul has agreed to form a brand new "digital tool"
for parents and teenagers to access information about the risks
related to vaping, still as the way to quit if they're already
hooked on nicotine.
To qualify for a payment, you need to be a US resident and have
purchased a minimum of one Juul product. You want to also not have
reported your claim before the settlement. If you provide relevant
criteria, the class action administrator will review your
information and payment details and pay out if you qualify and the
Juul class action has been approved for disbursement of funds.
You may be eligible for a payment under the terms of the
settlement. The quantity of your payment will rely on what number
of people file a claim and also the total amount of the settlement
fund. If you are injured by a Juul product, then your compensation
payout is likely to be greater.
If the court approves the settlement, a notice will be published in
newspapers, and on the internet, and here on OpenClassActions.com.
You will be able to also join up for email updates about the
settlement at the Electronic Cigarette Settlement website. The
venture has sent out a lot of emails to those that may be eligible
for his or her money, but if you haven't gotten one yet, don't
worry. If you file a claim, you may receive a payment, because the
settlement fund is offered.
Overall, the settlement could be a major setback for Juul, which
has maintained that its products are intended for adult smokers.
One more indication is that regulators are going to control
e-cigarettes sales and taking a harder look at how companies like
Juul advertise their products. In the end, the Juul class action
settlement should lead to Juul putting in a significant amount of
effort to make sure that its Juul e-cigarettes are kept far away
from minors. [GN]
KANSAS CITY TREE: Court Overrules Bid to Decertify as Untimely
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM PRINCE,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. KANSAS
CITY TREE CARE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02653-KHV (D. Kan), the Hon.
Judge Kathryn H. Vratil sustains plaintiff's motion and overrules
defendant's motion to decertify as untimely.
The Court further ordered that:
-- the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's objection to
the Defendant's motion To decertify the conditional
certification class and for leave to file the Defendant's
motion out of time filed February 10, 2023 is overruled.
-- the Defendant's motion To decertify conditional
certification and brief in support filed February 1, 2023
is overruled.
William Prince filed suit against Kansas City Tree Care, LLC,
alleging putative collective action claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
In the Pretrial Order filed December 1, 2022, the defendant stated
that it intended to file a motion to decertify or prevent the
temporary certification of the class from becoming permanent.
The Defendant agreed that any dispositive motions or motions
relating to class certification must be filed by January 4, 2023.
The Defendant filed its motion to decertify on February 1, 2023 --
28 days beyond the agreed deadline in the pretrial order. That same
day, plaintiff filed an objection to the untimely motion. Nine days
later, the defendant responded to plaintiff's objection and now
belatedly seeks leave to file its motion to decertify out of time.
The Plaintiffs have not identified any specific prejudice. Even so,
if the Court grants defendant leave to file its motion to decertify
at this stage, plaintiffs would have to expend resources for their
counsel to respond to the untimely motion. This factor therefore
slightly weighs in favor of plaintiffs.
Kansas City provides landscaping services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3miRSyz at no extra charge.[CC]
KENTECH CONSULTING: Abrogina Seeks to File Class Cert Exhibit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA ABROGINA,
individually, on behalf of other similarly situated indivduals,
and on behalf of the general public, v. KENTECH CONSULTING, INC. a
foreign corporation doing business in California, and DOES 1 – 10
inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-00662-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff Virginia Abrogina applies to the Court for an Order
allowing her to file Exhibit No. 10 in support of her motion for
class certification under seal as provided in the Court's
Protective Order dated March 21, 2022.
The reasonfor sealing is that the exibit is that that it contains
consumer report which contain personal identifying information
relating to individual consumers which Defendant is bound to keep
confidential and subject to the Court's Protective Order.
Kentech is a revolutionary provider of investigative background
check technology.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SC5bpZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devin H. Fok, Esq.
Ainat KieweEsq.
DHF LAW, APC
2304 Huntington Drive, Suite 210
San Marino, CA 91108
Telephone: (888) 651-6411
Facsimile: (818) 484-2023
E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com
ainat@devinfoklaw.com
- and -
Joseph Lee, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH LEE
1055 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 500
Pasadena, CA 91106
Telephone: (626) 474-1120
Facsimile: (626) 899-4788
E-mail: joseph@lawjoelee.com
KEURIG DR PEPPER: $10-M Recyclable Pod Settlement Granted Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Hanson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. will pay $10 million to settle with a class
of plaintiffs who claimed the company misleads consumers with
claims that its plastic single-serve coffee pods are recyclable.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland approved a $10
million settlement plus a total of $6,000 in incentives for two
plaintiffs who actively aided in gathering documents for discovery
during the litigation process. The plaintiffs filed the consumer
class action against the single-serve coffee giant years ago
claiming the "recyclable" labeling on plastic coffee pods is false
and misleading.
The class claimed municipal recycling facilities are not properly
equipped to handle the coffee pods, which are small and easily
contaminated with foil and food waste. The plaintiffs said the
coffee pods often end up in landfills as there are limited markets
to reuse them or convert them into reusable material, making them
an environmental hazard.
Claims included violations of Massachusetts' Consumer Protection
Act, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment,
misrepresentation, declaratory relief and violations of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law.
Households who submit a claim with proof of payment will receive 35
cents for every 10 pods purchased, with a minimum payment of $6
regardless of quantity purchased to a maximum of $36.
Keurig -- formerly known as Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. -- will
also start placing a disclaimer on products to read "Check Locally
— Not Recycled in Many Communities." It must be placed beside any
verbiage that the pods are recyclable, including on boxes and
cartons and on Keurig's website. The settlement sets the minimum
standards to ensure that the qualifying statement is reasonably
visible anywhere it appears.
Gilliam gave preliminary approval of the settlement agreement this
past July. In their revised settlement motion filed in November
2022, the plaintiffs said, "By requiring changes to the labels and
advertising of the challenged products, and by making this
substantial fund available, the settlement provides an immediate,
significant and positive result for the class.
"In turn, Keurig will receive a release of all claims that were or
could have been raised in the complaint relating to its labeling,
marketing and advertising of the challenged products as recyclable.
This settlement was reached after several years of contentious
litigation, extensive discovery and rigorous and informed
negotiations between the parties and their experienced class action
counsel in a process that was overseen by a seasoned, neutral
mediator."
Any unclaimed settlement money will be donated to the Ocean
Conservancy, a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization, which
will take 75% of unclaimed funds. Consumer Reports, Inc., a
nonprofit consumer protection organization, will take the remaining
25% of unclaimed funds.
The attorneys requested and received $3 million for fees and
$568,180 in total costs.
"We are pleased the court granted final approval of the settlement,
and are proud of the great result achieved in this case on behalf
of consumers across the country," class attorney Howard Hirsch said
in a statement on Feb. 27. "We also hope it sends a message and
deters other companies from misleading consumers about the
environmental attributes and recyclability of their single use
plastic products."
Keurig spokesperson Katie Gilroy said "clearly communicating to
consumers how to recycle our K-Cup pods where accepted is a
responsibility that we take seriously," adding that "while we
believe our marketing and labeling is truthful and accurate, we
agreed to a negotiated settlement that will result in a
modification of our existing recyclability disclaimer on our
packaging." [GN]
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Verdin Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Verdin, individually and for others similarly situated v.
KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10425-NMG (D. Mass., Feb.
22, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from Defendant Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc. ("KDP") under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and California wage and
hour laws.
The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week. But
these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the PMWA and California law, KDP misclassified the
Plaintiff as exempt and paid them a salary with no overtime
compensation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for KDP as a Warehouse Supervisor in
California and Pennsylvania.
KDP bills itself as "a leading beverage company in North America
that is committed to sourcing, producing, and distributing
beverages responsibly" throughout the United States, including in
Pennsylvania and California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
585 Boylston St.
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: 617-536-1800
Facsimile: 617-536-1802
Email: pgordon@gordonllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713.352.1100
Facsimile: 713.352.3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gamboa v. Kiss
Nutraceuticals, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01141 (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge William J. Martinez entered an order that:
-- The deadline for filing of Class May 1, 2023
Certification Motion(s) is
extended to:
-- The Response and Reply deadlines are extended a
commensurate amount of time.
Kiss Nutraceuticals provides packaging solutions.
The Suit alleges violation og the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD JOLLY, ET AL., On
Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, v.
KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT, INC. D/B/A KNIGHTSBRIDGE RESTAURANT
GROUP, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02163-TNM (D.D.C.), the the
Plaintiffs, Ronald Jolly and Amir Ziagham, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, and Defendants, Knightsbridge
Management, Inc. D/B/A Knightsbridge Restaurant Group, Rasika West
End, LLC, and Ashok Bajaj file a third joint motion to extend time
to file motion for class certification and other related deadlines.
On January 18, 2023, the Court granted the Parties' joint motion
extend time to file for class crtification and other related
deadlines in order to provide the parties with the opportunity to
engaged in settlement discussions and conduct a mediation.
Since this time, the Parties have been conducted a mediation with
Linda Singer at JAMS and are close to reaching a resolution.
Unfortunately, the parties require additional time to engage in
further settlement discussions.
The Parties have conferred and agreed on the following modified
schedule for all outstanding deadlines:
Description Current Requested
Deadline Extension
Deadline to file Motion for Feb. 24, 2023 Mar. 24, 2023
Class Certification and to
decertify Collective Action
Deadline for Defendants' Mar. 13, 2023 Apr. 13, 2023
Opposition to Motion for
Class Certification
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kH73kI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael K. Amster, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 8399142
E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Nat P. Calamis, Esq.
Brian M. O'Shea, Esq.
Carr Maloney P.C.
2020 K Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 310-5500
Facsimile: (202) 310-5555
E-mail: nat.calamis@carrmaloney.com
brian.o'shea@carrmaloney.com
KNOX COUNTY: Court Disallows Class Certification in Day Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN DAY, et al., v.
KNOX COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, et al., Case No. (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Clifton L. Corker entered an order disallowing class
certification and permissive joinder of Plaintiffs in this action
and order each Plaintiff wishing to proceed in a section 1983 suit
to file an individual complaint and either pay the filing fee or
submit the necessary documents to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Plaintiffs have classified their initial complaint as a class
action, which the Court construes as a request for class
certification. To permit this action to proceed as a class action,
the Court must be satisfied that a number of grounds are met, one
of which is that "the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class."
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The Court otherwise notes that Rule 20(a)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the permissive joinder of
plaintiffs in a single action if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in
the alternative with respect to or arising out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will
arise in the action.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kCe6ei at no extra charge.[CC]
KROGER CO: Class Certification Deadliness Amended in Womick Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Womick v. The Kroger Co.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00574 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Nancy J
Rosenstengel entered an order amending the class certification
deadliness as follows:
-- Depositions of Plaintiff(s) shall June 1, 2023
be taken by:
-- Depositions of Defendant(s) shall June 1, 2023
be taken by:
-- Expert witnesses for Class
Certification, if any, shall be
disclosed, along with a written
report prepared and signed by the
witness pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(2):
-- for Plaintiff(s) expert(s): June 1, 2023
-- for Defendant(s) expert(s): July 15, 2023
-- Depositions of Class Certification
expert witnesses must be taken by:
-- for Plaintiff(s) expert(s): June 30, 2023
-- for Defendant(s) expert(s): August 15, 2023
-- Plaintiff(s) Motion for Class September 15, 2023
Certification and Memorandum in
Support shall be filed by:
-- The Defendant(s) Memorandum in October 16, 2023
Opposition to Class Certification
shall be filed by:
-- The Plaintiff(s) Reply Memorandum, November 6, 2023
if any, must be filed by:
Kroger, is an American retail company that operates supermarkets
and multi-department stores throughout the United States.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property – fraud.[CC]
LABORATORY CORP: Supplementation of Record in Anderson Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERYL ANDERSON, et al.,
v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No.
1:17-cv-00193-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder entered an order permitting the supplementation of the
record with the Affidavit of Jeffrey Frist and the credit card
authorization form as it considers Plaintiffs' pending Motion for
Class Certification.
Laboratory Corporation is an American healthcare company
headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z8B6Aw at no extra charge.[CC]
LEFT LEAD: Court OKs Boyll Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyll v. Left Lead
Liquors, LLC, et al., Case No. 9:22-cv-04520 (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks entered an order granting the motion to
certify class.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act involving denial
of overtime compensation.[CC]
LENOVO (UNITED STATES): Filing of Class Status Bid Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT
BURK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties files fourth stipulation
to extend class certification deadlines as follows:
event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Deadline to file motion for Jul. 19, 2023 Aug. 23, 2023
class certification and to
serve Plaintiffs' expert
disclosures and reports
Deadline to produce Sep. 6, 2023 Oct. 11, 2023
Plaintiffs' experts for
deposition
Deadline to file opposition Nov. 1, 2023 Dec. 6, 2023
to motion for class
certification and to serve
Defendant's expert disclosures
and reports
Deadline to produce Dec.13, 2023 Jan. 17, 2023
Defendant's experts for
deposition
Deadline to file reply Jan. 17, 2023 Feb. 21, 2024
re motion for class
certification
Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.
A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Feb. 21, 2023
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zy7PiM at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel A. Rozenblatt, Esq.
Seth W. Wiener, Esq.
EDGE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
CORPORATION
1341 La Playa Street 20
San Francisco, CA 94122
Telephone: (415) 515-4809
E-mail: daniel@edge.law
seth@edge.law
- and -
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
CAPTSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
Alyssa Sones, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
Telephone: (310) 228-3700
Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
asones@sheppardmullin.com
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court OKs Sealing of Class Cert Materials in TVPX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TVPX ARS INC., as
Securities Intermediary for CONSOLIDATED WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LTD.,
and VIDA LONGEVITY FUND, L.P., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02989-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge R. Barclay
Surrick entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for
continued sealing of certain materials filed in connection with
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Defendants' opposition
to class certification, and Plaintiffs' reply in support of class
certification.
The redacted and under seal portions of the materials filed in
connection with the class certification briefing, set forth in
Exhibit A to Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Continued Sealing, shall remain under seal until further order, and
shall be filed in redacted form and under seal.
Lincoln National provides insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kCT5QB at no extra charge.[CC]
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carolyn Beech, on behalf
of herself and the class members described below, v. The Litigation
Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting LPG a
28-day extension of time to file a response in opposition to the
Plaintiff Carolyn Beech's motion for class certification.
The response date is currently February 24, 2023, and with the
unopposed extension, the new due date would be March 24, 2023.
LPG needs additional time to compose its opposition and to compile
the accompanying evidential materials associated with LPG's
response.
In addition, on February 20, 2023, the Plaintiff moved for leave to
amend its Complaint to add eight additional defendants, five
of whom are individuals and three of whom are business entities.
LPG asserts that the Plaintiff's proposed amendment significantly
alters the landscape of this litigation, with a large impact on
Plaintiff's currently pending Motion for Class Certification, as
currently written.
Therefore, in light of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave and proposed
accompanying amendment, LPG requires additional time to fully
review and investigate with its counsel the proposed amended
complaint and the potential interplay, or effect on, the Motion for
Class Certification.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zp6ZVy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Rebecca J. Mansell, Esq.
ROLFES HENRY CO., LPA
2113 Government Street, Suite H-2
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
Telephone: (228) 207-1366
Facsimile: (513) 579-0080
E-mail: rmansell@rolfeshenry.com
lmoore@rolfeshenry.com
- and -
Christopher R. Pettit, Esq.
Matthew T. Anderson, Esq.
Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
LUPER NEIDENTHAL & LOGAN
1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400
Columbus, OH 43215-1052
Telephone: (614) 221-7663
Facsimile: (866) 345-4948
E-mail: cpettit@LNLattorneys.com
manderson@LNLattorneys.com
kanderson@LNLattorneys.com
LOREAL USA: Edwards Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mmrenee Edwards, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Loreal USA, Inc., Loreal USA Products,
Inc., Softsheen-Carson, Inc., Softsheen-Carson LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-02687 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 22, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01052 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures
and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes
brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline,
Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hannah Pfeifler, Esq.
Jennifer Hoekstra, Esq.
Ephraim S. Geisler, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: HPfeifler@awkolaw.com
JHoekstra@awkolaw.com
sgeisler@awkolaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dennis Sean Ellis, Esq.
Katherine Frenck Murray, Esq.
Nicholas J. Begakis, Esq.
Serli Polatoglu, Esq.
ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 274-7100
Fax: (310) 275-5697
Email: dellis@egcfirm.com
kmurray@egcfirm.com
nbegakis@egcfirm.com
spolatoglu@egcfirm.com
- and -
Jonathan Barrett Blakley, Esq.
GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
One North Franklin
Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 619-4915
Email: jblakley@grsm.com
LOREAL USA: Wall Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Wall, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Loreal USA Products, Inc.,
Softsheen-Carson, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-06128 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
Feb. 23, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01063 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures
and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes
brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline,
Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Kuntz, Esq.
Vanessa H. Gross, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer
Thomas P. Cartmell
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Email: jkuntz@wcllp.com
vgross@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
tcartmell@wcllp.com
- and -
Hannah Rodgers Pfeifler
Jennifer M. Hoekstra
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Fax: (850) 916-7449
Email: hpfeifler@awkolaw.com
jhoekstra@awkolaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James C. Morris, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
100 S. 4th Street, Suite 550
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 856-2473
Email: jmorris@grsm.com
- and -
Katherine C Battisti, Esq.
GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI - STL
211 North Broadway, Suite 2150
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 685-8470
Email: kbattisti@grsm.com
LUMIO INC: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumio Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Cathy Alexander, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Levin, Lumio Inc., Lumio HX,
Lumio Holdings, Case No. 2:23-cv-00138-RJS-JCB (D. Utah, Feb. 24,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Lumio Inc. -- https://www.lumio.com/ -- enhances and enables the
communications, computing and entertainment experience through
innovative virtual interface technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared D. Scott, Esq.
Jacob W. Nelson, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 W Broadway, Ste. 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 534-1700
Fax: (801) 364-7697
Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com
jnelson@aklawfirm.com
LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Simons Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lutheran Social
Services of Illinois. The case is styled as Maria Simons, Ermelinda
Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Lutheran Social Services of Illinois, Case No. 1:23-cv-01106
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a
global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered
and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union
Administration.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mason A Barney, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 5the Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
M & R PIZZA: Marquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Marquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. M & R PIZZA, INC. (D/B/A SOFIA'S PIZZA), NICHOLAS
AGOLA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01412 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought
for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker.
However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work
day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to
stocking drinks, making and storing pizza boxes, refilling the ice
machine, and counting and organizing every receipt before closing
the store (hereafter the "non-tipped duties"). The Plaintiff worked
for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours
that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants employed
and accounted for the Plaintiff as a delivery worker in their
payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount
of time spent performing the non-tipped duties, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the restaurant.
The Defendants own operate, or control a pizza restaurant, located
in South Ozone Park, New York, under the name "SOFIA'S PIZZA."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MAKER ECOSYSTEM: Black Thursday Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates reports
that Maker defendants win dismissal of 'Black Thursday' class
action.
On February 22, 2023, Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to
dismiss a putative class action brought against Skadden clients
Maker Ecosystem Growth Foundation and Maker Ecosystem Growth
Holdings, Inc.
The case concerned the MakerDAO system, a decentralized finance
protocol built on the Ethereum blockchain. The plaintiff asserted
claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation and
negligence, alleging that he and others suffered losses on the
system when the price of Ether suddenly collapsed on March 12, 2020
-- an event the plaintiff referred to as "Black Thursday." The
court dismissed all claims asserted. [GN]
MANITOBA: Faces Class Suit Over Overcharge Photo Radar Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Staff of The Canadian Press reports that a Winnipeg man is
trying to launch a class-action lawsuit against the Manitoba
government, alleging it overcharged people an estimated $36 million
in photo radar tickets.
William Acheson's statement of claim alleges the government did not
follow its own regulations in fines handed out between November
2017 and November 2021.
The lawsuit alleges the government charged people for every
kilometre per hour over the speed limit, while provincial
regulations for photo radar state fines start at 10 kilometres an
hour over the limit.
Lawyer Naomi Kovak says she estimates there were roughly 470,000
tickets handed out in those years, and drivers were overcharged at
least $77 each time.
The statement of claim was recently served on the government and
contains allegations that have not been proven in court.
The province has not filed a statement of defence and there is no
court date set for a hearing. [GN]
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Robinson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maria Robinson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Maricopa County Special Health Care District d/b/a Valleywise
Health, Case No. 2:22-cv-00943-DWL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting her motion for Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification.
Robinson has met her burden to provide "substantial allegations"
that Valleywise's workers were paid under the same pay practices
following Valleywise's Kronos timekeeping and payroll outage.
The certification schedule should accommodate the follow-up of
Putative Collective Members by telephone if their Notice and
Consent Forms are undeliverable.
Maria Robinson was a non-exempt worker for Valleywise during the
payroll outage. Ms. Robinson seeks to allow her coworkers -- other
nonexempt Valleywise workers who were subject to the same faulty
time and pay systems -- to receive notice of this collective action
and recover their valuable back wages.
Robinson's evidence meets and surpasses the lenient standard for
conditional certification, and the Court should certify this
collective action and order notice to be sent to putative
collective members.
Valleywise is a public health care system operating in Maricopa
County.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J4wi9O at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Rd., 4th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com
MATCO TOOLS: Munger Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Munger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:23-cv-00337-DAR
(N.D. Ohio, Feb. 22, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable
information ("PII") of more than 14,000 individuals, including, but
not limited to, name, Social Security number, driver's license
number, and/or financial account information.
Prior to and through March 1, 2022, Defendant obtained the PII of
the Plaintiff, including by collecting it directly from the
Plaintiff. The Defendant stored the PII of the Plaintiff,
unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's
network. On December 8, 2022, Defendant learned of a data breach on
its network that occurred on or around March 1, 2022 (the "Data
Breach"). The Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an
unknown actor accessed and/or acquired the PII of the Plaintiff. On
January 26, 2023, Defendant began notifying various states
Attorneys General of the Data Breach. The Defendant began notifying
the Plaintiff of the Data Breach.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of the Plaintiff, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties
to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the
unencrypted PII that was accessed and/or acquired by an
unauthorized actor included name, Social Security number, driver's
license number, and/or financial account information.
The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of
the Plaintiff. In addition to the Defendant's failure to prevent
the Data Breach, Defendant waited more than three months after the
Data Breach occurred to report it to the states Attorneys General
and affected individuals. The Defendant has also purposefully
maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of
the breach and has not informed the Plaintiff of that information.
As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff had no idea
their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to
be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms
of personal, social, and financial harm, including the sharing and
detrimental use of their sensitive information. The risk will
remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida residing in Sarasota,
Florida.
The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in Stow, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse A. Shore, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, KENTUCKY PLLC
300 Madison Avenue, Suite 200
Covington, KY 41011
Phone: (859) 899-8786
Facsimile: (859) 899-8807
Email: jshore@forthepeople.com
- and -
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
Business Division
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Brixey Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Brixey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McAdoo's Seafood Company, LLC d/b/a McAdoo's Seafood
Co. & Oyster Bar; and Wiggins Hospitality Group, LLC d/b/a La
Cosecha Mexican Table, Case No. 5:23-cv-00232 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 24,
2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standars Act ("FLSA") for
the underpayment of wages owed to the Defendants
employees--Plaintiffs and other employees like
Plaintiffs--including the Defendants failure to pay the minimum
wage rate mandated by federal law.
The Defendants pay their servers and bartenders—including
Plaintiff wages that are less than the minimum wage. Instead of
paying the minimum wage, it appears Defendants are attempting to
take credit for the tips its employees earn to meet the minimum
wage requirement. The Defendants violated the FLSA by paying
Plaintiff and the Collective Members less than minimum wage and
Defendants committed multiple violations of the tip credit and
therefore cannot rely on tips to supplement the subminimum hourly
wages they paid to the Plaintiffs. As a result of these violations,
Defendants have lost the ability to use the tip credit and
therefore must compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated
workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip
credit, and for all hours worked. In other words, Defendants must
account for the difference between the wages paid to Plaintiff and
all similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at, both, McAdoo's and La
Cosecha as, both, a server and bartender.
The Defendants own and operate the dining establishments commonly
known as "La Cosecha Mexican Table" and "McAdoo's Seafood and
Oyster Bar" where they employ servers and bartenders to serve
customers who are dining at their restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone: 817-479-9229
Fax: 817-840-5102
Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Poppe RPNS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poppe v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (W.D.N.Y., Filed June 28,
2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying
the motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the
Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing
for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on
standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying
an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court
identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as
damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that
the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs'
sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro.
Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017,
she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS
for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store.
Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his
daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six
months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from
sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was
followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS
and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019,
Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall
and received a plush child's toy. The Defendants placed a value of
$30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the
toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid
for the RNPS.
The Poppe Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violatiob of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZdUkoe at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Shaffer v. Mattel
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaffer v. Mattel, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey
Crawford entered an order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of
standing.
Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the
Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing
for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on
standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying
an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court
identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as
damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that
the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs'
sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro.
Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017,
she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS
for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store.
Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his
daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six
months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from
sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was
followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS
and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019,
Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall
and received a plush child's toy. Defendants placed a value of $30
on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the
toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid
for the RNPS.
The Shaffer Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z8mDEE at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Wray RPNS Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray v. Fisher-Price, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01067 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 13, 2019), the
Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying the motion to
dismiss for lack of standing.
Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the
Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing
for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on
standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying
an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court
identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as
damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that
the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs'
sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro.
Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017,
she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS
for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store.
Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his
daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six
months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from
sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was
followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS
and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019,
Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall
and received a plush child's toy. The Defendants placed a value of
$30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the
toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid
for the RNPS.
The Wray Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violatiob of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZaNMXa at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Clayton v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clayton, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01058 (D.S.C., Filed Apr. 9,
2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case
management order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023
certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023
the Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023
opposition to Blackbaud's
Daubert motions on:
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023
experts Blackbaud's reply in
support of its Daubert motion
on Plaintiffs' class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023
of their motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023
on Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023
opposition to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions on Blackbaud's
rebuttal class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023
of their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Clayton Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions
allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach
include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and
nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their
personal information to those entities have suffered damages,
including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard
and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients
affected by the data breach.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xJoWlD at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Cohen v. Blackbaud
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen v. Blackbaud, Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00948 (D.S.C., Filed Mar. 31, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023
certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023
the Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023
opposition to Blackbaud's
Daubert motions on:
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023
experts Blackbaud's reply in
support of its Daubert motion
on Plaintiffs' class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023
of their motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023
on Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023
opposition to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions on Blackbaud's
rebuttal class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023
of their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Cohen Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions
allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach
include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and
nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their
personal information to those entities have suffered damages,
including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard
and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients
affected by the data breach.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41g1yK7 at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Duranko v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duranko v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00054 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023
certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023
the Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023
opposition to Blackbaud's
Daubert motions on:
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023
experts Blackbaud's reply in
support of its Daubert motion
on Plaintiffs' class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023
of their motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023
on Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023
opposition to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions on Blackbaud's
rebuttal class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023
of their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Duranko Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions
allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach
include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and
nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their
personal information to those entities have suffered damages,
including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard
and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients
affected by the data breach.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IpDNqb at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Eisen v. Blackbaud
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Philip Eisen v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04358 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order
as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023
certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023
the Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023
opposition to Blackbaud's
Daubert motions on:
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023
experts Blackbaud's reply in
support of its Daubert motion
on Plaintiffs' class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023
of their motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023
on Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023
opposition to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions on Blackbaud's
rebuttal class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023
of their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Eisen Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions
allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach
include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and
nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their
personal information to those entities have suffered damages,
including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard
and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients
affected by the data breach.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3INDQOh at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Faszczewski v. Blackbaud
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Faszczewski v. Blackbaud,
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00012 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 4, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023
certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023
the Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023
opposition to Blackbaud's
Daubert motions on:
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023
experts Blackbaud's reply in
support of its Daubert motion
on Plaintiffs' class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023
of their motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023
on Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023
opposition to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions on Blackbaud's
rebuttal class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023
of their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Faszczewski Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,
CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions
allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach
include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and
nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their
personal information to those entities have suffered damages,
including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard
and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients
affected by the data breach.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZeElpK at no extra charge.[CC]
MEC HOLDING: Sends Mass Automated Marketing Calls, Perez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEC HOLDING COMPANY D/B/A FONTANA NISSAN,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00279 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2023) seeks
to secure redress for Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant uses prerecorded messages
to send mass automated marketing calls to Plaintiff and other
individuals' cellular phone numbers without first obtaining the
required express written consent. The prerecorded voice message
calls state that they were being sent by "Fontana Nissan" and offer
discounts like 10% if Plaintiff goes to Defendant's store and has
service work on her automobile performed, says the suit.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
MEC Holding Company operates as a new and used car dealership which
also offers maintenance and service of automobiles to
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW
1925 Century Park, E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
E-mail: Scott@Edelsberglaw.com
MEDCAN HEALTH: Class Action Over Vacation, Holiday Pay Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline DeBruin, Esq., of Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP,
disclosed that in Curtis v. Medcan Health Management Inc., 2022
ONSC 5176 ("Medcan"), the Divisional Court certified a class action
against an employer for unpaid vacation and holiday pay calculated
on employees' variable compensation. The plaintiff class members
claimed that their employer violated the Employment Standards Act,
2000 ("ESA") when it calculated vacation and holiday pay based on
salary alone, ignoring other elements of their remuneration.
Background Facts
The employer provided its employees with variable compensation,
consisting of a base salary, commissions, and/or bonuses. In 2019,
an employee who earned a base salary, commissions, and bonuses
notified the employer that it violated the ESA by only paying
vacation and public holiday pay on base salary alone.
In response to this notification, the employer retroactively
provided all current and former employees with unpaid vacation pay
and public holiday pay. However, the employer elected to correct
its error for only the two-year period preceding the complaint
(2017 to 2019), relying on the basic limitation period under the
Limitations Act, 2002.
In 2020, various employees commenced a proposed class action to
claim unpaid vacation and public holiday pay on their variable
compensation (i.e., commissions and bonuses) dating back to 2003.
In its Statement of Defence, the employer alleged that the claim
was untimely and barred by full and final releases that the
employees had signed.
This Medcan decision deals solely with the certification of the
proposed class proceeding.
The Decision
At the original certification motion, a lower court judge refused
to certify the proposed class action based on the plaintiffs'
failure to meet the "preferable procedure" criterion of the class
proceeding process.
On appeal, however, the Ontario Divisional Court found that the
lower court had made an error in principle and certified the class
proceeding.
The Test for Class Action Certification
Section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 states that a class
proceeding shall be certified if:
-- the pleadings or notice of application disclose a cause of
action;
-- there is an identifiable class of two or more persons that would
be represented by the representative plaintiff or defendant;
-- the claims or defences of the class members raise common
issues;
-- a class proceeding is the preferable procedure to resolve the
common issues; and
-- there is a representative plaintiff or defendant who: (a) would
fairly represent the interests of the class; (b) has produced a
plan that sets out a workable method for advancing the proceeding
on behalf of the class and of notifying class members of the
proceeding; and (c) would not have a conflict of interest with
other class members on the common issues.
Was the Proposed Class Action the "Preferable Procedure?"
To demonstrate that a class action is the "preferable procedure," a
representative party must show that a class action is the superior
means to resolving a dispute. In doing so, the representative party
should address the goals of class actions: judicial economy,
behaviour modification, and access to justice.
In allowing the appeal, the Divisional Court found that the lower
court judge failed to properly consider whether certification of
the proposed class action would promote access to justice. Notably
for employers, the Divisional Court highlighted the following
access to justice considerations that favoured the certification of
the class proceeding:
A class proceeding would remove restrictive barriers for
individuals who may have only small claims against the employer.
Some individuals represented by the class had claim to only a few
hundred dollars of vacation and holiday pay. It would be difficult
for them to obtain counsel given the low value of their claims as
compared to the cost of litigation.
The class proceeding would provide anonymity and security in
numbers to current employees who were owed vacation and holiday
pay. This enhanced access to justice as current employees may be
reluctant to bring individual claims due to fear of reprisal.
Individuals may be unaware that they had a claim for unpaid
vacation and holiday pay. The class action's notice requirements
would ensure that these individuals were aware of their ability to
make such a claim.
A class action would be preferable for class members who, due to
psychological and economic barriers (e.g., limited language skills,
frail emotional or physical states, alienation from the legal
system, etc.), could be prevented from bringing individual claims.
In addition, the Divisional Court found that the lower court judge
had failed to adequately consider the behaviour modification
criterion. The Court emphasized how certification of a class action
of Medcan's nature could achieve behaviour modification (emphasis
added):
In employment cases such as this one, class proceedings would serve
the goal of behaviour modification because they would signal to
employers that they are expected to be informed of and to comply
with their statutory obligations regarding employee compensation.
Individual claims under the ESA and individual actions would be
much less effective in achieving this goal because the amounts
recovered would be relatively small. Moreover, individual claims
would never result in the employer being held entirely accountable
for the "full costs of their conduct."
The Divisional Court also noted that "class proceedings have
repeatedly been found to be the preferable procedure for employment
and ESA-related cases" (para 54).
Check the Box
The Medcan decision acts as a wake-up call for employers to
re-assess and ensure that all statutory obligations are properly
followed. In addition, Medcan indicates that Ontario courts are
increasingly favouring class action proceedings to address
employment-related claims. Given the significant liability that may
result from a successful class action, legislative compliance is
now all the more important for employers.
Need More Information?
For more information or assistance with legal compliance issues
affecting your business, contact Caroline DeBruin at
cdebruin@filion.on.ca or your regular lawyer at the firm. [GN]
MEDILODGE GROUP: Witte Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Medilodge Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Karyn Witte, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Medilodge Group, Inc., Case
No. 5:23-cv-10461-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Feb. 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Medilodge -- https://medilodge.com/ -- nursing care is a leading
provider of skilled facilities in Washington, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
META PLATFORM: Westport District Joins Youth Mental Health Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SouthCoastToday reports that Westport Community Schools are now
part of a national mass action suit against a number of social
media companies whose platforms are popular among school-age
children, including TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, alleging these
services have contributed to a "youth mental health crisis."
The School Committee voted unanimously to join the suit, being
filed by San Diego-based Frantz Law Group, at their February
meeting earlier in February.
The lawsuit alleges that the companies behind Facebook, Instagram,
Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube "are substantially contributing to the
mental health crisis America's youth are facing," according to a
memo from the law firm, which lists increased rates of depression,
anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and suicide in as some
of the results of youth use, or overuse, of the platforms.
"The harms allegedly caused by these companies include, but are not
limited to, intentionally designing, marketing, and operating their
exploitive social media platforms to be extremely popular with
youth users, despite research confirming the severe and
wide-ranging effects of social media on youth mental health," the
document reads.
The defendants and their online platforms named in the lawsuit
are:
Meta, Platforms, Inc. and subsidiaries (Facebook, Instagram)
Snap Inc. (Snapchat)
TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc. (TikTok)
Alphabet Inc., XXVI Holdings Inc., Google LLC, YouTube LLC
(YouTube)
As noted by School Committee Chair Nancy Stanton-Cross at the
committee's Feb. 2 meeting, there is no cost to the district in
signing on as a plaintiff.
More Mass. districts may join lawsuit
William Shinoff, an attorney with Frantz Law Group, told The
Standard-Times that the litigation on the social media lawsuit was
still in early stages having begun about a month ago; and, as of
Feb. 22, Westport was one of "less than five" Massachusetts
districts to have signed on.
Shinoff declined to name the other districts for confidentiality.
"I can let you know that there's about 80 [statewide school
districts] that are going to be voting this month or two to get
involved," he said.
Out of the South Coast area school districts The Standard-Times
attempted to contact, only New Bedford Public Schools and Old
Rochester Regional School District responded, confirming they are
not involved in the lawsuit.
Superintendent: Social media poses 'special' challenges for
schools
Superintendent Thomas Aubin says Westport schools, "like every
other school district," are all too familiar with the harmful
effects alleged in the lawsuit. And while academia has always had
its share of social, disciplinary and other issues to contend with,
when it comes to social media, Aubin said, "This is something
special."
"We're dealing with it on a daily basis," he said relative to the
kinds of problems outlined in the lawsuit, going on to cite new CDC
data released on Feb. 13. "When you get a report that one in three
high-school-age women have contemplated or attempted suicide, I
think it's time to pump the brakes and try to figure out what's
going on here."
Upcoming digital literacy curriculum to address social media
One underlying aspect of social media that makes it especially
dangerous, Aubin says, is how it tends to blur the line between
reality and façade.
"That's why this district is moving hard to develop a robust
digital literacy program," he said.
"One of the biggest things kids are going to face is having to
delineate truth from fiction, and because they get most of their
information from social media, it's critically important that they
are very sophisticated consumers of that medium."
According to Aubin, the K-12 curricula, currently being developed
in conjunction with financial literacy programming, are part of the
district's strategic planning for coming years, and should be ready
to launch around 2025, he estimates.
Westport, other districts await word on vape settlement
Westport schools' entry into the social media lawsuit comes as
districts that had joined another national lawsuit filed by Frantz
against nicotine vape-maker Juul Labs Inc. await word on how much
they will receive on a Dec. 6 settlement in that case.
According to national media reports, that settlement amount is $1.2
billion. Shinoff declined to confirm the amount but said "a
significant portion" of it would go to the school districts
involved.
Westport school officials had voted to sign onto the Juul lawsuit
on Oct. 20, joining 13 other Mass. school districts, including
Wareham Public Schools, and the city of Brockton.
Shinoff said related litigation against partial Juul owner Altria
Group Inc. is still ongoing. [GN]
MG BILLING: Class Certification Deadline Extended to Oct. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vandiver v. MG Billing
Limited, Case No. 1:21-cv-02960 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Maritza
Dominguez Braswel entered an order extending the class
certification deadline to October 31, 2023.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC]
MI CASA: Pardini Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander Pardini,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Mi
Casa Su Casa, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00796-MTL (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certifying
collective action and notice to potential collective members.
Pardini's evidence meets and surpasses the Ninth Circuit's lenient
standard for conditional certification, and the court should.
Pardini has met his burden to provide "substantial allegations"
that Mi Casa 18 Su Casa's workers were paid under the same, illegal
overtime pay practice.
Pardini requests the Court grant this motion and approve the
proposed Notice & Consent Form and opt-in procedures.
Mi Casa Su Casa did not pay its hourly employees the overtime wages
required under federal law. Mi Casa Su Casa uniformly failed to
factor into its hourly employees' overtime rates any alternate,
higher compensation rate, shift differentials, or non-discretionary
bonuses, such that their overtime premiums were at least 1.5x their
regular rate of pay.
Instead, Mi Casa Su Casa simply paid them at their same hourly rate
for the job they were performing (the equivalent of
straight-time-for-overtime for these hours).
This practice flagrantly violates the Fair Labor Standard Act
(FLSA).
Pardini seeks to allow his coworkers -- other hourly employees
subject to the same illegal pay practice -- to receive notice of
this collective action.
Pardini and Mi Casa Su Casa's workers were all subject to the same
unlawful pay scheme -- which paid them on an hourly basis without
accounting for all financial remuneration paid to them during the
workweek, including but not limited to the employee's alternate,
higher compensation rate, shift differentials, and
non-discretionary bonuses.
Mi Casa provides residential care services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ZoLJ1Pat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com
MICKS IN COOPERSTOWN: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Micks in
Cooperstown, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Micks in
Cooperstown, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01571 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Micks in Cooperstown, Inc. doing business as Mickey's Place --
https://www.mickeysplace.com/ -- is Cooperstown's premier baseball
emporium.[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
MIDDLESEX WATER: Scheduling Order Entered in Lonsk Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LONSK v. MIDDLESEX WATER
COMPANY, et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-19808-EP-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Edward S. Kiel entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for class October 9, 2023
certification and Plaintiff's class
certification expert reports, if
any, due on:
-- The Defendants shall depose January 9, 2024.
Plaintiff's class certification
expert(s) and Defendants shall
serve their opposition to class
certification and class
certification expert reports,
if any, by:
-- The Plaintiff shall depose March 25, 2024
Defendants' class certification
expert(s) and Plaintiff shall
serve her Reply in support of
class certification and class
certification rebuttal expert
reports, if any, by:
Middlesex Water is a water utility based in the U.S. state of New
Jersey that was first incorporated in 1897. The company declared an
annual net income of $33.8M, with a revenue of $135.5M for fiscal
year 2019.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KOj8ip at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Donald J. Camerson, II, Esq.
Bressler Amery & Ross
325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 301
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 514-1200
Facsimile: (973) 514-1660
E-mail: djcamerson@bressler.com
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Settles CRT Class Action Suit for $33-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
OpenClassActions.com reports that a $33 Million Open Class Action
Lawsuit has been settled regarding Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT's).
"CRTs" are (or used to be) extremely common in households and
offices since they were the most popular form factor for TVs and
computer monitors. The CRT class action lawsuit alleged that
certain CRT manufacturers, such as Mitsubishi, conspired together
in order to set high, monopolized prices for CRTs sold to
consumers, leading intentionally to much higher prices for TVs and
computer monitors.
This is just the latest, newest class action settlement in a series
of lawsuits that have added up to nearly $600,000,000 in CRT class
action settlement funds. This settlement, in addition to all of the
other 9 settlement now includes the following CRT manufacturers:
-- Mitsubishi Electric
-- Chunghwa
-- LG
-- Philips
-- Panasonic
-- Hitachi
-- Toshiba
-- Samsung SDI
-- Thomson
-- Technologies Displays America
The $33 Million CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) Class Action Settlement with
Mitsubishi will be open to claims until June 13, 2023. To qualify,
file a claim before the deadline. You must be an individual or
business that purchased CRT monitors or TVs indirectly. Indirectly
in this case, means you purchased the CRT monitor (except for Sony
branded monitors or TVs) from someone other than the direct
manufacturer. For instance, you purchased a CRT TV from Best Buy,
Costco, Amazon.com, and so forth. Only some states qualify.
If you did not file a class action claim form in the previous $576
Million collection of settlements, or you need to make a new claim
for states that were not included, you can file a claim form by
June 13, 2023 to qualify. Find a claim form by googling "CRT Class
Action".
A minimum payment of $10 will be made to all valid claimants who
file on time. The maximum payment that will be distributed is
capped at 3 times the estimated damages done to each person in this
settlement. Please note that these plans for distribution of money
is subject to changes the court, judge, and any appeals processes
result in.
Payments will be made to qualified class action members who file a
legitimate claim form on time. These payments will be determined on
a "pro-rata" schedule, meaning the amount that each person gets
paid will be determined by the total amount of valid claims filed
and the types of CRT monitors or TVs to be reimbursed. Since the
different types of CRT TVs and monitors get paid differently, based
on their sizes (size of screen) and other factors, the final
payment amount can vary. Until all claims have been filed and
checked, it is impossible to know how much money will actually be
paid to each person that files a valid claim form in the CRT
settlement. [GN]
MUNDI 910 VICTORIA: Exclusion With Fire Class Action Until May 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CFM Lawyers LLP of News Wire reports that if a victim does not wish
to participate in the class action he /she must take action to
exclude himself / herself before May 24, 2023. This will be his /
her only opportunity to opt out of the class action.
If you opt out:
-- You will not be eligible to participate in the ongoing class
action, and
you will not be bound by the outcome of the class action, including
any judgment on the common issues for the class, whether favourable
or not, and
you will not receive any money from the class action, but
you will be able to start or continue your own case against the
Defendants regarding the claims made in the class action.
If you wish to opt out of the class action you must do so on or
before May 24, 2023 by sending a letter or email, signed by you,
stating that you are opting out of the Class Action to Class
Counsel. The letter or email must also include: (i) your full name,
(ii) your current address, (iii) your telephone number, and (iv) a
statement that you wish to opt-out of the Class Action.
A class action lawsuit about the July 8, 2020, fire at the Prince
George Econo Lodge City Centre Inn has been allowed to proceed by
the British Columbia Supreme Court. The plaintiff, Leonard Hay, has
filed the class action to seek compensation for himself and other
Class Members who suffered losses or injuries as a result of the
fire.
You may be a Class Member if:
You were a registered guest at the City Centre Inn on July 8,
2020;
You were present at the City Centre Inn on July 8, 2020 at the time
of the fire;
You were present at Yolks All Day Family Restaurant on July 8, 2020
at the time of the fire; or
You are a family member of one of the victims who was killed in the
fire.
However, you are not a Class Member if you intentionally started
the Fire, conspired to start the Fire, or were an employee of one
of the defendants in the class action. The defendants are:
Mundi 910 Victoria Enterprises Ltd.;
Choice Hotels Canada Inc.;
The City of Prince George; and
All Points Fire Protection.
The class action will seek to claim compensation for Class Members
who suffered losses as a result of the fire, including:
Wrongful death;
Personal injury, including physical and psychological injuries;
Lost or damaged possessions;
Room costs that were not refunded; and
Expenses caused by the fire, such as transportation and hotel
costs.
Participating in the Class Action
Your legal rights will be affected if you are a Class Member. You
do not need to sign up for the class action for your legal rights
to be affected. If you do nothing:
you will be eligible to participate in the ongoing class action,
and
you will be bound by the outcome of the class action, including any
judgment on the common issues for the class, whether favourable or
not, and
you may receive money from the class action, but
you will not be able to start or continue your own case against the
Defendants regarding the claims made in the class action.
If you believe you are a Class Member and would like to know more
about your rights and the class action, please contact Class
Counsel for more information.
You should save any documents you have that might relate to your
losses, such as receipts for any expenses you incurred because of
the fire, medical records, and booking information with the City
Centre Inn.
To contact class counsel please send a letter to:
CFM Lawyers
400 - 856 Homer Street
Vancouver, B.C., V6B 2W5
ATTN: Amy Mileusnic
The law firms of CFM Lawyers LLP and Dick Byl Law Corporation
represent Class Members. If the Class Action is successful, Class
Counsel will ask the court for approval of their fees, which will
be a percentage of the money recovered from the defendants. To find
out more, please visit www.cfmlawyers.ca or www.dbylaw.com or
contact Class Counsel through the address and email above. [GN]
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class Cert Responses Due March 23 in Sweeney
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sweeney, et al., v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01569
(SD. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order
granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file response as
to motion to certify class.
-- Responses due is by March 23, 2023.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) involving employee benefits.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and affiliated companies,
commonly shortened to Nationwide, is a group of large U.S.
insurance and financial services companies based in Columbus, Ohio.
The company also operates regional headquarters in Scottsdale,
Arizona; Des Moines, Iowa and San Antonio, Texas.[CC]
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Sanchez Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navy Federal Credit
Union. The case is styled as Sharlene Sanchez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navy Federal Credit
Union, Case No. 5:23-cv-00285 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a
global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered
and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union
Administration.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
20900 NE 30th Ave
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
NESTLE WATERS: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Nov. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patane, et al., v. Nestle
Waters North America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381 (D. Conn., Filed
Aug. 15, 2017), the Hon. Judge S. Dave Vatti entered an order on
motion for extension of time:
-- Motions for class certification November 16, 2023
and for summary judgment are due
by:
-- Opposition briefs by: January 17, 2024
-- Reply briefs by: February 16, 2024
-- The Joint Trial Memorandum March 4, 2024
is due by:
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.
Nestle Waters North America is a leading Healthy Hydration company
dedicated to enhancing quality of life and contributing to a
healthier future.[CC]
NEW HAMPSHIRE BOWL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Hampshire Bowl &
Board, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. New Hampshire Bowl & Board,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01502 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
New Hampshire Bowl and Board --
https://www.newhampshirebowlandboard.com/ -- makes wood salad
bowls, wood carving boards, wooden spoons, and wood utensils.[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
NEW YORK, NY: Sow Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sow, et al., v. City Of
New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00533 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Colleen Mcmahon entered an order as follows:
-- Any motions for class certification March 31, 2023
must be filed by:
-- Opposition to motions for class May 10, 2023
certification must be filed by:
-- Reply briefs, if any, are due on: May 31, 2023
-- Expert Discovery due by: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2023
-- Motions due by: March 31, 2023
-- Replies due by: May 31, 2023
-- Responses due by: May 10, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.
A copy of the dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lWv8UH at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Yates Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yates, et al., v. City Of
New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01904 (S.D.N.Y., Filed March 4,
2021), the Hon. Judge Colleen Mcmahon entered an order as follows:
-- Any motions for class certification March 31, 2023
must be filed by:
-- Opposition to motions for class May 10, 2023
certification must be filed by:
-- Reply briefs, if any, are due on: May 31, 2023
-- Expert Discovery due by: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2023
-- Motions due by: March 31, 2023
-- Replies due by: May 31, 2023
-- Responses due by: May 10, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.
A copy of the dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EIkbN5 at no extra charge.[CC]
NEWBURY COMICS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newbury Comics, Inc.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Newbury Comics, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01505-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Newbury Comics -- https://www.newburycomics.com/ -- is an
independently owned retail company with stores throughout New
England and New York.[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
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fisher Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norfolk Southern
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as William Lee Fisher, Helen
Gould, Donna Holzer, Robert Holzer, Taylor Holzer, Melinda Hutton,
Jennifer Kidder, Joseph Kidder, Julie Richeal, Keith Richeal,
George A. Psomas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk
Southern Railway Company, ABC Corporations 1-20, Names Unknown,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00350-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 23, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.
Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is one of
the nation's premier transportation companies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Phone: (513) 381-2333
Fax: (513) 721-1178
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
- and -
Nils Paul Johnson, Jr.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
12 West Main Street
Canfield, OH 44406
Phone: (330) 533-1921
- and -
Nils Peter Johnson
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
120 West Main Street
Canfield, OH 44406
Phone: (330) 533-1921
Fax: (330) 533-0887
Email: nilspeter@johnsonandjohnsonohio.com
- and -
Todd B. Naylor
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER
One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Fax: (513) 345-8294
Email: tnaylor@gs-legal.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Ste. 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
NORTHPOINT SENIOR: Summers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Amerla Summers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NORTHPOINT SENIOR SERVICES, LLC D/B/A PRESTIGE
HEALTHCARE, and NOBLE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00759-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 23, 2023), is brought
against Defendants for Defendants' willful failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as
well as failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, ("the Ohio Wage Act"), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
("OPPA"), (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be referred to
collectively as "the Ohio Acts").
The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and the
Ohio Acts by failing to pay its hourly workers, including Named
Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class,
for all compensable hours each day worked, including, upon
information and belief, by deducting time and/or not compensating
at all for a "meal period" in the amount of at least 30 minutes
each day even though the "meal period" was regularly missed,
shortened, and/or interrupted by job duties at the Defendants'
direction and for Defendants' benefit., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly state tested
nurse assistant ("STNA") from February 16, 2022 until January 27,
2023 at one of Defendants' senior living facilities in Delaware,
Ohio.
The Defendants operate at least 17 nursing rehabilitation and
long-term care facilities throughout the State of Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
NUMERADE LABS: Ghanaat Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Ghanaat and Vedant Thakkar, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. NUMERADE LABS, INC. d/b/a NUMERADE,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00833 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought
arising from the Defendant surreptitious disclosure of its
subscribers' personally identifying information in violation of the
Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA"), which generally
prohibits the knowing disclosure of information which identifies a
consumer as having requested or obtained specific video materials
or services.
Specifically, Numerade uses a "Pixel" tracking cookie to disclose
to Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta," formerly known as Facebook
("Facebook")) a record of its digital subscribers' identities side
by side with the specific videos its digital subscribers requested
or obtained. Numerade does so without their "informed, written
consent."
The Plaintiffs are victims of Numerade's misconduct. Numerade
disclosed to Facebook Plaintiffs' personally identifiable
information, including their Facebook ID ("FID"), along with the
video title and the video's URL identifying each video Plaintiffs
requested or obtained (together, "Personal Viewing Information").
The Plaintiffs have never consented, agreed, authorized, or
otherwise permitted Defendant to disclose their Personal Viewing
Information to Facebook. The Plaintiffs have never been provided
any written notice that Defendant discloses its digital
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information, or any means of opting
out of such disclosures of their Personal Viewing Information. The
Defendant nonetheless disclosed Plaintiffs' Personal Viewing
Information to Facebook, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are subscribers to Numerade.
The Defendant owns and publishes www.numerade.com, which is an
educational technology website that offers subscribers the
opportunity to request and view pre-recorded video courses, notes
and exams, and test preparation for science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics topics.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
- and -
Brian Levin, Esq.
LEVIN LAW, P.A.
2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2b
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 402-9050
Fax: (305) 676-4443
Email: brian@levinlawpa.com
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Carroll Class Certification Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN CARROLL, et al., v.
ORANGE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00614-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order granting final
approval of class certification and award of attorney fees.
The Court approves two late claims that were submitted since
September 23, 2022. By agreement, the Parties may agree to approve
any additional late claims received up to the time of distribution,
without the need for further stipulation or review by the Court.
Should the Parties disagree as to the approval of a claim, they
shall advise the Court.
The sole objection was submitted by an individual who stated that
they were objecting only because they were not an eligible class
member because they had not received/sought General Relief
benefits. The objection is unrelated to the terms of the Settlement
so no further action is necessary to address the objection.
-- Payment of the Class Fund, Attorneys' Fees, and
Distribution to the Class.
The Court approves total litigation costs of $450, which
the filing fee for this action paid by Plaintiffs' Counsel.
There are no costs of administration.
The Court approves a fee award of $150,000, which is
independent of the settlement fund and equivalent to 60% of
the lodestar. This award is justified by the fact that the
the Plaintiffs' attorneys achieved significant results for
the class and undertook the risk of litigation.
The Plaintiffs' Counsel filed documentation of their fees
totaling 3 $252,527.50.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kCTDG9 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brooke Weitzman, Esq.
William Wise, Esq.
ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY
RIGHTS CENTER
1535 E 17th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Telephone: (714) 617–5353
E-mail: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org
bwise@eldrcenter.org
- and -
Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL SOBEL
1158 26th Street, #552
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Telephone: (310) 393-3055
E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com
- and -
Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS
& HOFFMAN
9415 Culver Boulevard, #115
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (310) 396-0731
E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
OUR OWN CANDLE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Our Own Candle
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Our Own Candle
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01510 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Our Own Candle Company, Inc. --
https://www.ourowncandlecompany.com/ -- offers scented mason jar
candles with fast and easy delivery.[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
P.F. CHANG'S: Cookson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KYLE COOKSON and EDGAR VILLALOBOS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. P.F.
CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC. a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1- 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00045709-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on Feb. 21, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00341-GPC-DDL to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges 10 causes of action: (1) failure to pay
minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to
pay reporting time pay; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5)
failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to timely pay wages
during employment; (7) failure to timely pay wages at separation;
(8) failure to reimburse necessary expenses; (9) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and (10) violation of California
Business & Professions Code.
P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. is an American-based, casual dining
restaurant chain.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
christopher.decker@ogletree.com
PANERA LLC: Ladonski Sues Over Deceptive and Untruthful Promises
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ladonski, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. PANERA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01101 (N.D.
Ill., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought seeking monetary damages,
restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from the
Defendant, arising from its deceptive and untruthful promises to
provide FREE, $1 or flat fee, low-cost delivery on food deliveries
ordered through its App and website.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Panera has moved
aggressively into the food delivery business, exploiting an
opportunity presented by Americans' reduced willingness to leave
their homes. To appeal to consumers in a crowded food delivery
marketplace, Panera has prominently marketed a FREE, $1 or flat
fee, low-cost "Delivery Fee" in its mobile application and on its
website.
Reasonable consumers like Plaintiff understand Panera's prominent
"Delivery Fee" promises to represent the total marginal cost they
will pay for having Panera food delivered to their homes, over and
above what they would pay if they picked up food in-store. Indeed,
this is precisely how the term "Delivery Fee" is used across the
food delivery industry and how the term is understood by reasonable
consumers: a "Delivery Fee" is a promise that such fee is what
covers delivery costs.
Panera's "Delivery Fee" representations, however, were and are
false. Panera actually imposes additional, hidden delivery charges
on its customers that far exceed the promise of FREE, $1 or flat
fee, low-cost delivery. Specifically, Panera secretly marks up food
prices for delivery orders only by 5%-7%. In other words, the
identical sandwich costs approximately $1 more when ordered for
delivery than when ordered via the same mobile app for pickup,
versus when ordered in-store.
This secret menu price markup was specifically designed to cover
the costs of delivering food and profit on that delivery. It was,
in short, exclusively a charge for using Panera's delivery service
and was, therefore, a delivery charge. Worse, Panera designed its
app and website to make it impossible for consumers to catch its
hidden menu price inflation. The company ensured that food prices
were only displayed on the app or website after a customer chose
delivery or pickup, ensuring delivery customers could not see the
price inflation Panera was imposing on delivery orders only.
This hidden delivery upcharge makes Panera's flat, low-cost
delivery promises false. The true delivery costs are obscured, as
described above, and far exceed the prominent flat, low-cost
promises. By falsely marketing flat, low-cost delivery, Panera
deceives consumers into making website or mobile app food purchases
they otherwise would not make, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff used the Panera app to make a purchase of food on
September 8, 2021, in the total amount of $16.23.
Panera, LLC is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
business offices in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue
Aventura, FL 33180
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street N W, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielpllc.com
PARTNERS BANCORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Linkbancorp Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Partners
Bancorp. (NASDAQ: PTRS), relating to its proposed sale to
LINKBANCORP, Inc.. Under the terms of the agreement, PTRS
shareholders are expected to receive 1.15 shares of LINKBANCORP
stock per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/partners-bancorp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in PTRS and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
PATREON INC: Court Dismisses in Part Stark's 1st Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRAYDEN STARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATREON, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate
Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part Patreon's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint.
Plaintiffs Brayden Stark and Judd Oostyen bring the putative class
action against Patreon, asserting claims under the federal Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") and California law based on
Patreon's alleged sharing of user data with Facebook.
Patreon allows its users or members to access a variety of content
on its website, including music, podcasts, and video content posted
by content creators. The Plaintiffs assert that Patreon is
therefore a "video tape service provider" as that term is defined
in the VPPA because it engaged in the business of delivering
audiovisual materials that are similar to prerecorded video
cassette tapes and those sales affect interstate or foreign
commerce.
The Plaintiffs are current users of both Patreon and Facebook, the
ubiquitous social network. They pay Patreon subscription fees of
around $15 and $5 respectively per month and regularly watch
prerecorded video content on Patreon's website. Their Facebook
profiles include their names and other personal details, and they
have used the same devices and browsers to access Patreon that they
use to access Facebook, while logged into Facebook.
When users view video content on Patreon's website, Patreon
transmits the title of the video they are viewing, as well as the
user's Facebook ID ("FID") to Meta, the company that owns Facebook,
using a tracking tool created by Meta called the "Pixel."
The Plaintiffs assert that they did not know of or authorize
Patreon sharing their video usage information with Meta, and that
the "Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, Data Practices, and Cookie
Policy" included on Patreon's website do not inform users of
Patreon's use of the Meta Pixel or its practice of sharing Users'
personal information and video content choices with Meta in a way
that allows Meta to identify their specific video-watching
preferences. In any event, Patreon never obtained a standalone
agreement from users to share that information as required by the
VPPA.
The Plaintiffs contend that Patreon profited from this conduct and
that they and the other putative class members suffered harm in
that Patreon shared data that users expected would be kept private,
users lost the potential to obtain any value for that data
themselves, and users paid greater subscription fees to Patreon
than they would have if they had known how Patreon was sharing
their data.
The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) violation of the
VPPA; (2) violation of the "unlawful," "unfair," and "fraudulent"
prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"); (3)
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the
"CLRA"); and (4) unjust enrichment.
The Court previously granted a motion to dismiss some of the
Plaintiffs' claims for failure to allege that the videos at issue
were prerecorded, a defect that Plaintiffs have remedied in their
amended complaint. That previous order declined to reach Patreon's
constitutional challenge to the VPPA.
In conjunction with its previous motion to dismiss, Patreon
requested that the Court takes judicial notice of the various
versions of its terms of use, privacy policy, and cookie policy
that were in effect during the period at issue, arguing that the
Plaintiffs' complaint incorporated those documents by reference.
Judge Spero states that the Court previously found those documents
subject to judicial notice for the purpose of showing what Patreon
disclosed to its users, but held that at the pleading stage, they
could not be used to contradict the Plaintiffs' allegations
regarding how Patreon operates its business.
Patreon contends that the VPPA violates the First Amendment by
imposing a content-based restriction on speech without sufficiently
compelling reason. It contends that a substantial number of the
VPPA's potential applications are unconstitutional, rendering the
statute subject to facial invalidation. According to Patreon, the
VPPA is not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling interest, and
it also arbitrarily excludes other speech that would presumably
implicate the same interests it is intended to serve, like
disclosure of consumer information by libraries or bookstores.
Patreon also contends that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the
heightened pleading standard for claims sounding in fraud with
respect to their claims under the CLRA and the fraud prong of the
UCL, because they do not allege that they actually reviewed any
purportedly misleading statements giving rise to a duty to disclose
Patreon's use of the Pixel (thus failing to sufficiently allege
causation), and because they have not specifically identified any
such statements.
The United States intervened in the case to defend the
constitutionality of the VPPA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 517
and 2403(a) and Rules 5.1(c) and 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. It argues that although the VPPA has not
previously been subject to a constitutional challenge, three
decisions from the Southern District of New York upholding an
analogous Michigan statute are persuasive authority that the VPPA
does not violate the First Amendment. It also contends that the
VPPA primarily regulates commercial speech, which is not subject to
overbreadth analysis, and that it withstands the intermediate
scrutiny applicable to such speech. The United States' brief does
not address whether the VPPA would survive strict scrutiny. See
generally id.
The Plaintiffs argue that the VPPA protects private information and
privacy interests that courts have recognized as constitutionally
significant, and that the speech it restricts does not implicate
matters of public concern. Like the United States, they contend
that it restricts only commercial speech based on a broader
definition of such speech than that propounded by Patreon, and that
Patreon's examples of the VPPA regulating less clearly commercial
speech are implausible and unlikely to arise often.
The Plaintiffs also argue that the statute is content-neutral
because it does not discriminate by viewpoint or turn on whether
the government agrees or disagrees with a speaker's message. They
argue that the VPPA is subject to and survives intermediate
scrutiny. In a short paragraph, they argue that it would also
survive strict scrutiny. They contend that they have sufficiently
alleged their CLRA and UCL claims.
As to Patreon's consitutional challenges, Judge Spero finds that
(i) the VPPA's regulation of video service providers disclosing
consumers' personal information -- as opposed to any other
information -- is content-based; (ii) the statute's regulation of
commercial disclosures similar to those at issue do not support
Patreon's contention that the VPPA violates the First Amendment;
(iii) the Court is aware of no other decision holding that any
comment that touches on a commercial transaction (like a video
rental or purchase) is commercial speech subject to reduced
constitutional protection, and declines to so hold; (iv) Patreon's
facial challenge premature on a motion to dismiss. He denies
Patreon's motion to dismiss the VPPA claim without prejudice to
Patreon reasserting its constitutional arguments on a factual
record.
Judge Spero also finds that without allegations that they actually
read the terms of use and other documents containing purportedly
misleading partial representations, the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint does not sufficiently support an inference that their
misunderstanding of how Patreon used their data was caused by
Patreon's failure to disclose that information in conjunction with
its purported partial representations. Therefore, Patreon's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's CLRA claim and UCL fraud claim is
therefore granted, with leave to amend if the Plaintiffs can allege
that they read the relevant documents.
Because those claims are subject to dismissal on that basis, Judge
Spero does not reach the question of whether the Plaintiffs must
allege the specific partial representations at issue with
particularity under the circumstances of the case, where Patreon
previously offered the documents containing them for judicial
notice and the Court has already identified representations therein
that could support the Plaintiffs' claims. To avoid an unnecessary
third motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs are encouraged to include
such allegations if they amend their complaint to pursue these
claims.
For the reasons he discussed, Judge Spero denies Patreon's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim under the VPPA, and grants its
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under the CLRA and the
fraud prong of the UCL with leave to amend. If the Plaintiffs wish
to pursue those claims, they may file a second amended complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycks655m from Leagle.com.
PEPSICO INC: Gumner Sues Over Unlawful Marketing
------------------------------------------------
David Gumner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00332 (C.D. Cal., Feb.
24, 2023), is brought against the Defendant to enjoin the Defendant
from unlawfully marketing Gatorade Fit, and to recover compensation
for injured Class Members.
Pepsi sells a line of Gatorade "Fit" drinks (the "Products") that
it markets and labels as "Real Healthy Hydration" because, inter
alia, it has "No Added Sugar" and is an "Excellent Source of
Vitamin A & C." But Pepsi's use of these claims renders the
Gatorade Fit products misbranded because they do not meet the
specific requirements necessary to make these claims. The Plaintiff
bought Gatorade Fit in reliance on these claims and was
economically injured.
The Plaintiff paid more for Gatorade Fit because of the Misbranded
Claims. The Plaintiff would not have purchased Gatorade Fit or
would only have been willing to pay less, absent the Misbranded
Claims. Gatorade Fit cost more than it would have without the
Misbranded Claims. By using the Misbranded Claims, Pepsi was able
to gain a greater share of the relevant drink market than it would
have otherwise and also increased the size of the market. The
Plaintiff would not have purchased Gatorade Fit if he had known
that the Products were misbranded pursuant to California and
federal labeling laws and regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Gatorade Fit in November of 2022 from the
Walmart located on Alicia Parkway in Laguna Niguel, California.
Pepsi owns the Gatorade brand and sells Gatorade Fit on a
nationwide basis, including in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Paul K Joseph, Esq.
Melanie Persinger, Esq.
Trevor M Flynn, Esq.
Caroline S Emhardt
FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 215-1741
Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
PFLUG PACKAGING: Bahena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pflug Packaging &
Fulfillment, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Bahena,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Pflug Packaging & Fulfillment, Inc., Empire Workforce Solutions,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0001617 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., Feb. 22, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Pflug Packaging & Fulfillment, Inc. --
http://www.pflugpackaging.com/-- provides packaging, warehousing,
and fulfillment services. The Company offers product recall,
fulfillment center, wine storage, shrink film, metal detection,
inspection, bagging, and contract packaging services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
PISA GROUP: Court Certifies TCPA Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPAWorld, reports that a properly
defended TCPA DNC case should almost never be certified.
Individualized issues lurk everywhere.
Did consent exist to place each call?
Did an EBR exist?
Was the phone used for residential purposes?
Who placed the number on the DNC list?
Was there an inquiry?
Surmounting these - and other - issues using common evidence across
an entire class is usually impossible.
And a class that is defined without taking these issues into
account should ALWAYS be doomed to failure - class members will
have claims of different strength turning on different evidence and
their claim will not all rise and fall based on common issues.
So a class like this one should NEVER be certified:
All natural persons in the United States who, within four years
preceding the filing of this case, received more than one telephone
solicitation call from PGI within a 12-month period telemarketing
newspaper subscriptions more than 31 days after registering their
telephone number with the National Do-Not-Call Registry
And yet . . .
In Williams v. The PISA Group, Inc. 2023 WL 2227697, Case No.
18-4752 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2023) the court certified just such a
class.
The reason? As far as I can tell the Defendant failed to make an
adequate showing of how differences in EBR information would lead
to individual merits showings for each class member. And, if I'm
right, that's a pretty big miss.
Jumping to the punchline here - the Court found the class was
"easily" certifiable because the class claims could be measured
based upon the Defendant's CRM data. But that's the wrong analysis.
More precisely it is only half of the right analysis.
Step one is, indeed, to confirm that data needed to test the class
member's claim is available. But step two is more important -
assessing whether the same data exists across the entire class. But
of course, it will not.
Specifically, each class member would have had a relationship that
ended at a different time and in a different manner. Some class
members may have had follow up inquiries after their subscription
ended. And some would, perhaps, never have had a subscription at
all.
Determining which groups of class members fall into each bucket is
the individualized inquiries that the Defendant should have pointed
to. And yes, a good Plaintiff's lawyer with a good expert could
probably have roughed it out and found a narrow class of
individuals that mirrored the Plaintiff-but a huge wide ranging
class of everyone that was called should NEVER have been called
here.
Indeed, the mere fact that some class members received calls that
were legal should INSTANTLY have destroyed commonality - there is
no commonality where some class members have valid claims and some
do not. So the certification process should never have gotten past
23(a) analysis, much less the more rigorous 23(b)(3) analysis.
The bad part for all of us, of course, is now this case is out
there and a danger to everyone - bad precedent that other courts
may follow in the mistaken belief that these sorts of cases are
certifiable. No good.
Just another reminder that TCPAWorld is not for the faint of heart,
or the green of horn . . . [GN]
PRO CUSTOM: Ct. Adopts Recommendations to Certify Class in Murrell
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murrell, et al., v. Pro
Custom Solar LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02656 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order adopting Report and
Recommendations (R&R) for motion to certify class and Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action.
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak's
comprehensive and well-reasoned R&R dated February 2, 2023, to
which no party has objected. Because no party has objected to the
R&R within the statutory 14-day period, the Court "need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record."
The nature of suit states civil rights – employment.
Pro Custom Solar LLC, doing business as Momentum Solar, provides
renewable energy services.[CC]
R&L CARRIERS: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT JOHNSON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company; R&L
CARRIERS, INC., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01619-MCS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the
Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion
seeking denial of class certification and to strike the Plaintiff's
representative allegations under Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA) should be granted.
Here, the complaint simply tracks the language of the PAGA statute,
and is far too conclusory to properly put R&L on notice of the
claims asserted. Further, the First Amended Complaint (FAC) fails
to identify the aggrieved employees with sufficient specificity, as
it describes the "Aggrieved Employees" as "past and present
non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of Defendants who worked in
California during the applicable statute of limitations period,"
devoid of names, titles, or job duties.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m1Q9NO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cheryl L. Schreck, Esq.
Anet Drapalski, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: cschreck@fisherphillips.com
adrapalski@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Anthony C. White, Esq.
J. Timothy McDonald , Esq.
THOMPSON HINE, LLP
41 South High Street, Suite 1700
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 469-3200
Facsimile: (614) 469-3361
E-mail: Tony.White@ThompsonHine.com
Tim.McDonald@ThompsonHine.com
RAGAN & RAGAN: Class Action Settlement in Rubino Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEFANO RUBINO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RAGAN & RAGAN,
P.C.; Case No. 2:21-cv-20288-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge André M.
Espinosa entered a final approval order of the class action
settlement as follows:
1. On October 18, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the
Class Settlement Agreement reached between Plaintiff and
Defendant for the claims alleged in the case filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The Court approved a Notice of Proposed Class
Action Settlement for mailing to the class as well as a
Claim Form. The Court is informed that said Notice was
sent by first-class mail, via the United States Postal
Service (USPS) to 1,008 individuals who are deemed
Settlement Class Members.
2. As of the date of this Declaration, Simpluris has received
a total of 72 Claim Forms, which have been deemed timely
and valid, and are therefore eligible for payments.
3. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Litigation, the Plaintiff and Class Representative, the
other Settlement Class Members, and the Defendant.
4. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice of
Proposed Class Action Settlement as provided for in the
Preliminary Approval Order constituted the best notice
practicable under the circumstances to all Persons within
the definition of the Class, and fully met the
requirements of New Jersey law and due process under the
United States Constitution.
5. The Court approves the Class Action Settlement which
includes a release, and other terms, as fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate as to the Parties. The Parties
are directed to perform in accordance with the terms set
forth in the Agreement.
6. Except as to any individual Settlement Class Member who
has requested exclusion from the Class, all claims of the
Plaintiff and the other Settlement Class Members, against
the Defendant are dismissed without prejudice. The Parties
are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided
in the Agreement.
7. For purposes of settlement the parties stipulate to the
following class:
"All New Jersey consumers who were sent letters from
Defendant which included an information subpoena and/or a
Notice of Waiver of Rights, in an attempt to collect a
judgment on behalf of any creditor.
The Court designates the National Consumer Law Center as
the cy pres recipient. The Claims Administrator shall
issue the cy pres award to the National Consumer Law
Center within 30 days of the Void Date, and mail to Class
Counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zwav05 at no extra charge.[CC]
RCX LLC: Cline-Thomas Bid to Dismiss Class Action Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA THOMPSON, et al.,
v. RCX, LLC d/b/a STADIUM CLUB, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03386-CJN
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Carl J. Nichols entered an order denying
the Defendant Rudolph Cline-Thomas's motion to dismiss class
action.
The Court further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a collective action and issuance of notice is
granted in part and denied in part as follows:
1. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this case is conditionally
certified as a collective action on behalf of the
following class:
"All persons who
(i) are currently employed as an exotic dancer at
Stadium Club or were employed within the two-year
statute of limitations period, as set forth in 29
U.S.C. section 256(b);
(ii) are or were classified by the Defendants as an
independent contractor and subject to the
Defendants' wage and tip policies; and
(iii) choose to opt into this action."
Within seven days of the date of this Order, Defendants' counsel
shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel the names, last known mailing
addresses, email addresses, mobile phone numbers, and dates of
employment of all dancers who have worked at Stadium Club at any
time in the two years preceding the date of this Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kClFSe at no extra charge.[CC]
REALPAGE INC: Deadline Suspended to Respond to Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kate Kramer, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. REALPAGE, INC.; ALLIED ORION GROUP, LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES
INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BELL PARTNERS, INC.; BOZZUTO
MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD,
INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC;
HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; and UDR, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-03835-TSC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan entered
an order suspending deadline for certain defendants to respond to
complaint.
1. The deadline for Defendants RealPage, Inc., Allied Orion
Group, LLC, AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Avenue
Residential, LLC, Bell Partners, Inc., Bozzuto Management
Company, Camden Property Trust, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.,
Equity Residential, Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC,
Highmark Residential, LLC, and UDR, Inc. (the "Stipulating
Defendants") to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to the Complaint is hereby suspended.
2. The deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class
certification as required by LcvR 23.1(b) is hereby
suspended.
3. The Plaintiff and Defendants RealPage, Inc., Allied Orion
Group, LLC, AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Avenue5
Residential, LLC, Bell Partners, Inc., Bozzuto Management
Company, Camden Property Trust, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.,
Equity Residential, Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC,
Highmark Residential, LLC, and UDR, Inc. shall meet and
confer and file a status report with the Court by March
15, 2023.
RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides
property management software for the multifamily, commercial,
single-family and vacation rental housing industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZsyEEK at no extra charge.[CC]
RELIANCE FIRST: Bid to Dismiss Davis Complaint Nixed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM DAVIS , on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. RELIANCE FIRST
CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-00018-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Terrence W. Boyle entered an order denying the defendant' motion to
dismiss and/or strike.
The Defendant makes various arguments as to why the plaintiff s
three proposed Classes should be stricken. However, at this stage
in this case, defendant' s arguments are premature, the Court
says.
The Plaintiff, a North Carolina citizen, owns a cellphone that is
listed on the Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff does not perform
any commercial activity on that cell phone.
The Plaintiff alleges that, on November 20, 2021, at 9:23 am, he
received a voicemail from RFC. The Plaintiff alleges that he could
tell from the tone and cadence that the voice was pre-recorded.
Reliance First Capital provides home loan programs, refinancing
options, and custom mortgage lender services for first time and
existing homeowners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z7DB6m at no extra charge.[CC]
RICE DRILLING: Court Resets Class Certification Hearing in J&R
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J&R PASSMORE, LLC, et al.,
v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01587-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order
resetting class certification hearing.
Due to a conflict with the Court's trial calendar, the Class
Certification Hearing is rescheduled for Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at
1:30 p.m. in Court Room 1, Room 331 of the U.S. Courthouse located
at 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio.
The Class Certification Hearing in this case may not be continued
by stipulation of the parties or counsel, but only by an order of
the Court on good cause shown. Any request for a continuance should
be made promptly after the reason for seeking the continuance
becomes known.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J5e3RB at no extra charge.[CC]
RIVERBEND OIL & GAS: Black Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riverbend Oil & Gas
VIII LLC. The case is styled as Aaron Parish Black, as Trustee of
the Reba J. Parish Trust; Norma J. Bryant, Dan Larry Pennington,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. Riverbend Oil & Gas VIII LLC, Case No.
4:23-cv-00140-KGB (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Riverbend Energy Group -- https://riverbendenergygroup.com/ -- is
an energy investment firm that creates and executes superior
opportunities in onshore energy projects across the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
Seth K. Jones, Esq.
Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Phone: (913) 563-6250
Email: george@bartonburrows.com
seth@bartonburrows.com
stacy@bartonburrows.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mark Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Roald Mark, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07974 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on Feb. 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01087 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the
global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital
media.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: mreich@rgrdlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John J. Delionado, Jr., Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
333 S.E. 2 Avenue, Ste. 2400
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 536-2752
Fax: (305) 810-2460
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Murray Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Liam Murray, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00295 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on Feb. 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01088 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the
global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital
media.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
768 Plandome Road
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 426-6870
SANTA MONICA, CA: Scheduling Order Entered in Murcia Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA, et
al., v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L.
Aenlle-Rocha entered an order regarding pretrial and trial dates,
trial requirements, and conduct of attorneys and parties as
follows:
Trial and Final Pretrial Court Order
Conference Dates
-- Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend May 19, 2023
Pleadings or Add Parties [Friday]
-- Last Date to Hear Motion for Class Sep. 1, 2023
Certification [Friday]
-- Fact Discovery Cut-Off [Friday] Mar. 22, 2024
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial) Mar. 29, 2024
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) Apr. 12, 2024
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off Apr. 26, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y5KJyK at no extra charge.[CC]
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Order Continuing Hearing Entered
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVER GUILBEAU,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND
CHRISTOPHER O'MARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00142-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth S.
("Betsy") Chestney entered an order granting the Defendant's
unopposed motion for extension of time for the Plaintiffs to file a
reply to the Defendant's Response in opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for issuance of notice of collective action and to reset
motion hearing.
Schlumberger Technology operates as an oilfield services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZoP9Sr at no extra charge.[CC]
SCRANTON QUINCY HOSPITAL: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Scranton Quincy Hospital Company LLC,
Scranton Hospital Company, LLC, Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, LLC,
Case No. 23CV238 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Lackawanna County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 22, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00318-MEM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Scranton Quincy Hospital Company doing business as Moses Taylor
Hospital provide quality health care that is patient- and
community-focused for obstetrics, neonatal care and senior
behavioral health.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Heim, Esq.
George Bochetto, Esq.
Ryan T. Kirk, Esq.
BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C.
1524 Locust St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 735-3900
Fax: (215) 735-2455
Email: dheim@bochettoandlentz.com
gbochetto@bochettoandlentz.com
rkirk@bochettoandlentz.com
- and -
David Warden, Esq.
Foster C. Johnson, Esq.
John A. O'Connell, Esq.
Weining Bai, Esq.
AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: (713) 655-1101
- and -
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Ste. 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lyle Washowich, Esq.
BURNS WHITE LLC
Burns White Center
48 26th Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 995-3004
Email: ldwashowich@burnswhite.com
- and -
Stuart T. O'Neal, III, Esq.
BURNS WHITE LLC
100 Four Falls, Suite 515
1001 Conshohocken State Road
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (484) 567-5700
Email: soneal@burnswhite.com
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fernandez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Portfolio
Servicing Inc. The case is styled as Nelson Fernandez,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-20730-RKA (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. -- https://www.spservicing.com/ --
is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital
Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas John Patti, III, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Fax: (954) 529-9540
Email: tom@jibraellaw.com
- and -
Victor Zabaleta, Esq.
PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP
3325 Northwest 55th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone: (561) 866-3584
Email: victor@pzlg.legal
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Scheduling Order Entered in Evans Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Evans v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05985 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Robert M. Levy entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- If the Parties cannot reach agreement, they shall submit
their competing proposals to the Court for resolution.
-- In the event Judge Chen denies defendants Rule 72
objections, the defendants shall produce the requested
discovery within 14 days of Judge Chens decision.
-- Counsel shall submit a joint status reports on the progress
of discovery 60 days after Judge Chens decision on the Rule
72 objections.
-- The Plaintiff shall file a pre-motion conference letter
requesting leave to file a motion for class certification
within 30 days of the close of fact discovery.
The nature of suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Act involving consumer credit.
Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as
Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and
Jacksonville, Florida.[CC]
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: O'Keefe Sues Over Cryptocurrency Exchange Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connor O'Keefe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-20700-JEM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought seeking
damages for the Defendants' knowing and substantial assistance in
furtherance of Sam Bankman-Fried ("SBF")'s fraud.
Through his cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, SBF preyed on naive,
young investors, persuading them to deposit hard-earned monies into
accounts on the exchange, promising them the funds would be safe
and garner returns other financial institutions could not provide.
Both were lies. SBF was in fact running a Ponzi scheme, whereby he
took in FTX customer funds, transferred those funds to entities he
separately owned, and then spent the money on things of unmatched
luxury, including a Formula One team, beachfront property in The
Bahamas, expensive cars, and private jets. SBF swindled more than
$8 billion from FTX customers in this way.
Though FTX customers could not see that SBF was misappropriating
their deposits on vice, vanity, and speculative personal
investments, Defendants had full view. Through diligence on FTX and
close ties with SBF, Defendants learned that FTX was operated as
SBF's personal piggy bank, that as quickly as FTX customer funds
flowed into FTX, they flowed back out to other entities SBF
separately owned or controlled, and that FTX lacked the most basic
internal controls, such that the enterprise was in fact a house of
cards. But Defendants did not care. They, too, had money to make in
the scheme, and their interests aligned with SBF's.
SBF's fraud relied on two objectives: first, to keep FTX customer
funds flowing into accounts on the exchange; second, to keep the
fraud concealed from the public eye. Defendants shared these
objectives, as each Defendant benefited from the steady, and
increasing, flow of customer funds into FTX accounts. Various banks
("Defendant Banks"), where FTX held multiple accounts, benefited
billion-dollar increases in their low-cost deposit bases derived
from FTX customer funds. Defendant venture capitalists ("Defendant
VCs"), who invested more than $2 billion in FTX, benefited from the
astronomical valuation that increasing deposits generated for FTX,
upon which the value of Defendant VCs' stakes in the company
astronomically grew. Defendant Fenwick & West and Defendant
accounting firms ("Defendant Accounting Firms"), meanwhile,
benefited from the premium fees they could continue to extract for
services to FTX, paid for with FTX customer proceeds.
SBF could not have perpetuated the fraud without this assistance
from Defendants. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated ("Class Members"), seeks damages for Defendants'
knowing and substantial assistance in furtherance of SBF's fraud,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff O'Keefe deposited these funds by direct transfer of
US dollars from his bank account to an account he understood to be
held by FTX.
Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC is a venture capital firm based in
Menlo Park, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq.
Jorge A. Perez Santiago, Esq.
Amy M. Bowers, Esq.
STUMPHAUZER KOLAYA NADLER & SLOMAN, PLLC
2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 614-1400
Fax: (305) 614-1425
Email: tkolaya@sknlaw.com
jperezsantiago@sknlaw.com
abowers@sknlaw.com
- and -
James R. Swanson, Esq.
Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
Benjamin D. Reichard, Esq.
C. Hogan Paschal, Esq.
Monica Bergeron, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD L.L.P.
201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
Phone: (504) 586-5252
Fax: (504) 586-5250
Email: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com
kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com
breichard@fishmanhaygood.com
hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com
mbergeron@fishmanhaygood.com
SETTON PISTACHIO: Judge Recommends Denial of Ali Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILIA ALI, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. SETTON PISTACHIO OF
TERRA BELLA INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-00959-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara McAuliffe recommended that Ali's motion for class
certification be denied because she finds that Ali fails to satisfy
the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) and
Rule 23(b)(3) for the proposed classes.
1. Ali's motions to strike be denied;
2. Setton Pistachio's motion to strike be denied; and
3. Ali's motion for class certification be denied.
Ali's remaining classes are derivative and based on certification
of the rounding class. As the Court intends to recommend that Ali's
motion to certify the rounding class be denied, it is unnecessary
to address the derivative classes.
The Plaintiff Ali filed suit against a pistachio grower and
processor, Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc., alleging that
Setton Pistachio violated California wage-and-hour laws by
enforcing an unlawful rounding policy that failed to compensate
hourly employees for all hours worked.
Ali filed this lawsuit against Setton Pistachio on April 27, 2016,
in Tulare County Superior Court, and filed a First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") on September 2, 2016. Setton Pistachio removed
the action to this Court on July 12, 2019, under the Class Action
Fairness Act.
The FAC raises six causes of action on behalf of Ali and a putative
class:
(1) failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Labor Code sections
510, 1194;
(2) failure to pay minimum wages, Cal. Labor Code section
1197 and applicable Wage Orders;
(3) failure to pay separation wages, Cal. Labor Code sections
201-203;
(4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements, Cal. Labor
Code section 226;
(5) unfair competition law violations, Cal. Bus. & Profs.
Code section 17200, et seq.; and
(6) a claim for 10 civil penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code section 2699.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the following classes:
-- Rounding Class:
"All California-based hourly employees employed by the
Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2012 to
the present to whom the Defendant paid based on their
rounded rather than actual hours worked;"
-- Labor Code section 203 Class:
"All California-based hourly employees employed by the
Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2013 to
the present who were not paid all wages owed upon
separation as a result of Defendant's rounding policy;"
-- Wage Statement Class:
"All California-based hourly employees employed by the
Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2015 to
the present to whom the Defendant provided wage statements
that did not comply with Labor Code section 226 as a
result of Defendant's rounding policy;" and
-- 17200 Class:
"All California-based hourly employees employed by the
Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2012 to
the present to whom the Defendant has engaged in unlawful,
unfair and/or fraudulent business acts or practices in the
form of Labor Code and Wage Order violations as a result
of the Defendant's rounding policy regarding payment of
all wages, payment of final wages and proper wage
statements.
Setton Pistachio processes pistachios at its facility in Terra
Bella, California, which is a 3 200-acre campus-like facility with
approximately twenty buildings and multiple fields.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3klTHdz at no extra charge.[CC]
SIG SAUER: Court Tosses Ortiz Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derick Ortiz, v. Sig
Sauer, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01025-JL (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge
Joseph N. Laplante entered an order denying the Ortiz's motion for
class certification.
In sum, reliance is an individual issue, which defeats
predominance. The court therefore denies the motion to certify any
class as to the fraudulent concealment claim.
The adjudication of the class's unjust enrichment and fraudulent
concealment claims requires individualized inquiries into numerous
legal and factual issues. These individualized assessments create
manageability issues that foreclose a finding of superiority.
Ortiz filed suit against Sig Sauer in 2019, asserting contract,
breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims premised on
a purported design defect in the P320 that makes it susceptible to
"drop firing," or discharging after being dropped. Following a
motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, only Ortiz's
fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment claims are subject to
this class certification motion.
Ortiz seeks to certify a nationwide class of individuals from 50
states, who purchased the P320 prior to August 8, 2017.
Alternatively, Ortiz moves to certify an unjust enrichment subclass
and a fraudulent omission subclass, each of which limits its
membership to P320 owners from specific states.
Sig Sauer argues that class certification of the nationwide class
and either subclass is improper under Rule 23.
Sig Sauer s a New Hampshire-based firearms manufacturer that
produces the P320 pistol.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xW3KJq at no extra charge.[CC]
SMUGGLER LLC: Costa FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as J. Costa, K. Payne, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Smuggler, LLC formerly known
as: Smuggler, Inc., Rare Bird Holdings, Inc., Brian Carmody,
Patrick Milling-Smith, Division 7, LLC, Doe 1 through and including
Doe 10, Case No. 23STCV01163 was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Feb. 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01468-SVW-RAO to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act
SMUGGLER -- https://smuggler.xyz/ -- is a Film, TV, Commercial and
Music Video production company representing a roster of award
winning directors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dale Alan Harris, Esq.
David Covington Garrett, Esq.
Min Ji Gal, Esq.
HARRIS AND RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (323) 962-3777
Fax: (323) 962-3004
Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
mgal@harrisandruble.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott J. Witlint, Esq.
Michael Witczak, Esq.
BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 284-3880
Fax: (310) 284-3894
Email: scott.witlin@btlaw.com
michael.witczak@btlaw.com
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Bid to Compel Astrom's Claims Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ASTROM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
SOUTHERN COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-03647-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Victoria Marie Calvert entered an order granting Southern's
motion to compel Astrom's claims in this case to arbitration.
In the meantime, the case is stayed and administratively closed
pending the outcome of arbitration. Either party may, by motion,
reopen the case once arbitration is complete.
The Court further ordered that:
1) Southern's motion to stay discovery and pretrial
deadlines pending resolution of motion to compel
arbitration is denied as moot;
2) Astrom's motion to certify class and facilitate notice to
potential class members s denied as moot;
3) and JSG's motion to intervene as defendant, to compel
arbitration, and to stay proceedings is denied as moot.
Because JSG hired Astrom, classified him as an employee, decided
how to pay him, assigned him to work at Southern, calculated his
wages, and paid his wages, Astrom's FLSA claim against Southern
also implicates JSG even if JSG was not named a defendant in this
case. Though not dispositive, the Court is also persuaded by the
fact that Astrom's Amended Complaint alleges that "Southern did not
require its staffing companies to pay [him] time and a half
overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek."
Southern Company is an American gas and electric utility holding
company
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y7Cl1B at no extra charge.[CC]
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Drummond Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM DRUMMOND and
RICHARD ODOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC.; THE SOUTHERN COMPANY
PENSION PLAN; and THE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, Case No.
2:22-cv-00174-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve C. Jones entered
a scheduling order as follows:
-- This matter is assigned to a four month discovery track.
-- Discovery and all related deadlines will proceed in
accordance the Local Rules of this Court as well as the
Federal Rules of Federal Procedure following the Court's
ruling on the outstanding motion to dismiss.
-- As well, the parties may seek discovery extension and/or
resubmit their respective proposals regarding class
certification and expert discovery after the
Court's ruling on the outstanding motion to dismiss.
Southern Company provides administrative and operational services
to all of Southern Company's operating divisions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SE2V1a at no extra charge.[CC]
SRG GLOBAL COATINGS: Peeler Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SRG Global Coatings,
LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Peeler, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. SRG Global Coatings, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00023-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., Feb. 23, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts.
SRG Global -- http://www.srgglobal.com/-- is one of the world's
leading manufacturers of high value coatings on plastic for the
automotive and commercial truck industries with a manufacturing
presence in major world regions including North America, Western
and Central Europe and Asia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Francis Garvey, Jr., Esq.
BRANSTETTER STRANCH PLLC
701 Market Street, Suite 1510
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 374-6306
Email: jackg@bsjfirm.com
ST. JOHN KNITS: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Ostrovskaya
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRINA OSTROVSKAYA, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ST. JOHN
KNITS, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-03243-DMG-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order approving joint stipulation to extend deadlines
regarding early mediation and certification deadlines as follows:
Matter Date
Early Mediation Deadline Apr. 18, 2023
Class Certification Motion Aug. 29, 2023
(filing deadline)
Opposition to Class Certification Oct. 30, 2023
Motion
Reply in Support of Class Dec. 29, 2023
Certification Motion
Hearing on Class Certification Motion Jan. 12, 2024
Contentions of Fact/Law June 25, 2024
Final Pretrial Conference Jul. 16, 2024
Jury Trial Aug. 13, 2024
St. John designs, manufactures, and markets women's clothing and
accessories.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IWgYft at no extra charge.[CC]
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Jones Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK JONES, et al., v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00600-HEA (E.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order denying the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs allege Defendant City of St. Louis has a widespread
practice of macing detainees without warning or provocation, and
for the purpose of inflicting punishment or pain. Plaintiffs also
allege that Defendant City of St. Louis failed to provide
reasonable accommodation to detainees, including Plaintiffs Withers
and Rusan, with known disabilities, such as asthma and epilepsy,
that make them particularly susceptible to serious harm from its
use of force practice involving chemical agents/macing.
Failure to make modifications for qualified individuals with a
disability to existing facilities and practices is a violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
The Plaintiffs plausibly plead that their rights under the ADA were
violated when Defendant City of St. Louis used force against them
while detained. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim
under Title II.
On May 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs initiated this 42 U.S.C. section
1983 action against the City of St. Louis and certain employees of
the St. Louis City Justice Center (CJC). On June 21, 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which Defendants
moved to dismiss Counts One through Four and Count Six for failure
to state a claim.
The Plaintiff and representative for the putative class and
proposed medical subclass. On June 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a
Third Amended Complaint, to identify the "Doe Defendants" as to
Plaintiff Withers claims.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kyOnDy at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: M&M Rental Sues Over Underpaying Policyholders
----------------------------------------------------------
M&M Rental Property LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case
No. 3:23-cv-05011-MDH (W.D. Mo., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought against
the Defendant systematically underpaying its policyholders,
concerning claims in which Defendant accepted coverage and then
Defendant chose to calculate actual cash value ("ACV") pursuant to
the replacement cost less depreciation methodology, as opposed to a
fair market value approach.
The Coales paid Defendant premiums in exchange for insurance
coverage. The required premiums were paid at all times relevant to
this pleading. On April 7, 2013, the Coales' Property suffered
structural damage covered by the Policy. The damage to the Coales'
Property required replacement and/or repair. The Coales timely
submitted a claim to Defendant requesting payment for the covered
loss ("the Coales' Claim"). Plaintiff alleges generally that all
conditions precedent occurred or were performed relating to the
Coales' Claim. Defendant determined the loss to the Coales'
Property was covered by the terms of the Policy.
The Defendant's sole methodology for calculating the ACV of
structural damage losses in Missouri, including the Coales' Claim,
was to estimate the cost to repair or replace the damage with new
materials (replacement cost value, or "RCV"), and then to subtract
depreciation. In adjusting the Coales' Claim, Defendant
affirmatively and unilaterally chose to use this "replacement cost
less depreciation" methodology to calculate the loss and to make
its ACV payment. Defendant did not use any other methodology to
calculate the Coales' ACV payment or the payments of the putative
class members.
The Policy, and other property insurance forms issued by Defendant
to similarly situated class members, does not permit the
withholding of non-material depreciation, including future labor,
as depreciation. "Labor" as used in this pleading, means intangible
non-materials, specifically including both the future labor costs
and the future laborers' equipment costs and contractors/laborers'
overhead and profit necessary to restore property to its condition
status quo ante, as well as the future removal costs to remove
damaged property, under commercial claims estimating software.
After the loss was reported, Defendant sent an adjuster to inspect
the Coales' Property and estimate the ACV. Defendant uses
commercially-available computer software to estimate RCV,
depreciation, and ACV. The software used to calculate the ACV
payment to the Coales is called Xactimate. ACV coverage is paid by
Defendant prospectively, before repairs are made. As it relates to
ACV coverage, this lawsuit does not seek to address the propriety
of depreciating any labor incorporated or embedded within a
building or building product. Plaintiff does not dispute that both
labor and materials incurred to create a building product become
integrated with the home or building and may be depreciated
following a casualty loss as part of the calculation of ACV
benefits.
However, when Defendant calculated Plaintiff's ACV benefits owed
under the Policy, Defendant withheld costs for both the materials
and future labor required to repair or replace the Plaintiff's
building as depreciation, even though future labor does not
"depreciate" before it has even been incurred. Defendant withheld
future labor costs throughout its ACV calculations as depreciation.
The Defendant's withholding of future labor costs as depreciation
associated with the repair or replacement of the Coales' Property
resulted in an ACV payment less than the amount the insureds were
entitled to receive under the Policy. Defendant breached its
obligations under the Policy by improperly withholding the cost of
future labor as depreciation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an assignee of contract with the Defendant for an
insurance policy providing coverage for certain losses to the
Coales' Property.
The Defendant is an insurance company organized and existing under
the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
David T. Butsch, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 863-5700
Fax: (314) 863-5711
Email: Roberts@ButschRoberts.com
Butsch@ButschRoberts.com
STONEWALL KITCHEN: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stonewall Kitchen,
LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Stonewall Kitchen, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01515-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Stonewall Kitchen -- https://www.stonewallkitchen.com/ -- is a
specialty food producer based in York, Maine.[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
SUTTER HEALTH: Lockhart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sutter Health
Sacramento Sierra Region, et al. The case is styled as Anthony
Lockhart, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggreived employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. Sutter
Health Sacramento Sierra Region, Sutter Medical Center, Sacramento,
Sutter Valley Hospitals, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2023-00335131-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb.
22, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Sutter Health is a family of doctors and hospitals, serving more
than 100 communities in Northern California including Sacramento,
San Francisco.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
SYNCHRONY BANK: Williams FCRA Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Roy Williams, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Synchrony Bank, Synchrony Financial,
Case No. FST-CV-23-6059808-S was removed from the Circuit Court of
the Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut on Feb. 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00252 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Synchrony -- http://www.synchrony.com/-- is a consumer financial
services company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
James T. Shearin, Esq.
PULLMAN & COMLEY
850 Main St., Po Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
Phone: (203) 330-2000
Email: jtshearin@pullcom.com
SYNGENTA CROP: Status Conference in Generic Class Suit Set April 6
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Neeley of Progressive Farmer reports that the court has
scheduled a status conference for April 6, 2023 in Winston-Salem,
as the beginning of what usually is a years-long process for
class-action lawsuits.
Farmers are turning out in droves in the federal court system to
file class-action lawsuits against Syngenta, Corteva, CHS Inc.,
Nutrien, BASF and others, alleging the farmers suffered financial
losses as a result of the companies paying distributors to block
competitors from selling less-expensive generic crop protection
products.
As of February 23, 2023, at least 26 lawsuits have been filed by
individual farmers and farms. Those lawsuits were transferred or
are in the process of being transferred from federal courts in
Indiana, Illinois and Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Middle North Carolina, including five on February
22, 2023.
armers started lining up to cash in after the Federal Trade
Commission and attorneys general from California, Colorado,
Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas and
Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit alleging the companies violated the
Sherman Act and its antimonopoly provisions.
Syngenta and Corteva recently filed motions to dismiss the FTC and
states' lawsuit. In filing the motions, the companies defended the
legality of the loyalty programs at the center of the lawsuits.
Earlier this week, the court gave the companies until March 3 to
file additional documents on the motion.
The FTC and the states have alleged distributors only get paid if
they limit business with competing manufacturers. Such
arrangements, the complaint said, are "cutting off" competition and
allowing the companies to "inflate their prices and force American
farmers to spend millions of dollars more for their products."
In particular, the FTC lawsuit alleged Syngenta has a monopoly and
market power on the fungicide azoxystrobin and the herbicides
mesotrione and metolachlor. The suit cites Corteva's herbicides
rimsulfuron and acetochlor and the insecticide and nematicide
oxamyl.
Syngenta and Corteva are two of the largest pesticide manufacturers
operating in the United States. Syngenta, based in Switzerland, is
a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned company. Corteva,
headquartered in Indianapolis, is the company formed as part of a
merger between DuPont and Dow Chemical Company.
In a September 2022 news release, the FTC and the 10 state
attorneys general said, "Cutting off competition has allowed the
defendants to inflate their prices and force American farmers to
spend millions of dollars more for their products."
In January 2023, Syngenta and Corteva filed separate motions asking
the court in North Carolina to dismiss the lawsuit. Both companies
defended the use of loyalty programs.
The companies said in those motions that loyalty programs are
legal.
"Plaintiffs ignore the fact that loyalty discounts, which come in
many forms, are not only 'extremely common' but also 'presumptively
lawful in all but a few carefully defined circumstances,'" Corteva
said in a motion to dismiss.
Syngenta said in its motion to dismiss that the lawsuit advances an
"unprecedented and unfounded theory" that an industry-standard
rebate program offering a "modest, optional discount" to customers
to incentivize increased purchases violates antitrust laws.
"Rebate programs that reduce prices to above-cost levels are
permissible as a matter of law, except in narrow circumstances
where customers are forced to participate by coercive non-price
features," Syngenta said. "Nothing of the sort is pleaded or
present here." [GN]
TASTE INC: Jarrell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Jarrell, Clare Vesel, Kelsey Hyde, Ashanti Towns, Lauren
Ashley Bailey, and LaDonna Dolby, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. TASTE, INC., d/b/a VINO VOLO, Case No.
2:23-cv-00725-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 22, 2023), is brought to
collect unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act ("OMFWSA").
Defendant pays their tipped employees below the federal and Ohio
minimum wage by taking advantage of the FLSA and OMWFSA's tip
credit provisions. Under these provisions, an employer of a tipped
employee may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees less
than the applicable minimum wage by taking a tip credit against the
employer's minimum wage obligation. However, an employer may not
pay less than the minimum wage to tipped employees and require
those tipped employees to perform non-tipped work that is unrelated
to the tipped occupation. As a result of these violations,
Defendant lost the right to utilize the tip credit for its
employees and therefore must compensate Plaintiffs and the putative
class at the full minimum wage rate for all hours worked.
The Defendant must also compensate Plaintiffs and the putative
class at one- and one-half times the full minimum wage rate for all
overtime hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Plaintiffs were
not paid an overtime premium at a rate of one- and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per
week. The Defendant knew or should have known that its policies and
practices violated the law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have been employed with the Defendant in various
Associate roles.
Taste, Inc., d/b/a Vino Volo is a restaurant and wine bar with
locations in more than 30 airports across the United States and
Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Phone: 614-610-4134
Fax: 614-547-3614
Email: Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
TASTY PALATE: Hsu Sues to Recover Unpaid Tips and Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Hsu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TASTY PALATE, INC. d/b/a OCEANIQUE, an Illinois
corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01151 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 24, 2023), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to comply with provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Illinois Minimum Wage
Act ("IMWA"), and to recover applicable tips and minimum wages for
certain hours worked for herself and all Restaurant Servers.
The Defendant pays its tipped employees a reduced hourly wage for
each hour worked in an effort to avail itself of the tip-credit
provisions of the IMWL and FLSA. These tip credit provisions permit
employers of customarily tipped employees to pay wages less than
the full minimum wage, so long as employers comply with specific
notice requirements, pay the appropriate reduced wage, and do not
require the tipped employees to share tips with customarily
non-tipped employees.
The Defendant has enforced policies of failing to pay Servers
proper wages during training, failing to provide Servers with
sufficient notice of the federal and state tip credit, requiring
Servers to share portions of their hard-earned tips with ineligible
participants, requiring Servers to spend more than 30 continuous
minutes performing non-tipped duties and side work, and requiring
Servers to spend more than 20% of their workweek performing
non-tipped duties and side, all of which have resulted in
violations of the FLSA and IMWA.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover the tip credit taken by Defendant
for herself and all members of the putative class, as well as the
tips that were improperly misappropriated, and to otherwise stop
Defendant from engaging in this unlawful conduct, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Server.
The Defendant operates Oceanique restaurant in Evanston,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS–JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
Catherine@usaemploymentlawyers.com
TAXACT INC: Smith-Washington Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nicolas C. Smith-Washington, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. TaxAct, Inc., Case No.
23CV026204 was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Feb. 23, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00830-AGT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
TaxAct, Inc. -- https://www.taxact.com/ -- is an American tax
preparation software company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
11780 W Sample Road, Suite 103
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Phone: (310) 601-6766
Fax: (310) 295-2385
Email: JHammond@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
- and -
Adrian John Barnes, Esq.
BEESON, TAYER & BODINE
483 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 625-9700
Fax: (510) 625-8275
Email: abarnes@beesontayer.com
- and -
Ari Nathan Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Avenue, Ste 600
Tacoma, WA 98402
Phone: (559) 917-4917
Email: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sheila Anil Gogate Armbrust, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 772-7430
Fax: (415) 772-7400
Email: sarmbrust@sidley.com
- and -
James W. Ducayet, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 853-7000
Fax: (312) 315-2908
Email: jducayet@sidley.com
- and -
Michele L. Aronson, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 736-8000
Email: maronson@sidley.com
TESLA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 28, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 27
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) between
February 19, 2019 and February 17, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 28, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Tesla securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Tesla class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12483 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 28, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants had overstated the
efficacy, viability, and safety of the Company's Autopilot and Full
Self-Driving "FSD" technologies; (2) Tesla's Autopilot and FSD
technologies created a serious risk of accident and injury; (3) as
a result of the foregoing, Tesla was subjected to an increased risk
of regulatory and governmental scrutiny and enforcement action, as
well as reputational harm; (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Tesla class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12483 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
TESLA INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Autopilot Tech
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shivdeep Dhaliwal, writing for Benzinga, reports that shareholders
of Tesla Inc sued the automaker and CEO Elon Musk on Feb. 27,
alleging that both overstated the effectiveness and safety of the
company's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technologies.
What Happened: The proposed class action lawsuit was filed in San
Francisco federal court, reported Reuters.
According to the shareholders, Tesla deceived them over a span of
four years by making false and misleading statements that concealed
the fact that its technologies, believed to be responsible for
deadly accidents, "created a serious risk of accident and injury,"
according to the report.
The shareholders said due to Tesla's wrongful acts and omissions
and "the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
common stock" the members of the class suffered "significant losses
and damages."
Why It Matters: The plaintiff in the case is shareholder Thomas
Lamontagne, who is seeking unspecified damages. Defendants also
include Tesla CFO Zachary Kirkhorn and his predecessor, Deepak
Ahuja, reported Reuters.
The lawsuit reportedly states that Tesla's share price declined
multiple times when the truth about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving
became known and after the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration began probing these technologies.
In February, Tesla shares slid sharply after the NHTSA found that
Tesla vehicles featuring FSD software presented safety challenges
around intersections. Tesla then recalled 362,758 vehicles.
Price Action: On Feb. 27, Tesla shares closed 5.5% higher at
$207.63 in the regular session and gained 0.7% in the after-hours
trading, according to Benzinga Pro data. [GN]
TJ INSPECTION: Cox Sues to Recover Unpaid Lost Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Shawn Cox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TJ INSPECTION, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00187-G (W.D.
Okla., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid lost wages and
additional damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Korey Farmer sued the Defendant in January 2022 for overtime pay
under the FLSA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
The court certified Farmer as a collective action and 78 inspectors
(including Shawn Cox) joined by filing consents. Within weeks of
Farmer's resolution, the Defendant retaliated against Farmer
plaintiffs by sending newly hired inspectors to work in their
stead. Because the FLSA prohibits this kind of discrimination, the
Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover unpaid lost
wages and additional damages under the FLSA.
On August 3, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a consent in the Farmer
collective action "to purse his claims of unpaid overtime" against
the Defendant. The members of the FLSA Class claimed overtime by
filing similar consent forms in Farmer or otherwise notifying the
Defendant of their claim through counsel. Within weeks of Farmer's
dismissal, the Defendant laid off or did not send the Plaintiff and
the members of the FLSA Class out to work on their next rotation or
project. the Defendant does not lack available work. The Defendant
refusal to assign work to the Plaintiff and the FLSA Class is not
the result of market conditions. The Defendant has enough demand
for inspectors that while it was denying work to the Plaintiff and
the FLSA Class, it hired new inspectors to take their places. The
Defendant denied the Plaintiff and the FLSA Class work because they
claimed overtime in Farmer. the Plaintiff has diligently sought
employment, but because the Defendant denied him work, he remains
unemployed and suffers financially because of lost wages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was an Inspector for the Defendant from May 2022 to
December 2022.
the Defendant is a pipeline inspection company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
TMONE LLC: Randolph Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharhonda Randolph, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TMONE, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00141-KGB (E.D.
Ark., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the
Defendant. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees were
classified as hourly employees and paid an hourly rate. The
Defendant paid the Plaintiff a regular rate of $15.00 an hour for
all hours worked, including hours worked over 40 in a workweek. As
a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
one-and-one-half times her regular rate for hours worked over 40 in
a workweek, the Plaintiff was not paid a lawful overtime rate for
hours worked over 40 in a week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee.
TMone, LLC is a provider of call center operations, including front
office, back office, inbound and outbound customer support
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WHLAW | WE HELP
Riverfront PL – Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: (501) 891-6000
Email: chris@wh.law
TOM VILSACK: Chen Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tom Vilsack, et al.
The case is styled as Haiyan Chen, Kenya Watson, S.O., Hana Broome,
Mei Ieng Lee, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated
v. Tom Vilsack, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA); Cindy Long, in her official
capacity as Administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service;
Case No. 1:23-cv-01440 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative
Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.
Thomas James Vilsack is an American politician serving as the 32nd
United States Secretary of Agriculture in the Biden
administration.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
Seth K. Jones, Esq.
Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Phone: (913) 563-6250
Email: george@bartonburrows.com
seth@bartonburrows.com
stacy@bartonburrows.com
TOP QUALITY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Top Quality Supplements, LLC.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Top
Quality Supplements, LLC doing business as: Sunday Scaries, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01418 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Top Quality Supplements, LLC doing business as Sunday Scaries --
https://sundayscaries.com/ -- provides stress relief products with
CBD and vitamins.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
TRIAD HUNTER: Starcher Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triad Hunter, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Denver Starcher, on behalf of himself and
all other persons and entities similarly situated v. Triad Hunter,
LLC doing business as: Triad Hunter, SWN Production (Ohio), LLC,
SWN Production Company, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00061-JPB (N.D.W.
Va., Feb. 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Triad Hunter, LLC was founded in 2009. The company's line of
business includes operating oil and gas field properties.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christian E. Turak, Esq.
Jeremy M. McGraw, Esq.
Gold, Khourey & Turak, LC
510 Tomlinson Ave.
Moundsville, WV 26041
Phone: (304) 845-9750
Fax: (304) 845-1286
Email: cet@gkt.com
jmm@gkt.com
- and -
Daniel J. Guida, Esq.
3374 Main St
Weirton, WV 26062
Phone: (304) 748-1213
Fax: (304) 748-1225
Email: guidalaw@comcast.net
TRUGREEN LP: Motion to Strike TCPA Class Action Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard B. Newman, Esq., of Hinch Newman LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, disclosed that a TCPA defendant's motion to
strike class action allegations was recently granted by the
Northern District of Illinois. The court held that individual
questions of consent and the availability of the established
business relationship defense made the claims unsuitable for class
treatment.
In the matter of Sorsby v. TruGreen L.P., 2023 WL 130505 (N.D. Ill.
Jan. 9, 2023), the plaintiff alleged that she cancelled her
TruGreen lawn-care service and asked TruGreen not to call her after
she had alleged received numerous phone calls to a number
purportedly on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The plaintiff
further alleged that her phone number should have been on
TruGreen's internal DNC suppression list.
TruGreen moved to strike the plaintiff allegations. In doing so,
the company argued that the plaintiff could not satisfy class
certification requirements because her claims were not "typical" of
the claims of the class, did not share commons questions of law or
fact, questions or law or fact were not predominate.
The court agreed and struck the class allegations.
The court opined that the TCPA does not prohibit solicitations to
customers with whom a business has an established business
relationship. Despite the plaintiff claiming that she had
terminated her established business relationship, the issue of the
availability of the established business relationship defense as to
other class members was individualized and not capable of being
determined on a class wide basis.
Here, the parties agreed that the established business relationship
defense would be available only to the named plaintiff and a subset
of class members. Thus, the issue was likely to be a significant
focus of the litigation.
In considering class certification requirements, the court held "no
single source of information that would demonstrate whether all
class members had successfully terminated their business
relationship." A a determination that would therefore "require
individualized inquiries" not suitable for class treatment.
Takeaway: Availability of the established business relationship
defense may result in early disposition of DNC class allegations if
the defense is only applicable to a subset of potential class
members. [GN]
TWITTER INC: Weitzman Data Breach Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CASEY WEITZMAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CGC-23-604035, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on Feb. 21, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00766 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that, in December 2021, a security
vulnerability in Twitter's platform allowed "threat actors . . . to
scrape information from the accounts of 5.4 million Twitter users."
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated compromised in the Twitter data breach, asserts causes of
action for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
Twitter, Inc. is an American social media company based in San
Francisco, California.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
Viola Trebicka, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Casey J. Adams, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Ave. 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: caseyadams@quinnemanuel.com
UNITED PARCEL: Rietheimer Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRANDON RIETHEIMER and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2023CV30000, was removed from the District Court for Adams County,
Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on Feb. 21, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-00477 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of two putative classes:
residents of Colorado who were employed with Defendant UPS under
the Central Region collecting bargaining agreement (CBA) and worked
in interstate commerce and were not provided paid sick leave in
2021, 2022, and 2023; and residents of Colorado who were employed
with Defendant UPS since September 1, 2022 as regular full-time
package drivers as defined by Article 22 of the CBA. Specifically,
the complaint alleges Defendants' violations of the Colorado
Healthy Families and Workplaces Act and the Colorado Wage Claim
Act.
United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational shipping
and receiving and supply chain management company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
T. Markus Funk, Esq.
Daniel Graham, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400
Denver, CO 80202-5255
Telephone: (303) 291-2300
Facsimile: (303) 291-2400
E-mail: MFunk@perkinscoie.com
DGraham@perkinscoie.com
UNITED STATES: $1.175-M Deal in Immigration Suit Granted Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SPLC disclosed that a federal judge on Feb. 27 approved a final
settlement in a class action lawsuit challenging an April 2018
workplace immigration raid at a meat processing plant in East
Tennessee.
The settlement provides over $1 million to workers detained in the
raid, which was the largest workplace raid in nearly a decade at
the time.
The plaintiffs -- represented by the National Immigration Law
Center (NILC), the Southern Poverty Law Center and several private
practice attorneys acting on a pro bono basis –- allege that
armed U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and IRS officers
illegally targeted the Latinx workers for detention, excessive
force and false arrest.
"Someone asked me if I am happy about the result of this case,"
said Martha Pulido, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and resident of
Morristown, Tennessee. "The question brought me back to that day.
Everything was normal, and then in an instant everything changed.
Now, I live with the aftermath of that bad experience. It will stay
with all of the families forever. I am not happy, but I am content
to see that justice prevailed over injustice. I am thankful to the
legal team and the class members, who stuck together throughout
this time. We will always remember that we are one."
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
certified the case as a class action in a precedent-setting
decision in August, paving the way for classwide relief for the
unlawful policing and racial profiling alleged in the lawsuit.
Class members are approximately 100 Latinx workers who were
detained during the workplace raid.
On Feb. 27, the court granted the plaintiffs' and individual
defendants' motion for final approval of the settlement of the
class-action claims against federal agents from the IRS and DHS –
including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and
Border Protection. The court determined the settlement was
reasonable and the relief provided to the class was adequate. Over
95% of class members submitted claims forms to access the
settlement's benefits.
"Nearly five years after the raid that tore apart families -- but
galvanized a community -- the final approval of this class
settlement is a milestone in the fight for justice," said Michelle
Lapointe, deputy legal director at NILC. "Our courageous plaintiffs
and class members worked long hours in grueling conditions to
provide food for this country. While the settlement cannot heal the
wounds caused by the violent 2018 raid, we are pleased with this
hard-fought vindication of their rights and the power of community
organizing."
Meredith Stewart, senior supervising attorney with the SPLC's
Immigrant Justice Project, noted the message sent by the decision.
"Justice was served to the Latinx workers, and their community, who
took a stand against federal agents targeting them because of their
ethnicity," Stewart said. "The unprecedented, court-approved
settlement demonstrates that we, as a nation, will not tolerate
racial profiling. That type of policing goes against not only our
rights but also our values. We look forward to the workers
receiving the relief the settlement provides."
The devastating impacts of the 2018 raid were far-reaching, but the
community came together to demand justice. The Tennessee Immigrant
and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC) was on the ground within
hours, working to reunite families, locate detained people and meet
families' immediate needs.
"The ruling is a testament to the incredible power and resiliency
of immigrant workers and their communities," said Lisa Sherman
Luna, executive director at TIRRC. "Violent enforcement tactics
like workplace raids are designed to keep immigrant families living
in fear, but these plaintiffs and class members refused to stand by
when they knew their rights had been violated. This settlement
sends a clear message: No matter who we are or where we are from,
we all deserve the freedom to work and live safely in our
communities."
Under the $1.175 million settlement, class members will receive a
total of $550,000 and, upon request, a letter from ICE confirming
their membership in the class that can be included in any
applications for immigration relief. The settlement also requires
the United States to pay $475,000 to the six individual plaintiffs
to resolve their Federal Tort Claims Act claims, including
excessive force and unlawful arrest, and $150,000 in attorneys'
fees and expenses to the SPLC and NILC.
"This settlement exemplifies that courage and perseverance can
bring justice and resolution," said Eben Colby, a pro bono attorney
on the lawsuit. "It is a consequential moment in addressing illegal
targeting of workers due to their ethnicity, as well as overly
aggressive and abusive enforcement activities. We are pleased that
the court system provided dozens of Latinx workers with what they
are owed. This settlement is a historic step in advancing dignity
and justice for all immigrant workers." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Class Action Filed v. ICE Over Alleged Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Davis Vanguard reports that a "Hunger Strike Support Coalition"
on Feb. 24 announced a class action lawsuit against Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) and GEO Group, the private, for-profit
prison company that owns and operates the ICE's migrant detention
centers, because of mistreatment and retaliation of those
participating in a hunger strike that began Feb. 17.
The coalition also has met with the California Congressional
Delegation to "draw attention to the strikers' demands for release
and the shutdown of Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex, given ICE's
well-documented history of abuse within detention facilities
nationwide."
The lawsuit alleges five people and "other detained people have
faced retaliation, including threats of solitary confinement and
bans on family visitation, for engaging in a collective hunger
strike to demand their release from immigration custody and the
shutdown of both facilities."
"The (five) plaintiffs—are among the approximately 82 detained
people who declared a hunger strike on Feb. 17, 2023. They argue
that retaliation against any striker violates their right to
peacefully speak out against their mistreatment and violates their
right to petition the government for a redress of their
grievances," said the coalition.
The Hunger Strike Support Coalition includes the ACLU Foundation of
Northern California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law
Caucus, California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, California
Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance, Centro Legal de la Raza,
Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity, El Concilio Family
Services, Freedom for Immigrants, Free Them All Coalition SD, Kern
Welcoming and Extending Solidarity to Immigrants, Labor Council for
Latin American Advancement Sacramento Chapter, La Voz de los
Trabajadores, Latino Coalition for Health Equity, Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, National
Immigration Project of the National Lawyers' Guild, Pangea Legal
Services and Papeles Para Todos, and Rapid Response Network of Kern
County.
"Since the hunger strike began, ICE and GEO Group have harassed
them by threatening to place them in solitary confinement, making
the temperature of the dorms painfully cold, and taunting them with
food…officials have denied them family visitation, access to
worship services, and access to the detention center yard, among
other recreational activities," the coalition added.
"We are hunger-striking because we see the pain that everyone in
here is going through. When I look at everyone and how much they
believe in the fact that putting themselves through this can make a
change, it gives me hope," said plaintiff Guillermo Medina Reyes.
Reyes added, "We are all humans. There are people here who are
fathers, brothers, and husbands. They deserve a real chance to
fight their case and to have a chance at liberty as well. That's
why we started the strike and this lawsuit."
The coalition explained, "For years, peaceful protests at Mesa
Verde and the Golden State Annex have been met with retaliation,"
and that's why "The 2022 complaint prompted 16 members of the
California Congressional Delegation to send a letter to DHS
regarding the allegations of disturbing conditions and
retaliation."
"The 2023 complaint concerns widespread reports from detained
people that they have been subject to sexually abusive pat-downs in
retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected, free speech
activity," said the support coalition, noting this led to "The
hunger strike (and) follows years of peaceful advocacy by people
detained… to demand fair wages, better conditions, and humane
treatment."
The coalition added, "The people detained in these horrific
detention centers have undeniable First Amendment rights to speak
out against their abuse . . . ICE detains people indefinitely under
hideous living conditions, including facilities rife with black
mold, while GEO Group profits from their labor by paying workers in
custody $1 a day."
The coalition said, "In a separate lawsuit challenging the meager
pay for detained workers at another immigration detention facility
in Adelanto, Calif., also run by GEO Group, a court expert
calculated that the private prison company has made an extra $26.7
million dollars in profit between 2011 and 2019 due to low-wage
work performed by detained immigrants." [GN]
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Levine Seeks to Certify Class of Asst. Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LEVINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC. d/b/a NATURAL GROCERS,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00261-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting his motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class under Rule 23
for violations of Colorado Wage and Hour Law:
"All persons employed by Vitamin Cottage Natural Food
Markets, Inc. d/b/a Natural Grocers as Assistant Store
Managers and who were classified as exempt from the overtime
requirements of Colorado Wage and Hour Law at any time
between April 1, 2017 and the date of final judgment in this
matter.
This is the type of case for which the class action device is
designed. Plaintiff, a former Assistant Store Manager ("ASM")
employed by the Defendant, challenges Natural Grocers' company-wide
policy of classifying all ASMs as exempt from the overtime
requirements of the Colorado Wage Claim Act.
The Defendant admits that ASMs all perform the same expected job
duties (which are listed on a uniform job description), are all
uniformly classified as exempt from overtime compensation, and
should be treated as one homogenous group for purposes of
determining whether Natural Grocers willfully violated state and
federal law.
The Plaintiff commenced this action on January 31, 2020 seeking to
recover unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA on behalf of
exempt ASMs. On April 1, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his amended
class and collective action complaint to assert claims on behalf of
a class of Colorado ASMs seeking to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to Colorado Wage and Hour Laws.
On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff moved for conditional collective
action certification of his FLSA claims. At Defendant's request,
the Court permitted Natural Grocers to conduct merits-discovery of
Plaintiff and four individuals who had opted-in in order to respond
to the Plaintiff's FLSA Motion.
Following the conclusion of that written and deposition discovery,
the Court granted Plaintiff's FLSA Motion and conditionally
certified a nationwide collective comprising ASMs who worked for
Defendants between January 31, 2017 to November 6, 2020.
Vitamin Cottage is a Colorado based health food chain.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 22,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zz23xo
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Conway, Esq.
CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 278-4782
Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com
- and -
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D.
GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Telephone: (970) 214-0562
E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com
WALDORF ASTORIA: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Violations
------------------------------------------------------
KITV reports that an employee of Waldorf Astoria filed a class
action lawsuit against the employer, alleging wage and other
violations.
The complaint alleges that the Waldorf Astoria hotel misclassified
hundreds of spa and salon workers, groundskeepers, facilities
maintenance staff, and window washers as independent contractors at
two of its landmark hotels, the Grand Wailea on Maui and Beverly
Hills Waldorf Astoria.
The employee further alleges that Waldorf Astoria broke several
federal and state laws by failing to pay these workers a minimum
wage and overtime pay, as well as failing to make federal income
tax contributions toward their social security and unemployment
insurance.
The employee also claims the company did not provide mandatory
health coverage, temporary disability insurance, and workers'
compensation benefits.
The lawsuit claims that, despite being placed on notice, the
company continued its alleged illegal practices.
The lawsuit seeks compensation, punitive damages, and restitution
of all of the money earned from the company's alleged illegal
activity. [GN]
WALGREENS CO: Reaches $54.1-Bil. Prelim. Settlement in Opioid Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
OpenClassActions.com reports that after Years of Courts, CVS and
Walgreens have finally reached preliminary settlements in opioid
claims totaling $10 billion. Walmart has agreed to a $3.1 Billion
provisional settlement structure over opioids, bringing the grand
total opioid open class action settlement funds tentatively to over
$54.1 Billion in the United States alone.
To date, the total amount of opioid settlements reached or in a
preliminary stage has reached over $54 Billion. The United States
has been suffering an opioid and painkiller abuse epidemic for
decades, and these settlements aim to keep merchants and pharmacies
accountable for enabling the death and suffering at the hands of
opioids that many have had to endure. The latest settlements are
over CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart pharmacies
To settle class action lawsuits filed by states and local
governments claiming that CVS and Walgreens mismanaged
prescriptions of opioid medicines that led to deaths and overdoses,
CVS and Walgreens have tentatively agreed to pay a combined record
breaking $10 billion settlement amount.
Walmart has provisionally settled similar claims for $3.1 billion.
The settlement won't be completed or approved until a sufficient
number of states, counties, and towns accept the conditions.
Since 2013, a growing number of state, municipal, and tribal
governments have sought to make firms throughout the pharmaceutical
sector pay to minimize the continuing costs of addiction, death,
and crime caused by the opioid crisis. While most major opioid
producers and distributors have paid billions in national
settlements in recent years, major retail chains have been
resistant to reaching a similar agreement. Opioid commonly involved
in settlements are:
-- Oxycodone
-- OxyContin
-- Roxicodone
-- Morphine
-- Hydrocodone
-- Roxicodone
-- Oxecta
-- Methadone
-- Fentanyl (known for its extremely high rate of deaths and
overdoses as it is cut with heroin sold on the streets illegally)
There has been a sudden and dramatic shift in the storyline with
retailers the subject of more recent opioid class action lawsuits.
According to a CVS public statement, if a settlement is struck, the
company will pay nearly $5 billion over the following 10 years,
starting in 2023. A total of $4.9 billion will be paid out to
states and local governments, while Native American tribes will get
$130 million to settle their opioid claims.
According to CVS, the cash settlement would "significantly end all
opioid litigation and claims against the corporation by states,
governmental subdivisions such as counties, towns, and tribes."
The CVS announcement states that the deal would settle any claims
going back at least ten years without admitting responsibility or
misconduct.
The opioid issue has only worsened while litigation and settlement
discussions have dragged on. Statistics from the United States show
that in 2017, an all-time high number of people lost their lives
due to an opioid overdose, with fentanyl and other illegal street
opioids being the primary causes.
Pharmacy chains were often the last to be designated as defendants
in the opioid case, but they were also among the most eager to test
the validity of their claims in court. However, a federal court in
August ordered the three companies to pay $650 million to two
counties in Ohio. Other claims were launched in Florida, West
Virginia, and two counties in New York, all of which the firms
eventually resolved.
The pharmacies at the center of investigations and class action
lawsuits denied any role in the outbreak for a long time, saying
that they had only dispensed legally prescribed drugs. Lawyers
representing the plaintiffs, however, claimed that drug
manufacturers ignored red warnings about the potentially dangerous
volumes of opioid prescriptions they were doling out.
The drug manufacturers of opioids claim to have spent substantial
expenditures in technology and processes to assist its pharmacists
in fulfilling their professional responsibilities and in rules,
procedures, and controls pertaining to dispensing restricted
medications to combat opioid misuse.
Walgreens said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that it planned to spend nearly $4.79 billion on
remediation payments spread out over 15 years, including on class
action payouts. This figure included around $154 million for
participating tribes and more than $750 million for legal
expenses.
All of the major players in the opioid supply chain—from
producers to wholesalers to retailers—have made offers to settle
claims that might total more than $50 billion.
Lastly, we'd like to remind you that the three companies reached a
settlement with municipal, state, and tribal governments on
November 2, 2022. They have reached a deal for a total of $13.8
billion, bringing the total amount of settlements between opioid
manufacturers and American governments to around $54.07 billion
(some of which have been completed, while others are still in the
works):
The "big three" distributors—McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and
Cardinal Health—contribute an additional $7.5 billion from the
top three companies for a total of $26 billion. On February 25,
2022, they concluded their settlement deal.
Depending on whether or not the transaction is upheld on appeal,
Purdue will contribute between $5.5 and $6 billion. After years of
battle and months of bankruptcy-initiated mediation processes, the
manufacturer's settlement plan achieved complete countrywide
(political) support on March 3, 2022. However, its non-debtor
release clauses have not been upheld in federal court. Assuming the
Second Circuit upholds the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the
settlement agreement, Purdue expects it to take at least two to
three months before the business exits from bankruptcy.
It is expected that Mallinckrodt will contribute $1.7 billion. In
2020, the company filed for bankruptcy, and its restructuring plan,
which includes a $1.7 billion (formerly $1.6 billion) set aside to
settle its opioid epidemic obligations, was met with early,
widespread approval from state and local government lawyers. While
the merger ultimately received court clearance on February 3, 2022,
it was not without its fair share of Purdue-style concerns.
Teva Pharmaceuticals, a publcaly traded pharma company that is at
the center of the opioid epidemic, is expected to contribute a
massive $4.25 billion to the total. Separate from this is the
manufacturer's announcement of a preliminary agreement in principle
on July 26, 2022.
A whopping $2.37 billion comes from Allergan, a division of AbbVie.
The "companion agreement" between the company and the government
was announced on July 29, 2022.
Additionally, Endo Pharmaceuticals will provide $450 million. The
bankruptcy petition and the preliminary deal with state attorneys
general were both published by the company fairly recently. [GN]
WASHINGTON COUNTY, AL: Lang Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONY GENE LANG, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all inmates in the Washington County
Jail in Chatom, Alabama, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ALABAMA, et al.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-JB-MU (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting their motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff Class, and the Mobility Disability
Subclass meet all four requirements of Rule 23(a), as well as the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(2)
The proposed class and subclass satisfy the requirements of Rule
23(b)(2) on two grounds.
-- First, Defendants, through the polices, practices, and
procedures enacted at the jail, have acted and/or refused
to act on grounds generally applicable to the proposed
classes. Thus, a declaration that the jail should cease
policies, patterns, and practices which result in the
constitutional violations described above would benefit
every member of the proposed classes.
-- Second, the named Plaintiffs' request for relief satisfies
the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) because the remedy
sought would provide relief to both current and future
individuals housed at the jail. For example, an injunction
requiring that the Defendants ensure all individuals have
access to medical assistance would ensure that future
inmates of the jail would have access to their medication
or medical assistance when needed.
A jail population is inherently transitory. A class action is
virtually the only vehicle to remedy the constitutional violations
taking place at a jail. It is likely that, by the time this case
comes to trial, none of the current class representatives will
still be incarcerated in the jail. Absent class certification,
their claims would be moot, and the jail could continue to violate,
with impunity, the rights of future inmates. As such, the
transitory nature of the proposed class and its representatives
strongly support class certification. Class certification is still
appropriate even though several named plaintiffs are no longer
incarcerated.
This case concerns the inhumane conditions at the Washington County
Jail in Chatom, Alabama. The named Plaintiffs are individuals who
are or were incarcerated within the jail at the time the Amended
Complaint was filed. The Defendants' inhumane treatment of the
inmates includes inadequate medical and mental health care; failure
to protect; lack of exercise, fresh air, or sunlight; exposure to
grave fire hazards; insufficient diets; lack of access to legal
materials; inaccessible facilities posing barriers to inmates with
disabilities, and other serious rights violations.
The Plaintiffs propose to certify named Plaintiffs Tony Lang,
Timothy Williams, John Michael Taylor, Justin Adams, Cameron Adams,
Michael Patterson, Joshua Diamond, Joshua Odom, Thomas Lassiter,
Benjamin Hoven III, Justin McGowan, and Kenneth Turner to represent
a general class of:
"all individuals currently housed or who will be housed in
the Washington County Jail who are subject to the policies
and practices of the jail."
Unfortunately, named plaintiff Matthew Utsey passed away on January
15, 2023. His estate will not be substituted in as a plaintiff.
Defendants maintain a consistent roster of inmates; thus, such
definition is both adequately defined and ascertainable.
In addition, plaintiffs seek certification of a "mobility
disability subclass" consisting of
"all individuals currently housed or who will be housed in
the Washington County Jail who are subject to the policies
and practices of the jail and who have a mobility
disability." Named plaintiff Justin McGowan will represent
the mobility disability subclass.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J2dc4e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shandra N. Monterastelli, Esq.
Katrina M. Smith, Esq.
ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM
2008 12th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0395
Telephone: (205) 348-4928
Facsimile: (205) 348-3909
E-mail: smonterastelli@adap.ua.edu
ksmith@adap.ua.edu
- and -
Henry Brewster, Esq.
HENRY BREWSTER, LLC
205 N. Conception Street
Mobile, AL 36603
Telephone: (251) 338-0630
E-mail: hbrewster@brewsterlaw.net
- and -
David Gespass, Esq.
GESPASS & JOHNSON
40 Echo Lane
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (205) 566-2530
E-mail: pass.gandjlaw@gmail.com
- and -
David I. Schoen, Esq.
2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6
Montgomery, AL 36106
Telephone: (334) 395-6611
E-mail: Schoenlawfirm@gmail.com
- and -
Martin Weinberg, Esq.
Shannon, AL 35142
Telephone: (205) 910-3722
Facsimile: (205) 413-8717
E-mail: attorneyweinberg@bellsouth.net
WASHINGTON: Reaches Settlement for Youth in Foster Care
-------------------------------------------------------
Children's Rights reports that Washington State reaches
groundbreaking Federal Class-Action Settlement for youth in foster
care.
February 24, 2023, Washington's Department of Children, Youth, and
Families (DCYF) settled D.S. v. Washington State DCYF, a federal
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of hundreds of youth in the
state's foster care system. In the agreement, DCYF promises to
implement new statewide models for supporting youth in foster care
and their families and to collaborate in additional ways with child
welfare clients, alumni, and stakeholders to improve its policies
and practices.
The lawsuit was brought by Disability Rights Washington and three
young people in foster care on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated foster children. The named Plaintiffs, all of
whom identified as having behavioral health conditions, described
their experiences of being separated from their families, being
sent to out-of-state institutions, and spending time in single
night placements or hotels over significant time periods.
Over the past eleven months, the parties negotiated in good faith
with the assistance of a mediator and ultimately reached agreement
on a settlement to present to the Court for approval. Recognizing
that foster children who experience hotel, one-night, and
out-of-state placements are often survivors of complex trauma and
disproportionately identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of
color (BIPOC) and LGBTQIA+, the parties negotiated sweeping system
improvements that will be trauma-informed, culturally-responsive,
and LGBTQIA+-affirming.
Per the terms of the settlement, DCYF committed to implement the
following reforms as alternatives to relying on hotel stays,
one-night placements, and congregate care facilities:
Creating more nurturing alternative living arrangements, which will
include an Emerging Adulthood Supported Housing Program for older
youth who would prefer to live more independently, a statewide "Hub
Home" program to provide resources for "satellite" families raising
foster children, and a Professional Therapeutic Foster Care program
to help children with intensive behavioral health conditions
stabilize and reunify with their families;
Updating foster care licensing standards to more realistically fit
the developmental needs of foster children; and
Establishing a more comprehensive and objective evaluation process
for determining whether it is appropriate and necessary to place a
child in a group care facility.
DCYF also agreed to enhance its engagement with individuals with
lived experience in the child welfare system and stakeholders to
develop better practices around involving and supporting extended
families, working with families to identify and meet needs through
group planning, and mitigating the destabilizing and triggering
impacts that foster children experience during referral and
transition periods.
DCYF will hire a facilitator to convene individuals and
stakeholders to hear about their experiences, and will compile a
public report with feedback and recommendations for what practice
and policy changes DCYF should implement. DCYF will also publicly
release an implementation plan describing how it will make the
changes promised in the agreement.
Kathleen Noonan will serve as a monitor to review DCYF's
implementation plan, as well as performance and outcomes. Under the
agreement, whether DCYF can reduce placement disruptions and
eliminate hotel and one-night placements will be among the factors
the Court will consider in determining whether DCYF has met its
settlement obligations.
The parties will submit their agreement to the Honorable Judge
Barbara Rothstein of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington for approval. Upon the Court's
preliminary approval, notice of the settlement will be sent to the
class, and the Court will schedule a hearing to determine whether
the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
DCYF Assistant Secretary Steven Grilli explained, "The commitments
we are making today build upon our overarching commitments to
safely reduce the number of children in out-of-home care, to
strengthen families and communities, and to promote equity."
According to Disability Rights Washington Attorney Susan Kas, "Our
organization brought this case because far too many foster children
with disabilities were becoming strangers to their own families and
communities of origin due to the failures of traditional child
welfare models." Children's Rights Attorney Leecia Welch added,
"DCYF's commitments in this settlement are crucial steps towards
reimagining the child welfare system to provide for healing,
community, and lasting relationships with supportive adults for all
children, regardless of their race, gender, or disabilities."
The National Center for Youth Law, Disability Rights Washington,
Carney Gillespie PLLP, Children's Rights, and Munger, Tolles &
Olson LLP represent the Plaintiffs.
Contact: Willis Jacobson, National Center for Youth Law:
wjacobson@youthlaw.org | media@youthlaw.org; Susan Kas, Disability
Rights Washington: susank@dr-wa.org; Camilla Jenkins, Children's
Rights: cjenkins@childrensright.org; Jason Wettstein, Department of
Children, Youth, and Families: Jason.Wettstein@dcyf.wa.gov[GN]
WHITE CASTLE: Court Rules Claims Accrue Under BIPA in Cothron Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LATRINA COTHRON, Appellee v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM,
INC., Appellant, Case No. 128004 (Ill.), Judge Elizabeth M.
Rochford of the Supreme Court of Illinois concludes that the plain
language of Sections 15(b) and 15(d) shows that a claim accrues
under the Biometric Information Privacy Act with every scan or
transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric information
without prior informed consent.
The case requires the Supreme Court to construe section 15(b) and
15(d) of the Act (740 ILCS 14/15(b), (d) (West 2018)) in an action
alleging that an employer violated the Act when it repeatedly
collected fingerprints from an employee and disclosed that
biometric information to a third party without consent.
The controversy arises from a proposed class action filed by
Cothron, on behalf of all Illinois employees of White Castle. The
Plaintiff originally filed her action in the circuit court of Cook
County against White Castle and its third-party vendor, Cross Match
Technologies. Cross Match Technologies removed the case to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (28 U.S.C.
Sections 1332(d), 1453 (2018)). She later voluntarily dismissed
Cross Match Technologies from her action and proceeded solely
against White Castle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
According to her complaint, the Plaintiff is a manager of a White
Castle restaurant in Illinois, where she has been employed since
2004. Shortly after her employment began, White Castle introduced a
system that required its employees to scan their fingerprints to
access their pay stubs and computers. A third-party vendor then
verified each scan and authorized the employee's access.
Generally, the Plaintiff's complaint alleged that White Castle
implemented this biometric-collection system without obtaining her
consent in violation of the Act (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (West
2018)), which became effective in 2008. She asserted that White
Castle did not seek her consent to acquire her fingerprint
biometric data until 2018, more than a decade after the Act took
effect. Accordingly, she claimed that White Castle unlawfully
collected her biometric data and unlawfully disclosed her data to
its third-party vendor in violation of section 15(b) and 15(d),
respectively, for several years.
In relevant part, White Castle moved for judgment on the pleadings,
arguing that the Plaintiff's action was untimely because her claim
accrued in 2008, when White Castle first obtained her biometric
data after the Act's effective date. The district court denied
White Castle's motion. It later certified its order for immediate
interlocutory appeal, finding that its decision involved a
controlling question of law on which there is substantial ground
for disagreement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit accepted the
certification. It observed that the answer to the claim-accrual
question would determine the outcome of the parties' dispute, the
Supreme Court could potentially side with either party on the
question, the question was likely to recur, and it involved a
unique Illinois statute regularly applied by federal courts. Id. at
1166. Thus, finding the relevant criteria favored certification of
the question, the Seventh Circuit certified the question to the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court chose to answer that question. The Illinois
Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
Retail Litigation Center, Inc., Restaurant Law Center, National
Retail Federation, Illinois Manufacturers' Association, National
Association of Manufacturers, Illinois Health and Hospital
Association, Illinois Retail Merchants Association, Chemical
Industry Council of Illinois, Illinois Trucking Association,
Mid-West Truckers Association, and Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce
were granted leave to file amicus curiae briefs in support of White
Castle's position. The American Association for Justice, Employment
Law Clinic of the University of Chicago Law School's Edwin F.
Mandell Legal Aid Clinic, NELA/Illinois National Employment Law
Project, Raise the Floor Alliance, and Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) were granted leave to file amicus curiae
briefs in support of the Plaintiff's position.
The certified question asks: Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims
accrue each time a private entity scans a person's biometric
identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to
a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first
transmission?
White Castle argues that section 15(b) and 15(d) claims can accrue
only once -- when the biometric data is initially collected or
disclosed. According to it, the plain meaning of each verb used in
section 15(d) implicates the disclosure of biometrics by one party
to a new, third party -- said differently, a party that has not
previously possessed the relevant biometric identifier or biometric
information. As it argues for section 15(b) claims, White Castle
contends that occurs only on the first instance of disclosure or
dissemination.
The Plaintiff responds that the plain meaning of the statutory
language demonstrates that claims under section 15(b) and 15(d)
accrue every time a private entity collects or disseminates
biometrics without prior informed consent. She maintains that
section 15(b) applies to every instance when a private entity
collects biometric information without prior consent.
To resolve the parties' dispute and answer the certified question,
Judge Rochford focuses on the language of the Act itself. The
cardinal principle and primary objective in construing a statute is
to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.
Where the language is clear and unambiguous, the Supreme Court must
apply the statute without resort to further aids of statutory
construction. Only if the statutory language is ambiguous may the
Supreme Court look to other sources to ascertain the legislature's
intent.
When answering this question, Judge Rochford assumes, without
deciding, that White Castle's alleged collection of the Plaintiff's
fingerprints and transmission to a third party was done in
violation of the Act.
Judge Rochford agrees with the federal district court that a party
violates Section 15(b) when it collects, captures, or otherwise
obtains a person's biometric information without prior informed
consent. This is true the first time an entity scans a fingerprint
or otherwise collects biometric information, but it is no less true
with each subsequent scan or collection. The appellate court has
reached the same conclusion, determining that the plain language of
section 15(b) establishes that it applies to each and every capture
and use of a plaintiff's fingerprint or hand scan. Almost every
substantive section of the Act supports this finding.
As with section 15(b), Judge Rochford concludes that the plain
language of section 15(d) applies to every transmission to a third
party. She finds that the plain language of section 15(d) supports
the conclusion that a claim accrues upon each transmission of a
person's biometric identifier or information without prior informed
consent. She believes that the plain language of section 15(b) and
15(d) demonstrates that such violations occur with every scan or
transmission.
Judge Rochford is also not persuaded by White Castle's nontextual
arguments in support of its single-accrual interpretation. She
rejects White Castle's argument that the Supreme Court should limit
a claim under section 15 to the first time that a private entity
scans or transmits a party's biometric identifier or biometric
information. No such limitation appears in the statute. They cannot
rewrite a statute to create new elements or limitations not
included by the legislature.
Ultimately, Judge Rochford continues to believe that policy-based
concerns about potentially excessive damage awards under the Act
are best addressed by the legislature. She respectfully suggests
that the legislature reviews these policy concerns and makes clear
its intent regarding the assessment of damages under the Act.
In sum, Judge Rochford concludes that the plain language of section
15(b) and 15(d) shows that a claim accrues under the Act with every
scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric
information without prior informed consent.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bddc35be from Leagle.com.
YALE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Checks Sent to 6,000 Union Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Zaretsky, writing for New Haven Register, reports that checks
for up to $1,300 have gone out to more than 6,000 union workers at
Yale University as a result of a class-action lawsuit settlement of
a case involving a workplace wellness program that employees
alleged required what amounted to involuntary participation unless
they were willing to pay "opt-out" fees.
The Health Expectations Program, or HEP, which was negotiated into
the contracts of Yale's Unite Here Local 34 and Local 35 unions,
required workers and spouses to submit to medical testing such as
mammograms, colonoscopies and diabetes screenings, with Yale
wellness vendors gaining access to results, the suit alleged.
Workers who wanted to keep their information private or who did not
want to submit to tests were charged an "opt-out" fee of $25 per
week -- up to $1,300 per year, said Lisa Kwesell of East Haven, who
was among the named plaintiffs.
AARP joined with individual members of the Yale unions in the suit.
AARP previously had litigated issues involving similar programs
elsewhere.
"It was part of the new contract and the union and the university
starting sending out notifications that they were going to
implement the wellness program and we had certain notifications
that we should apply for it," said Kwesell, who has worked at Yale
since 2005, currently as service assistant at Benjamin Franklin
College.
Kwesell waited until near the deadline date to sign up, then, on a
weekend, went online to read the terms and conditions," and I said
'Oh, my God!'"
She got the ball rolling on the litigation, for which a proposed
settlement was reached last March, because "I really disagree with
this. I don't think my employer has a right to know my medical
condition" and "I don't think that they have the right to fine us
for our (lack of) compliance."
Kwesell did research and found that AARP had done and won
litigation for similar issues, so "I reached out to the attorneys
that had done and won it." Before filing suit, she said she went
back to the unions and Yale and said she had a problem with it.
"They said there was nothing they could do. It was in the
contract."
Then, "when I explained the magnitude of it and that it wasn't just
me; it was every single employee in Local 34 and 35, they wanted to
meet with other employees and not just me," she said.
Employees had different reasons for not wanting to participate. One
of the other plaintiffs got involved because "they were badgering
her to get a mammogram and she had had a double mastectomy,"
Kwesell said.
That employee did not return a call for comment.
Kwesell had a number of problems with the the program, including
that it "was very cookie-cutter."
Among other things, she had she had to provide a letter from her
out-of-network doctor "and a copy of my cancelled check to prove to
them that I had complied." The wellness program also wouldn't
accept an at-home colon cancer screening test in lieu of a
colonoscopy, even though her doctor said it would be OK, she said.
People's health "should be between you and your doctor," Kwesell
said. "The health information shouldn't be data-mined."
She said she wants her fellow employees to know "that the checks
are real. They should definitely go and deposit them" as soon as
possible.
"If people were a part of this wellness program and they didn't
receive a check, they should get a hold of the claims
administrator" by calling 866-742-4955 or emailing
info@rg2claims.com.
Another of the named plaintiffs, Jason Schwartz, said the main
point of contention was defining the term "voluntary."
Yale said it was, "but it wasn't voluntary" because there were
financial costs if someone didn't comply," he said.
"There was a big problem with it for me because, for one, I'm a
grown adult. ... I didn't need anyone dictating to me what I do and
what I don't have to do," Schwartz said. "Plus, if you didn't
comply, they docked you.
"I just felt it was wrong and a lot of people were complaining
about it," he said.
"A lot of people were unhappy with it and a lot of people were
afraid to speak out," he said. "Once they started to dock my
paycheck, I said, 'Let's go forward with this.'"
He said he was happy with the settlement.
"We got everything that we were looking for," he said. "Most people
were happy with the settlement. . . . Hopefully, they'll think
twice before they institute something like it. . . . I'm for
personal liberty and this was just an overreach."
One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Joshua Goodbaum of Garrison,
Levinson-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, said of the settlement,
"I'm grateful for the courage of the employees who came forward and
told their stories and I'm pleased with the significant
compensation that we were able to secure for our clients."
Adam Marchand, a chief steward for Local 34 -- and city alder --
who works on health policy for the union, said, "The union was not
a party to the lawsuit. . . . We had zero involvement in the
lawsuit. When our members ask us about it, we simply refer them to
the AARP attorneys."
Asked for comment on the payout, Yale spokesperson Karen Peart
emailed a statement.
"Yale University and certain of its employees have agreed to settle
a class action lawsuit, Kwesell v. Yale University, subject to
Court approval," the statement said. "The lawsuit alleges that
Yale's Health Expectations Program violated federal statutes
because it required employees and their spouses to either
participate in the wellness program, which requires routine
checkups and diagnostic testing, or pay a weekly opt-out fee.
"Under federal law, voluntary employer wellness programs are
permissible," but "the Plaintiffs alleged that the $25 opt-out fee
rendered the program involuntary under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination
Act," it said.
"We designed the Health Expectations Program with our union
partners and the advice of healthcare and legal experts," said
Stephanie Spangler, Yale's vice provost for health affairs and
academic integrity. "Nevertheless, we feel it is best to resolve
what would have been expensive litigation and move forward. Our
relationship with our employees is an important priority."
Under the settlement agreement, Yale will continue to offer the
Health Expectations Program, but will not charge opt-out fees for a
four-year period and will change its practices regarding the
transfer of health data in connection with the program, the
statement said.
Yale also agreed to pay $1.29 million, distributed among employees
who were covered by the program and to cover plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs to the extent approved by the court. [GN]
ZIPRECRUITER INC: Approval of Settlement Deal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
ZIPRECRUITER, INC. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Company
anticipates approval of the settlement agreement in 2023.
In April 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by a former employee in the Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging that the Company violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act as well as owed certain compensation to employees. In
January 2020, the former employee filed a related representative
action in the Los Angeles Superior Court under the Private Attorney
General Act alleging similar claims regarding compensation owed to
employees.
In January 2021, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, which was granted in
part and denied in part.
As of September 30, 2021, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit
for an immaterial amount and accordingly, the Company recorded a
liability within accrued expenses. The settlement must be approved
by the Court before it can be finalized.
As of December 31, 2022, the Company anticipates that the
settlement agreement will be approved in 2023.
ZipRecruiter Inc. is a two-sided marketplace for work. The company
generates substantially all of its revenue from fees paid by
employers to post jobs and access other features in its
marketplace. The company is based in Santa Monica, California.
*********
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 ***