/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230315.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 15, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 54
Headlines
AAC HOLDINGS: Court Partly OK's IPRS Class Cert Bid
AAM HOLDING: Scott Seeks Exotic Dancers' Minimum & OT Wages
ADVOCATE AURORA: Stewart Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Amazon Flex Driver Class
AMD FOOD: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Obando Suit Says
AMERICAN CAR CRAFT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN ELECTRONIC: Jackson Seeks Conditional Certification
AMERICAN HONDA: Balletto Sues Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping
ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Ridgeway Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Court Narrows Claims in Effinger Suit
APOTEX INC: Alysena Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set May 7
APPLE INC: Sgro Wiretapping Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
ASSIETTE LLC: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Walker Suit
AYVAZ PIZZA LLC: Savannah Files ADA Suit in N.D. Georgia
BARRETT BUSINESS: Settles Kaanaana Class Suit
BIG RED SHOP: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BISSELL INC: Sued Over Unlawful Recording of Communications
BLAIR CANDY COMPANY: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BP ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Electricians' OT Premiums, Watkins Says
BRAD'S RAW CHIPS: Luna Balks at Products' Deceptive Protein Claims
BRIAN FERRAIOLI: Johns Sues Over Misleading Information
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Ivy League Institutions Face Price Fixing Suit
BURGER BAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavez Suit Alleges
CABELAS LLC: Durham Files Suit in C.D. California
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Final Judgment & Order Issued in Data Breach Suit
CANADA: Class Action Over First Nations Drinking Water Settled
CANADA: Ex-Sudbury Employee Part of Vaccine Mandate Class Action
CANDELA RESTAURANT: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Mikulsky Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
CENTURY CITY MALL: Snowfin Franchise Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHEMTOOL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Following Plant Explosions
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Stephens Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
CHRISTIAAN PRINSLOO: Sued Over Negligent Firearms Management
COLLECTION MANAGEMENT: Esposito Sues for FDCPA Breach
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Nurses Assoc. Members File Labor Class Action
CORNHOLE WORLDWIDE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CORRECTCARE INTEGRATED: Court Consolidates Hiley and Yates Suits
CREDIT SUISSE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 8
CUBESMART LP: Bradford Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
CURIE BRANDS: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
D&B TILE AND RELATED: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DAPPER LABS: S.D. New York Refuses to Dismiss Amended Friel Suit
DENSHAZ INC: Florentino Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
DESIGNER BRANDS: Lupolover Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Parrott Suit
DONOTPAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Subscription Service
E.I. DU PONT: Hamrick Sues Over ERISA Violation
ELECTROCORE INC: Awaits Schedule for Pending Dismissal Bid Argument
ELECTROCORE INC: Oral Argument for Kuehl Suit Set for April 19
EMERALD TREE & SHRUB: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
ENTERTAINMENT 2851: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Evans Alleges
FASCINATING FACETS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FIDELITY NATIONAL: PBPFPF Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
FITNESSEXPERTS LLC: Fletcher Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FOCUS FINANCIAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Proposed Clayton Sale
FORD MOTOR: Ont. Court of Appeal Affirms Class Action Dismissal
FORD MOTOR: Truck Owners Urge Panel to Revive Fuel Economy Suit
FORTRA LLC: Anderson Files Suit in D. Minnesota
FTX TRADING: Judge Refuses to Consolidate Investors' Class Actions
GAVRIEL'S JEWELRY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Sued Over Disclosure of Private Information
GOODYEAR TIRE: Posadas Sues Over Unlawful Communication Wiretapping
GREEN JUICE BAR: Esteban Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
GROOMING LOUNGE.COM: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GUMPS SAN FRANCISCO: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GWB LLC: Amendola Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
HAT WORLD INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HECLA MINING: Amended Gluck Complaint Dismissed With Leave to Amend
HERMES HOSPITALITY: Terry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
HERSHEY COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Secret Reporting of PII
HIGHMARK INC: Steetle Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
HOMELAND SECURITY: Class Certification Denial in Kluge Suit Upheld
IL BUCO CORP: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ILLINOIS: Swanson Can't Proceed in Forma Pauperis in Suit v. Scott
INTEGY INC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JAMAICAN HOUSE: Mckenzie Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KAENON LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KALMBACH MEDIA: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KAUFMAN & CANOLES: Auguston Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
KAZ AMERICANA: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Polanco Suit Alleges
KETTERING ADVENTIST: Murphy Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KETTERING HEALTH: Nurse Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
KIINI LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KNOWLTON TECHNOLOGIES: Mehaffy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KOHL'S INC: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Suits Over CPAP Machine Recall Pile Up
KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Computer-Generated Wage Theft
KULLA CORP: Funes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
L'OREAL USA: Bridges Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
L'OREAL USA: Grant Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
LABORATORY CORP: Sullivan Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
LASTPASS US LP: Remhof Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
LASTPASS US: Linthicum Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
LEPRINO FOODS: Court Grants in Part Bids in Limine in Vasquez Suit
LESSEREVIL LLC: Faces Class Action Over "Healthy" Claims
LG ELECTRONICS: Gas Stoves Emit Nitrogen Oxides, Sherzai Alleges
LIBRE BY NEXUS: Officers Appeal Ruling in Vasquez Suit to 9th Cir.
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suits
MAKER ECOSYSTEM: N.D. California Dismisses 2nd Amended Johnson Suit
MAKITA USA: Court OKs Bid to Extend Briefing Schedule in May Suit
MARYANN'S 353: Rosario Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Food Runners
MATCH GROUP: Faces Bardaji Class Suit Over Drop in Share Price
MDL 2873: Delatour Alleges Cancer Risk From Toxic PFAS Exposure
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Callinan Claims
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Duff Suit Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Kolkana Claims
MDL 2873: McRae Claims Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer
META PLATFORMS: Illinois Users Set to Get Second Settlement Check
MOMENTUS INC: Jury Trial for Securities Class Suit Set for Nov. 14
MONARCH RECOVERY: Appeals Summary Judgment in Rocke FDCPA Suit
NOOM INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communications, Matousek Says
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Files 7th Cir. Appeal in Freedman Dispute
O'REILLY AUTO: $950,000 Settlement in FCRA Class Suit Heard
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Faces Holtz Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
PETERSONS OIL: PIIC Seeks Declaratory Relief in POSI Class Suit
PRECIGEN INC: Shareholder Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval
RBC INSURANCE: Class Action Over Vacation/Holiday Pay Certified
RCX LLC: Conditional Certification Granted in Part in Thompson Suit
RICHS TOWING: Appeal From Dismissal of Klein Suit in Part Tossed
RUSH UNIVERSITY: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Patients' Privacy
SAFAA IMPORT: Faces Perdomo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SIG SAUER: Ortiz Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 1st Cir.
SNAP INC: Faces Wrongful Death Class Action Over Fake Drugs
SOUTH CAROLINA: Summary Judgment & Cert. Order in CYAP Suit Upheld
SPOKEO INC: Uses Alabama Citizens' Personal Info, Ridgeway Claims
STATE AUTO: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Travis Class Complaint
T-MOBILE US: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Shoemaker Says
TARGET CORP: False-Pricing Class Action Suit Moved to Minnesota
TASKUS INC: Hearing on Forsberg Class Suit Vacated
TASKUS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Lozada Class Suit
TELSEC CORP: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages Under FLSA
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Murphy Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
TIKTOK INC: Wiretaps Users' Electronic Communications, Tado Says
TRIPLE CANOPY: Buckner Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
UBER BV: Alberta Appeal Court Confirms Class Action Dismissal
UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Summary Judgment in MSP and MSPA Suits Affirmed
UNITED DENTAL: Settlement Hearing in False Ads' Suit Set May 30
UNITED STATES: Suit by Black Farmers Unchanged Amid Settlements
UPHOLD HQ: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Rider's 1st Amended Suit
VANCOUVER COLLEGE: BC Supreme Court Certifies Sexual Abuse Suit
VEE PAK: Black Workers' Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gorlamari Class Suit
WALMART INC: Sanchez Sues Over False and Deceptive Labeling
WATERMARK RETIREMENT: DeCarlo Sues Over Scheme to Defraud Seniors
WATERTON RESIDENTIAL: Staples Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
WELLS FARGO: Settles Ponzi Scheme Class Action for $3.75 Million
WILLIAM JAMES: Zuniga Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WILLIAM K. MARSHALL: Stump Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
WORKDAY INC: Faces Class Action Over AI Tool Hiring Discrimination
WORKERS CREDIT: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due May 5
YBJ INCORPORATED: Miranda Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZILLOW GROUP: Interim Class Counsel Appointed in Software Suit
[*] Attorney Discusses ChatGPT Class Action Implications
[*] BIPA Class Action Privacy Lawsuits Continue to Rise in 2023
[*] High Court Approves Use of CPR 19.6 Representative Action
*********
AAC HOLDINGS: Court Partly OK's IPRS Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC REQUIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. AAC HOLDINGS, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00407 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), the Court hereby
certifies, respectively, the following class and claims:
"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of AAC Holdings, Inc. between March 8, 2017 and
November 5, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period")."
Excluded from the Class are AAC, Michael T. Cartwright, Kirk
R. Manz, Andrew McWilliams and members of their respective
immediate families, any entity of which any of them has a
controlling interest and the legal representatives, heirs,
predecessors, successors or assigns of any of them
(collectively, the "Excluded Parties").
However, consistent with the Court's specification of the claims as
to which certification has been granted, the motion is denied to
the extent that Plaintiff seeks certification as to its Marketing
Claim and Scheme Claim predicated on Defendants' deceptive
marketing practices.
Also, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), the Court appoints
Indiana Public Requirement System as class representative and
Robbins Geller as class counsel.
The Court has no reason to believe that Robbins Geller will be
unable to commit the resources necessary to represent the class.
Therefore, because the Court finds Robbins Geller clearly satisfies
the requirements of Rule 23(g), it will appoint Robbins Geller as
Class Counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SNzr17 at no extra charge.[CC]
AAM HOLDING: Scott Seeks Exotic Dancers' Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aisha Scott, Arielle Cosby and Salma Tarmil, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA
Collective Action, Plaintiffs v. AAM Holding Corp. (d/b/a
FlashDancers Gentlemen's Club), 59 Murray Street Enterprises, Inc.
(d/b/a FlashDancers Gentlemen's Club), Barry Lipsitz, and Barry
Lipsitz, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01909 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 6,
2023) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours, unlawfully deducted
wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and NYLL's Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers in the adult night clubs
owned and operated by Defendants known as "FlashDancers", located
at:
(i) 59 Murray Street New York, NY 10007 ("FlashDancers -
Downtown") ; and
(ii) 320 West 45 th St. New York, NY 10036 ("FlashDancers -
Midtown", and together, "FlashDancers").
During their employment, the Plaintiffs were not paid any wages for
the hours they worked. They only received gratuities from
customers, which they were forced to distribute to non-tipped
employees at FlashDancers, including managers, owners, the "house
mom", and Djs. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly required the
Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated individuals, to distribute a
percentage of all gratuities received from clients who booked a
private roomm, the suit contends.
The Plaintiffs were also required to pay Defendants a "house fee",
if they had arrived late to a scheduled shift, and a "no-show fee"
for any shift that Plaintiffs were unable to work due to health or
personal matters, which violated the NYLL's prohibitions on
employers making unlawful deductions from their employees' wages by
separate transaction, the suit added.
AAM Holding owns, operates and/or controls a group of adult night
clubs primarily doing business as "FlashDancers."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
ADVOCATE AURORA: Stewart Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALISTAIR STEWART, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC.
and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05964-JHL,
was transferred from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on Feb. 28, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00900-SK to the proceeding.
The complaint is a medical privacy action against Advocate and
Facebook, for violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
violating the Stored Communications Act, and violating other
privacy rights by knowingly and repeatedly intercepting, accessing,
and disclosing the personally identifiable, sensitive and
confidential statutorily-protected patient health information of
Advocate's patients, including Plaintiff, without their knowledge,
authorization, or consent.
Advocate Aurora Health is a non-profit health care corporation with
dual headquarters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Downers Grove,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
33 N. Dearborn St., Ste 400
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 858-3239
E-mail: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
- and -
Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Mohammed Rathur, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
mrathur@stephanzouras.com
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
rstephan@stephanzouras.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey J. Bushofsky, Esq.
Francis X Liesman, III, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
191 North Wacker Drive, 32nd Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 845-1200
E-mail: jeffrey.bushofsky@ropesgray.com
francis.liesman@ropesgray.com
- and -
Edward Robert McNicholas, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY
2099 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 508-4779
Facsimile: (202) 508-4650
E-mail: Edward.McNicholas@RopesGray.com
- and -
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-2375
E-mail: LGoldman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Matthew Lawrence Kutcher, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 881-6500
E-mail: mkutcher@cooley.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Amazon Flex Driver Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et
al., v. AMAZON.COM INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs challenge a nationwide policy -- namely, Amazon's
policy of retaining customer tips -- it is appropriate to certify a
nationwide class. Any slight variations in the legal standards may
be addressed on summary judgment and/or in instructions to the jury
(i.e., by grouping the claims into subclasses accordingly to any
variations in the legal elements in each jurisdiction).
The Plaintiffs brought this case on behalf of Amazon Flex drivers
who have performed delivery services Amazon and who allege they
have been misclassified as independent contractors and suffered
wage violations. Plaintiffs now move for class certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of various state law sub-classes, as
well as a nationwide class on their common law claims.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3STNbri at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
apagano@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104-1729
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
Facsimile: (206) 682-0401
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
THE ARNS LAW FIRM
515 Folsom St. 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 495-7800
E-mail: ssd@arnslaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth Ann Hanley, Esq.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
401 Union Street, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
E-mail: hanley@sgb-law.com
AMD FOOD: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Obando Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JONNY OSMAR REYES OBANDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMD FOOD CORP., SUNSHINE FOOD
CORP., and ASMATULLAH TOKHIE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01681
(E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed as a crew member at the Defendants'
fast-food restaurant, located at 552 3rd Ave., Brooklyn, New York
from December 2022 through and including January 5, 2023.
AMD Food Corp. is an owner and operator of a fast-food restaurant
under the name Popeyes, located in Brooklyn, New York.
Sunshine Food Corp. is an owner and operator of a fast-food
restaurant under the name Popeyes, located in Brooklyn, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
AMERICAN CAR CRAFT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Car Craft,
LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. American Car Craft, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01899 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Car Craft LLC -- https://www.americancarcraft.com/ -- is
the world's leading provider of premium Stainless Steel Automotive
Accessories for the car show enthusiast.[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
AMERICAN ELECTRONIC: Jackson Seeks Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE JACKSON,
Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. AMERICAN
ELECTRONIC WARFARE ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-01456-TDC (D.
Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
conditional certification of and authorizing notice be sent to:
"All current and former employees of American Electronic
Warfare Associates, Inc. ("AMEWAS") during the past 3 years
who were paid straight time for overtime (the "Putative
Class Members").
To facilitate the Court-approved notice, Jackson requests the Court
also:
(1) approve the Notice and Consent forms attached to
Jackson's Motion as Exhibit 15;
(2) authorize a reminder notice;
(3) authorize Class Counsel to contact Putative Class
Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice
forms return as undeliverable;
(4) order AMEWAS to produce to Class Counsel the contact
information for each Putative Class Member within 14
days; and
(5) authorize a 60 day notice period for the Putative Class
Members to join the case.
American Electronic offers services such as signal intelligence,
sensor processor testing, simulation based acquisition, and
electronic countermeasures.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 24,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SPplfY
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq., Esq.
Alyssa J. White
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St. NE, Suite 302,
Washington D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Balletto Sues Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY BALLETTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01017-RMI (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2023)
alleges Defendant's violation of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant engaged
in aiding, agreeing with, employing, or otherwise enabling the
wiretapping of the electronic communications of visitors to its
website, honda.com (the "Website"). The wiretaps, which are
embedded in the chat function on the Website, are used without the
consent of visitors to the Website.
The Defendant contracts with a third party, Salesforce, Inc.
("Salesforce"), to provide the software that runs Defendant's chat
function. The electronic communications made in the chat function
are routed through the servers of and are used by Salesforce to,
among other things, secretly observe and record website visitors'
electronic communications in real time. The nature of Salesforce's
licensing agreement with Defendant is such that Defendant "aids,
agrees with, employs, or conspires" to permit Salesforce to read,
attempt to read, to learn, and/or use the chats without the consent
of visitors to the Website, thus violating the CIPA, says the
suit.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. develops and manufactures
automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks,
motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn and garden
equipment, parts, and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Ridgeway Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIS LAMAR RIDGEWAY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS
INC., Defendant, Case No. 63-CV-2023-900083.00, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Feb.
28, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 7:23-cv-00247-ACA to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff takes issue with three features of Ancestry's
website: (1) the public search bar that enables people to search
Ancestry's geneaology databases, (2) the landing page generated
following the search, which Plaintiff contends includes free
previews of certain data available in Ancestry's databases, and (3)
the access to Ancestry databases available for a subscription fee.
The Plaintiff asserts two causes of action for (1) violation of
Alabama's Right of Publicity statute; and (2) unjust enrichment.
Ancestry.com Operations Inc. operates a subscription collection of
genealogy databases, which encompass billions of historical
records, including census records, yearbook records, newspapers,
periodicals, directories, death records, and land records.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Meredith Jowers Lees, Esq.
RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A.
2001 Park Place North, Suite 1300
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 327-5550
E-mail: mlees@rumberger.com
- and -
Shon Morgan, Esq.
John Wall Baumann, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Cristina Aide Henriquez, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
E-mail: cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Court Narrows Claims in Effinger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY EFFINGER, et al., v.
ANCIENT ORGANICS LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03596-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting in part and
denying in part motion to dismiss.
-- The motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Count V,
with leave to amend in order to add additional out-of-state
named plaintiffs.
-- The motion is denied with respect to Counts I, II, III, and
IV, but these claims may not proceed on the theory that (1)
the Product label includes illegal implicit nutrient
content claims, (2) it fails to include mandatory
disclosure statements, or (3) the statement that the
Product is a "superfood" that can be used "to nourish your
body, mind and soul" false or misleading.
In addition, surviving claims may proceed only on the basis
that the label on the 32-ounce size of the Product is at
issue, subject to any amendment including more specific
details as to any other labels Plaintiffs seek to
challenge. Any amended pleadings must be filed within 28
days of the entry of this order.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative food mislabeling class action
against Defendant Ancient Organics, a California corporation that
makes and sells ghee, a clarified butter product. The operative
First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FACAC") avers violations of
California consumer protection law on the theory that Defendant's
label led consumers to believe the ghee was healthy when, in fact,
it contains dangerously high levels of saturated fats.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss on several grounds, and the
motion was submitted without oral argument.
This case involves ghee, a type of clarified butter commonly used
in South Asian cooking.
The Product's simple label contains the words "Eat Good Fat" in
all-caps, and it describes the Product as providing vitamins and
"sustained energy levels," as well as being "the very best fat
one can eat."
The Plaintiffs Kelly Effinger and Keefe Stevernu purchased the
Product at grocery stores in Northern California. They allege that,
based on the Product's label, they perceived the Product to be
"healthy, healthful, better for them, and a healthier alternative
to the competition."
Ancient Organics manufactures, markets, and distributes a ghee
product throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZmPZzz at no extra charge.[CC]
APOTEX INC: Alysena Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set May 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you took Alysena 21 or 28 birth control pills in Canada between
February 9, 2017 and October 21, 2019, your legal rights may be
affected.
A class action settlement has been reached in Emmett v. Apotex Inc.
et al., S.C.B.C. No. VLC S-189280. The action was certified as a
class proceeding by the British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of
all women in Canada who were prescribed, purchased and ingested
Alysena 21 or Alysena 28 in Canada between February 9, 2017 and
October 31, 2019 ("Class Members").
The settlement is a compromise and is not an admission of liability
or wrongdoing or fault by any of the defendants. The proposed
settlement is subject to Court approval.
For the payment of up to $2,030,600, the Class will release the
defendants from all claims. The settlement funds, after payment of
Class Counsel fees, expenses, and any honorarium to the plaintiff,
will be distributed to the Class. The amount of compensation each
member of the Class is entitled to is dependant on the particular
circumstances of each member of the Class and will be determined by
reference to a distribution protocol that is subject to Court
approval.
The representative plaintiff has entered into a contingency fee
agreement with class counsel providing for a maximum fee of 30%
(plus taxes and disbursements). Class Counsel will seek approval of
their fees after the settlement approval hearing. The court will
determine the amount to be paid to class counsel for legal fees and
disbursements.
If you are a Class Member, you are automatically included in the
Class, and will be bound by the settlement if approved by the
Court, unless you opt out. If you do not want to be part of the
lawsuit, you must opt out of the proceeding by delivering an opt
out form to Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc. by no later than
May 7, 2023.
For members of the Class that wish to object to the settlement,
Distribution Protocol, Class Counsel fees or the honoraria to the
plaintiff, you must notify Class Counsel no later than May 7, 2023,
in the manner set out in the long form notice.
Class Counsel are Rice Harbut Elliott LLP and Merchant Law Group
LLP. More information on the settlement (including the opt-out
form, and Settlement Agreement) is available at
www.AlysenaClassAction.ca.
This notice has been authorized by the British Columbia Supreme
Court.
SOURCE: Info@AlysenaClassAction.ca
URL: www.AlysenaClassAction.ca
SOURCE Class Counsel [GN]
APPLE INC: Sgro Wiretapping Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID SGRO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00350, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 28,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00894-EJD to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brought this complaint, on behalf of a class of
consumers, to seek redress for Apple's alleged systematic
violations of state wiretapping, privacy, and consumer fraud laws.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 Saint Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: jsnyder@bonizack.com
mboni@bonizack.com
- and -
Julian Cole Diamond, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 7th Ave
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7011
E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 981-4629
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen F. Raiola, Esq.
PIETRAGALLO, GORDON, ALFANO, BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP
One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 263-4373
E-mail: sfr@pietragallo.com
ASSIETTE LLC: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL VALDEZ AND CURRIE BYRD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ASSIETTE, LLC D/B/A TARDIF'S AMERICAN
BRASSERIE AND JEAN YVES TARDIF, individually, Case No.
1:23-cv-00257 (W.D. Tex., Mar. 8, 2023) alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay minimum wages in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs and the Class Members were non-exempt from overtime
and routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
However, Defendants allegedly did not compensate the Plaintiffs or
the Class Members at time and one half their regular rate for the
hours worked after 40 each workweek. The Defendants have failed to
pay their bartenders and servers, including the Plaintiffs and the
Class Members, the required federal minimum wage for non-tipped
work in support of the tipped occupation where such supporting work
exceeded 30 minutes at one time or exceeded 20% of the hours worked
in the workweek, the Plaintiffs claim.
The Defendants also violated the FLSA by not paying the minimum
"tipped" hourly rate in that the Defendants required their tipped
employees to pay for items for their "uniform," such as specific
styles of shirts, vests, bowties, pants, belts, and non-slip shoes.
These clothing items were required to perform work for the
Defendants and were primarily for the benefit and convenience of
the Defendants. The costs for these items were not reimbursed by
Defendants, says the suit.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff Valdez as a server from January
2021 through November 26, 2022, and employed Plaintiff Byrd as a
server and a bartender from October 2021 through March 2022.
Assiette owns and operates a restaurant in San Antonio under the
name "Tardif's American Brasserie."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: (512) 799-2048
E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Walker Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona enters Scheduling Order and rules in the case,
Gerald Walker, III, et al., Plaintiffs v. Auto-Owners Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. CV-20-00449-TUC-CKJ (D. Ariz.).
Judge Jorgenson has reviewed the parties' Joint Case Management
Report and has conducted a Scheduling Conference.
The case, alleging class action claims challenging the Defendant's
standard practice of depreciating both labor and materials for
property loss claims allegedly in violation of Arizona law, a
complex case and assigns it to the complex track for case
management.
The parties will abide by the following schedule and rules:
A. Initial disclosures, under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(1) have been exchanged. The Court notifies the
parties that to satisfy the requirement of Rule 26, the parties
will file a Notice of Service of discovery papers with the Clerk of
the Court, rather than copies of actual disclosures.
B. Mediation: The parties will exchange data and engage in
mediation with a mediator jointly selected to attempt settlement of
the action by April 14, 2023.
C. Amended Pleadings will be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
D. Expert testimony (class certification): Notice of the
Plaintiff's initial expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule
26(a)(2) will take place on July 14, 2023; the Defendant's initial
expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule 26(a)(2) will take place
on Sept. 1, 2023, with any rebuttal expert testimony will be
completed on Sept. 15, 2023; Expert testimony (class claims and
damages): Notice of the Plaintiff's initial expert testimony
pursuant to Federal Rule 26(a)(2) will be made 120 days after class
certification; the Defendant's rebuttal reports due within 45
days.
E. Discovery (class certification and the Plaintiff's claim),
including depositions of parties and witnesses, will be completed
by May 12, 2023; Discovery (class claims and damages), including
depositions of parties and witnesses, will be completed by 180 days
after class certification.
F. Class Certification motion: due Sept. 29, 2023.
G. Dispositive motions (the Plaintiff's individual claim and
affirmative defenses) will be filed on Sept. 29, 2023; Dispositive
motions (class claims and damages) due by 200 days after class
certification.
H. The Plaintiff and the counsel will file a brief Joint
Settlement Status Report (containing no specific settlement terms
or offers) on April 21, 2023, and every three months thereafter.
Should the action be resolved through settlement, the parties will
advise the Court within 10 days of settlement.
I. The Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (Pretrial Statement)
will be filed within 30 days after resolution of the dispositive
motions filed after the end of all discovery, which will be
determined by whether the class is certified or not. If no such
motions are filed, a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order will be due 30
days after the close of all discovery, which will be determined by
whether the class is certified or not.
J. If the case will be tried to the Court, rather than to a
jury, the parties will submit with their Proposed Pretrial Order,
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. They will be
submitted in both written format and emailed to the chambers email
address, see infra, in a format compatible with Corel WordPerfect
or Microsoft Word.
K. Motions in limine will be filed along with the Proposed
Pretrial Order. Responses to motions in limine are due 14 days
after the motion is filed. No replies are permitted.
L. All non-dispositive motions will be accompanied by a form
of order for the Court's signature. The proposed form of order will
be emailed to the chambers email address:
jorgenson_chambers@azd.uscourts.gov.
M. Motions for extensions of any of the deadlines set forth
will be governed by Federal Rule 16 and Local Rule 7.3.
Judge Jorgenson's order that contemplates that each party will
conduct discovery in such a manner as to complete, within the
deadline, any and all discovery.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/26b2mhw6 from Leagle.com.
AYVAZ PIZZA LLC: Savannah Files ADA Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ayvaz Pizza, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Alesha Savannah, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ayvaz Pizza, LLC, Does 1
to 25, Case No. 1:23-cv-00933-VMC (N.D. Ga., March 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ayvaz Pizza, which also operates under the name Pizza Hut, is
located in Weslaco, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD
200 First Avenue, Suite 300
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 261-2393
Fax: (412) 261-2110
- and -
John T. Stembridge, Esq.
Lisa Durham Taylor, Esq.
Molly James Gray, Esq.
STEMBRIDGE TAYLOR LLC
2951 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 604-2691
Email: john@stembridgetaylor.com
lisa@stembridgetaylor.com
molly@stembridgetaylor.com
BARRETT BUSINESS: Settles Kaanaana Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2023, that the
Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the
Kaanaana class suit.
On November 21, 2012, David Kaanaana, a former staffing employee,
filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit against BBSI in the
California Superior Court on behalf of himself and certain other
employees who worked at County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los
Angeles County ("the District"). The trial court ruled in
plaintiffs' favor regarding certain alleged meal break violations
but ruled in favor of BBSI with respect to the application of the
California prevailing wage law to the District and other claims.
These latter rulings were appealed by the plaintiffs to the
California Court of Appeal. On November 30, 2018, the California
Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District returned its
decision in Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., overruling
the trial court's decision to dismiss the prevailing wage claim,
ruling that the work in question at the District constituted
"public works" under the applicable law, and also ruling that
plaintiffs' were entitled to additional remedies with regard to the
meal break violations under California law.
On January 9, 2019, BBSI filed a petition of review to the
California Supreme Court.
On February 27, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the
petition to review the Court of Appeal's decision with respect to
the prevailing wage issue.
A decision from the California Supreme Court was issued March 29,
2021 affirming the Court of Appeal decision and concluding that the
recycling sorting work performed by the staffing employees in
question was a "public work" and therefore would be subject to
prevailing wage requirements. No damages were awarded in the
appeals process.
The case was remanded to Superior Court for any such determination
with respect to both the prevailing wage issue and any additional
remedies for the meal break violations.
On December 7, 2021 the parties engaged in a mediation effort which
resulted in a settlement agreement on December 22, 2021.
The settlement is subject to customary court approval.
On January 17, 2018 and January 18, 2018, respectively, suits were
filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz
by Sandra Gill, Robert Seth Gill Jr. and Alyssa Gill, individually
and on behalf of the estate of Robert S. Gill, Sr., and by Stephen
and Torrey Whitmire, against Hildebrand and Sons Trucking, Daniel
Harrington, BBSI, the State of California, Department of
Transportation, the State of California, California Highway Patrol,
and Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs seeking monetary damages
arising out of personal injuries and a fatality suffered after
Messrs. Gill and Whitmire were struck by a truck at a California
highway mudslide removal operation.
Hildebrand was a PEO client of BBSI and operated the truck involved
in the accident.
The actions allege that the injuries and death were the result of,
among other things, the negligent actions of a Hildebrand employee,
and the unsafe conditions at the mudslide removal operation.
In February 2023, BBSI and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to
settle, which will remove BBSI from the suit.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., is a provider of business
management solutions, combining human resource outsourcing and
professional management consulting to create a unique operational
platform that differentiates it from competitors.
BIG RED SHOP: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Red Shop, Inc.
The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Big Red Shop, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01910 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Big Red Shop, Inc. -- https://www.bigredshop.com/ -- is a sporting
goods store in Warr Acres, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
BISSELL INC: Sued Over Unlawful Recording of Communications
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sumatra Kendrick, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BISSELL, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01016-JCS
(N.D. Cal., March 6, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for
surreptitiously monitoring and recording the telephonic
communications between consumers and its customer service
representatives without first providing notice or obtaining the
customer's consent in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
As a hardware manufacturer and retailer, Defendant often provides
support to customers over the phone. Defendant monitors and records
these interactions. What Defendant fails to do, however, is
disclose this fact to customers at the beginning of the
interaction. Because Defendant fails to disclose to consumers that
it is recording telephonic communications at the outset of the
call, Defendant violated and continues to violate the CIPA.
In June 2022, the Plaintiff called one of the Defendant's customer
service numbers for help with her Bissell vacuum, using her cell
phone. During the call, the Plaintiff was never told that the call
was being recorded and she never consented to that recording.
Because it was not disclosed to the Plaintiff that the call was
being recorded, the Plaintiff reasonably expected that her
communications with Defendant and its agent during the call were
not being recorded and were therefore "confidential" as defined by
California Penal Code.
The Defendant was, in fact, recording the Plaintiff's call and
captured the entire contents of her communications with the
automated agent and the live agent using Five9's software. The
Defendant's policy of monitoring and recording calls without
informing customers is a uniform practice and occurs anytime a
customer has a phone call with Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a California citizen and resident, residing in
Rodeo, California.
Bissell is an American vacuum cleaner and floor care products
manufacturer, the largest in the country by market share.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Luke W. Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
- and -
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: jarisohn@bursor.com
BLAIR CANDY COMPANY: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blair Candy Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Blair Candy Company, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-01917 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blair Candy Company, Inc. -- https://blaircandy.com/ -- have a
deliciously huge selection of bulk candy, gum and mints, bulk
peanuts and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
BP ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Electricians' OT Premiums, Watkins Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BAILEY WATKINS, and BEN BANTZ, for themselves and all others
similarly situated v. BP ELECTRIC OF OHIO, INC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00464 (N.D. Ohio, Mar. 8, 2023) sues the Defendant for not
paying an overtime premium at a rate of one and one-half their
respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 during a workweek due to the Defendant's unlawful requirement
not to pay drive time, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
According to the complaint, all Defendant's electricians, including
the Plaintiffs, drive to the Defendant's Lexington location each
morning to load supplies into work vehicles. These electricians,
including the Plaintiffs, clock-in when they arrive at the
Defendant's Lexington facility each morning. After electricians
complete their final service stop for the day, they must clock-out
before driving back to Defendant's Lexington facility. The
electrician must drive from their last service stop to the
Defendant's Lexington facility to return the work vehicle and make
sure the vehicle is clean for the morning. The electricians are
allegedly not paid for the drive time between their last service
stop and Defendant's Lexington facility, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's requirement that electricians
clock-out after their last service stop, electricians, including
the Plaintiffs, are not paid for overtime hours (hours worked over
40 in a workweek) at the required time and one half the
electricians' regular rate of pay.
Plaintiffs Watkins and Bantz were employed by the Defendant as
electricians from December 2015 until April 2022 and from April
2016 until April 2022, respectively.
BP Electric is an electrical service company located in Lexington,
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 796-4325
Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
BRAD'S RAW CHIPS: Luna Balks at Products' Deceptive Protein Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luna, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Brad's Raw Chips, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00926 (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful and deceptive
practices in labeling and marketing the BRADS PLANT BASED crunchy
kale, veggie chips, veggie flats, and other products, which make
protein claims on the front of the product packages while omitting
a statement of the corrected amount of protein from the Nutrition
Facts Panel. The Plaintiff and other consumers reasonably expect
that Defendant's products will actually provide nutritionally the
full amount of protein per serving claimed on the front of the
package but Defendant's products do not do so and instead contain
low quality proteins.
As a result, the Defendant's unlawful and misleading labeling
caused Plaintiff and members of the Class to pay a price premium,
says the suit.
Brad's Raw Chips, LLC offers a range of raw veggie chips, leafy
kale, and other healthy food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
Christopher B. Good, Esq.
J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4663
E-mail: cta@ggallp.com
cbg@ggallp.com
jrg@ggallp.com
Amir Shenaq, Esq.
SHENAQ PC
3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (888) 909-9993
E-mail: amir@shenaqpc.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste. 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
BRIAN FERRAIOLI: Johns Sues Over Misleading Information
-------------------------------------------------------
Terry Johns, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BRIAN FERRAIOLI, L. JOE BOYER, R. FOSTER
DUNCAN, LEONARD K. LEMOINE, DANIEL G. WEISS, THOMAS H. HENLEY,
RAQUEL G. RICHMOND, COLLIS TEMPLE, III, and ATLAS TECHNICAL
CONSULTANTS, INC., Case No. 2023-0266- (Del. Chancery Ct., March 2,
2023), is brought against Atlas Technical Consultants, Inc.
("Atlas" or the "Company") and the members of the Company's board
of directors (collectively referred to as the "Board" or the
"Individual Defendants" and, together with Atlas, the "Defendants")
for violations of the Individual Defendants' duty of candor under
Delaware law in connection with the proposed acquisition (the
"Acquisition") of Atlas by GI Apple Midco LLC, an affiliate of the
private equity firm known as GI Partners (collectively, "GI
Partners"), as a result of the Defendants' materially incomplete
and misleading information.
On January 30, 2023, Atlas entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Company
shareholders will receive $12.25 for each share of common stock
they own (the "Acquisition Consideration"). Upon completion of the
Acquisition, Company shareholders will be cashed out of their
shares, and Atlas stock will no longer be publicly traded. On March
1, 2023, to convince Atlas shareholders to vote in favor of the
Acquisition, the Defendants authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading definitive Schedule 14A (the "Proxy")
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in violation
of their duty of candor.
The Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: the financial projections for Atlas; and the valuation
analyses performed by Atlas's financial advisor, BofA Securities,
Inc. ("BofA") in support of the fairness opinion. Most importantly,
the unlevered free cash flow ("UFCF") projections for Atlas are not
disclosed. These UFCF figures were either prepared by Company
management as part of the Base Case Projections or derived from the
BofA1 Base Case Projections by and were used by BofA to prepare a
discounted cash flow analysis of the Company's value. The omission
of these UFCF figures and the lack of clarity regarding whether
Atlas management or BofA prepared them thus leaves shareholders
materially uninformed about the Individual Defendants' views of the
Company's prospects and one of BofA's most significant analyses of
Atlas's value.
The Proxy is also materially incomplete and misleading with respect
to the summaries of BofA's selected companies analysis ("Selected
Companies Analysis") and selected precedent transactions analysis
("Selected Precedent Transactions Analysis"). BofA appears to have
applied statistically unrepresentative multiplier ranges to Atlas,
and the individual multiples observed for the studied companies and
transactions are not disclosed.
The special meeting of Company shareholders to vote on the
Acquisition (the "Shareholder Vote") will be held on March 29,
2023. It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy be disclosed prior to the Shareholder Vote
so that Plaintiff and other Atlas shareholders can cast informed
votes on the Acquisition.
For these reasons, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from
consummating the Acquisition until the material information
identified herein is disclosed to shareholders sufficiently in
advance of the Shareholder Vote or, in the event the Acquisition is
consummated without remedial disclosure, to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a holder of Atlas common stock.
Atlas is a civil and environmental engineering company founded in
2017 with an expanding, nationwide presence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Phone: (212) 971-1341
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
jlerner@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
Andrew A. Ralli, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 984-3889
Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
aralli@coochtaylor.com
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Ivy League Institutions Face Price Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, writing for Higher Ed Dive, reports that the
eight Ivy League institutions have violated antitrust laws by not
awarding athletic scholarships, according to a class action lawsuit
filed on March 7 by current and former Brown University basketball
players.
Athletes allege the Ivy League universities' arrangement
constitutes price fixing. For years, the Ivy League has only
provided need-based financial aid to students, including athletes.
This deal is illegal and disadvantages athletes who otherwise could
have pursued scholarships to cover their tuition and fees, the
lawsuit says.
Without this agreement, the Ivy League institutions would make
competing offers for athletic scholarships, the lawsuit alleges.
Dive Insight:
The lawsuit is challenging all of the Ivy League institutions, as
well as the Ivy League Council of Presidents, which coordinates
their athletics.
The plaintiffs allege the colleges' restrictions "are no different,
as a matter of law" than those struck down in a 2021 U.S. Supreme
Court ruling in NCAA v. Alston. The high court found the NCAA had
infringed on antitrust laws by profiting off the name, image and
likeness of athletes. [GN]
BURGER BAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavez Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DAGOBERTO CHAVEZ; and EDUAR ALMENDAREZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BURGER BAR
ENTERPRISES INC.; RICHARD BEDROSIAN; and GEORGIA GALATOULAS,
Defendants, Case No. 603812/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., March 6,
2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and
provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as busboys.
BURGER BAR ENTERPRISES INC. restaurant serves delicious burgers and
sandwiches. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
CABELAS LLC: Durham Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cabelas LLC. The case
is styled as Timothy Durham, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cabelas LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-01630-GW-KES (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Cabela's Inc. -- http://stores.cabelas.com/-- is an American
retailer that specializes in hunting, fishing, boating, camping,
shooting and other outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
6057 Metropolitan Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (314) 662-2836
Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Final Judgment & Order Issued in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN DATA BREACH
LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: All Actions, Master File No.
8:21-cv-01928-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), Judge David O. Carter of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants:
a. the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement; and
b. the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award off Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses and Service Awards.
On June 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval to the May 2, 2022 Settlement Agreement and Release
between Plaintiffs Kansas Gilleo, Sydney Rusen, Esteban Morales,
Douglas Wallace, Brett Rigas, and Evencio Diaz, individually and on
behalf of the Settlement Class, and the Defendant.
Commencing on July 29, 2022, pursuant to the notice requirements in
the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order, Epiq
Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. provided Notice to
Settlement Class members in compliance with Section 12 of the
Settlement Agreement and the Class Notice plan, due process, and
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court held a second hearing on Dec. 5, 2022. Judge Carter
reviewed the Motions and all supporting materials. Based on this
review and the findings, he finds good cause to grant the Motions.
He holds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of Settlement Class members.
Judge Carter grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement in
full, including but not limited to the releases therein and the
procedures for effecting the Settlement. All the Settlement Class
members who have not excluded themselves from the Settlement Class
are bound by the Final Judgment and Order.
The Parties will carry out their respective obligations under the
Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms. The relief
provided for in the Settlement Agreement will be made available to
the various Settlement Class members submitting valid Claim Forms,
pursuant to the terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement.
One objection to the Settlement was submitted by the Settlement
Class members. All persons who did not object to the Settlement in
the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement are deemed to have
waived any objections, including but not limited to by appeal,
collateral attack, or otherwise.
Four persons made valid and timely requests to be excluded from the
settlement and the Settlement Class. The Opt-Out Members are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement and the Final Judgment and Order
and will not be entitled to any of the benefits afforded to the
Settlement Class members under the Settlement Agreement.
Solely for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and the Final
Judgment and Order, Judge Carter certifies the following Settlement
Class and subclass:
Settlement Class: All persons who were sent notice of the Data
Security Incident announced by Defendant on or about Nov. 15,
2021.
California Settlement Subclass: All persons residing in
California who were sent notice of the Data Security Incident
announced by Defendant on or about Nov. 15, 2021.
Judge Carter also grants final approval to the appointment of
Representative Plaintiffs Kansas Gilleo, Sydney Rusen, Esteban
Morales, Douglas Wallace, Brett Rigas, and Evencio Diaz as the
Class Representatives, and further appoints Sydney Rusen, Esteban
Morales, and Doug Wallace as Class Representatives of the
California Settlement Subclass and concludes that they have fairly
and adequately represented the Settlement Classes and will continue
to do so.
Judge Carter grants final approval to the appointment of Mason
Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; David Lietz of Milberg Coleman
Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; Daniel O. Herrera Cafferty Clobes
of Meriwether & Sprengel LLP; and Rachele R. Byrd of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as the Class Counsel. He says
the Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the
Settlement Classes and will continue to do so.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an award of $800,000, citing a
lodestar of $687,681.00 and total expenses of $26,367.05. This
award would constitute 36.3% of the total class benefit, which is
$2,133,719. The Plaintiffs cite 1,028.10 total hours, which comes
out to an average hourly rate of $668.88.
Judge Carter awards the Class Counsel $800,000 in fees and
reimbursement of costs and expenses. He also awards Service Awards
of $2,000 to each of Kansas Gilleo, Sydney Rusen, Esteban Morales,
Douglas Wallace, Brett Rigas, and Evencio Diaz. Payment will be
made from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the procedures in Section
5(b) of the Settlement Agreement.
Each Settlement Class member, including the Class Representatives,
are: (1) deemed to have completely and unconditionally released,
forever discharged and acquitted Defendant and the other Released
Parties from any and all of the Released Claims (including unknown
claims) as defined in the Settlement Agreement; and (2) barred and
permanently enjoined from asserting, instituting, or prosecuting,
either directly or indirectly, these claims.
The Settlement Agreement and the Final Judgment and Order apply to
all claims or causes of action settled under the Settlement
Agreement and binds the Class Representatives and all the
Settlement Class members who did not properly request exclusion.
Judge Carter directs the Parties and their counsel to implement and
consummate the Settlement Agreement and make available to the
Settlement Class members the relief provided for therein, in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement's terms and provisions.
Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment and Order, the
Court will retain jurisdiction over these Consolidated Cases and
the Parties with respect to the interpretation, implementation and
enforcement of the Settlement Agreement for all purposes.
Judge Carter dismisses the Consolidated Cases in their entirety
with prejudice, and without fees or costs except as otherwise
provided for in the Final Judgment and Order. He enters judgment in
the matter pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ntsp7ua from
Leagle.com.
CANADA: Class Action Over First Nations Drinking Water Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Johnson, writing for Medicine Hat News, reports that in
Canada, being concerned about clean drinking water is not often a
daily concern, unless you currently live on or have lived on a
First Nation reserve. In 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed by
Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP (OKT) against the federal government on
behalf of three First Nations, two in Ontario and one in Manitoba,
due to a failure to ensure access to safe drinking water on
reserves.
All three First Nations had long-term drinking water advisories
lasting a year or more before the case was filed. On further
investigation, OKT learned 250 First Nations across Canada,
including many in Alberta, have had long-term drinking advisors. A
total of 130 First Nations joined the class action lawsuit and a
settlement was recently negotiated with the federal government.
"Part of the settlement is compensation for individuals and First
Nations as a whole but the main part of the settlement is a legally
enforceable duty to ensure access to safe drinking water on
reserves and a major infrastructure commitment," said Kevin Hille,
a lawyer on the OKT class counsel for this case.
Living under a long-term drinking water advisory is not only an
inconvenience, due to having to buy water, but also a hardship.
Many live in remote communities and getting clean water is
difficult. There are also provisions in the settlement for those
who were harmed due to only having access to unsafe water.
OKT wants to ensure everyone who is living on a reserve or has
previously lived on a reserve knows about the settlement and are
making claims. The deadline to make a claim has been extended until
Mar. 7, 2024. Hille explained that there are still many communities
struggling with access to clean water and a public commitment is
needed to address the issue.
"It's a great step forward for ensuring First Nations have access
to safe drinking water and people living on reserve are treated
equally with those living off reserves," stated Hille. "Their basic
human rights are respected, but it's still an ongoing crisis in
many communities. The settlement is a step. As a country we need to
commit to ensuring that everybody has access to clean water and
that will take time."
For more information visit the following webpages,
https://firstnationsdrinkingwater.ca/ and
https://www.oktlaw.com/services/cases/class-action-litigation-on-drinking-water-advisories-on-first-nations-reserves/.
[GN]
CANADA: Ex-Sudbury Employee Part of Vaccine Mandate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sudbury.com reports that a former City of Greater Sudbury employee
is part of a class action lawsuit launched against several Ontario
municipalities and King Charles that alleges vaccine mandates
violated people's rights.
The hundreds of former municipal employees who were fired or placed
on unpaid leave for refusing to disclose their COVID-19 vaccine
status are seeking $550,000 each in compensation, according to the
statement of claim filed by the Rocco Galati Law Firm.
Incidentally, a similar lawsuit filed by the same lawyer against a
variety of federal agencies and federally-regulated organizations
was recently thrown out, with the judge calling the claims "bad
beyond argument."
The suit involves more than 200 plaintiffs throughout the province,
largely first responders and essential workers, seeking a
collective $125.95 million from a variety of municipalities and
taxpayer-funded service providers. King Charles is also named.
"All the plaintiffs were sent home on 'leave without pay' and/or
subsequently fired for refusing to take the COVID-19 'vaccines'
(inoculations) whether or not they were working from home, and/or
further refused to multi-weekly PCR testing in order to continue
working," notes the statement of claim filed earlier this month in
Toronto," the statement of claim reads.
"All the plaintiffs possess a conscientious and/or physical
/medical reason for refusing to take the COVID-19 'vaccines'
(inoculation)."
None of the allegations have been proven in court and no statements
of defense have yet been filed.
In all, there are nearly 250 plaintiffs behind the lawsuit, along
with almost 50 municipalities, school boards, municipal services
and individuals identified as defendants.
Each of the plaintiffs are asking for $550,000 in compensation, as
well as to have their employment status returned, back pay and
benefits from time missed. They claim loss of their livelihood,
mental anguish and distress, loss of dignity and discrimination
based on their medical status.
"While 'exemptions' to these 'mandatory vaccine mandates' exist, in
theory, all of the plaintiffs who sought an exemption were
arbitrarily denied without reasons," the lawsuit states. "The
plaintiffs further state that there is no obligation to seek any
exemption before refusing the vaccines.
"All the plaintiffs are ineligible for employment insurance
benefits because they were dismissed for refusing the 'vaccines'
(inoculations)."
Released in September, 2021, the City of Greater Sudbury's
mandatory vaccine policy gave its approximately 3,000 employees
until Nov. 15 of that year to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19,
unless they had a valid exemption.
"As we continue to see a concerning rise in the number of COVID-19
cases locally, we remain committed to doing all we can to reduce
transmission and ease the burden on our health-care system," said
then Mayor Brian Bigger. "Being fully vaccinated continues to be
the best protection against COVID-19 and the Delta variant, and I
want to thank our employees for doing their part to protect the
well-being of our community."
By Nov. 15, 2021, the City of Greater Sudbury had put 139 employees
on unpaid leave over their refusal to disclose their vaccine
status. That number dropped a bit within a few days. Of those 139
workers, 32 were volunteer firefighters. The nature of the
employment of the former staffer who is part of the lawsuit is not
disclosed in the document.
The lawsuit further calls on the court to declare vaccine mandates
to be "not scientifically or medically based." It further raises
questions about the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction tests,
often referred to as PCR or rapid response tests, used by the
various employers to check infection status.
"The plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that there is no, and there
has not been, a 'COVID-19' 'pandemic' beyond and/or exceeding the
consequences of the fall-out of the pre-covid annual flu or
influenza," the court filing continues.
"The fact, and data is, that the COVID-19 measures have caused, to
a factor of a minimum of five (5) to one (1), more deaths than the
actual purported COVID-19 has caused." [GN]
CANDELA RESTAURANT: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinga Hegyes Ramirez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Candela Restaurant Corp., Fady Genges, and Waleed Mina,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01683 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2023), is brought to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unlawfully deducted
wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and violations of the New York State Labor
Law ("NYLL") and their supporting New York State Department of
Labor regulations.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully
appropriating the Plaintiff's, all other similarly situated
individuals', tipped wages. Specifically, the Defendants unlawfully
withheld all, or nearly all, of the Plaintiff's tips, and all
similarly situated individuals' tips. The Defendants' failure to
provide accurate wage notices and accurate wage statements denied
the Plaintiff their statutory right to receive true and accurate
information about the nature of their employment and related
compensation policies. Moreover, the Defendant's breach of these
obligations injured the Plaintiff by denying the Plaintiff the
right to know the conditions of their compensation, resulting in
the underpayment of wages. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff
at the rate of one and one-half times her hourly wage rate for
hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a server, bartender, and general
worker at the Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control the restaurant located
in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, New York 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Mikulsky Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Mikulsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00404-WQH-JLB
(S.D. Cal., March 2, 2023), is brought against Carnival for
wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its
website, www.carnival.com, in violation the California Invasion of
Privacy Act and constitutes the torts of invasion of the privacy
rights and intrusion upon seclusion 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 of
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 in the
electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each
visitor to the Carnival website for the entire duration of their
website interaction.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all California 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 California to review cruise
schedules and to purchase tickets for cruises originating in
California.
Carnival operates the website www.carnival.com, as well as all of
its Subpages and is a cruise line that offers cruise vacations
throughout the United States and internationally..[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
Fax: (212) 202-4322
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
CENTURY CITY MALL: Snowfin Franchise Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century City Mall,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Snowfin Franchise Group LLC a/k/a
Big Fish Little Fish, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Century City Mall, LLC, Park Daniel E., Case
No. 23STCV04896 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 6,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Real Property (Not Eminent
Domain, Landlord/Tenant, Foreclosure)."
Century City Mall is located in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
CHEMTOOL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Following Plant Explosions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockford Register Star reports that any owner or tenant of
properties located within a three-mile radius of the Chemtool plant
on June 14, 2021, are now part of a class action suit.
Notices of the legal action are being mailed to addresses within
the three-mile radius, and the notice was set to appear on March 10
in the Rockford Register Star, said Ed Manzke, of the
Naperville-based Collins Law Firm and one of seven attorneys
representing the plaintiffs.
"The people who are in the class don't need to do anything, but
people who do not want to be party to the suit can opt out," he
said.
The Chemtool plant, a manufacturer of grease, lubricating oils and
other fluids, caught fire on the morning of June 14, 2021,
triggering several explosions on the grounds of the facility and
burned for several days.
Residents who lived within a mile of the plant were forced to
evacuate their homes for four days while those outside of the
immediate vicinity but within the three-mile radius were asked to
shelter in place, not to open windows nor turn on their
air-conditioning units.
According to the notice, plaintiffs Charles Grasley, Diane
Connelly, Paige Hoops, and Eric Osberg, are now suing on behalf of
the class. They allege that their properties were impacted by a
plume of smoke and dust from the fire that destroyed the Rockton
plant at 1165 Prairie Hill Road.
The plaintiffs, the notice said, are seeking to "recover
compensatory damages based on allegations of lost property values,
loss of the reasonable use and enjoyment of their properties, and
other property related damages. Plaintiffs are also seeking
injunctive relief to remediate the alleged damage to properties in
the Class Area."
The notice also said this case only seeks to determine claims for
property damages and injunctive relief. "Personal injury claims
(i.e., bodily injury, sickness, or disease related to exposure to
the alleged contamination) are not being determined in this case
and any such claims will not impact your status as a class
member."
Meanwhile, Chemtool has denied any wrong doing and filed a
complaint against Holian Insulation Company alleging that it was
the actions of a Holian employee that caused the fire.
In response, Holian has filed a complaint alleging among other
things that Chemtool failed to protect the Rockton plant from
fires.
The Court has not yet made any determinations about the merits of
plaintiffs' claims or any party's defenses.
For more information, visit: www.chemtoolclassaction.com or call
833-457-5350. [GN]
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Stephens Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chick-Fil-A, Inc. The
case is styled as David Stephens, Kaitlyn Strawn, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00964-LMM (N.D. Ga., March 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Chick-fil-A -- https://www.chick-fil-a.com/ -- is an American fast
food restaurant chain which is the country's largest specializing
in chicken sandwiches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
737 Bainbridge Street, #155
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
New York, NY 10119-0165
Phone: (212) 594-5300
- and -
Robert E. Jones, Esq.
THE JONES LAW FIRM, P.C.
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 950
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 877-2345
Email: rob@robjoneslaw.com
CHRISTIAAN PRINSLOO: Sued Over Negligent Firearms Management
------------------------------------------------------------
Mwangi Githahu, writing for IOL, reports that Gun Free SA (GFSA) is
headed to the Western Cape High Court with a class action case
against the police minister seeking damages arising from deaths and
injuries due to corrupt, negligent firearms management.
GFSA claims in its suit that the police are accountable for crimes
committed by former police colonel Christiaan Prinsloo, who
confessed to selling more than 2 000 guns in police stores to gang
leaders on the Cape Flats.
Prinsloo, who was involved in the illegal gun trade, was sentenced
to 18 years' imprisonment for a string of charges, including
corruption, racketeering and theft after entering into a plea
agreement with the State at the Bellville Magistrate's Court in
2016.
The former Gauteng policeman was arrested in 2015 as part of a
lengthy investigation into gangsters and the illegal gun trade in
the Western Cape.
During the case it emerged that Prinsloo was assisted in his
criminal enterprise by his colleague Colonel David Charles Naidoo.
GFSA said that since 2016, police records show that "Prinsloo's
guns" have been used in, at least, 1 066 murders and that 187
children were killed by criminals using a "Prinsloo gun".
Calls and text messages failed to elicit a response from Police
Minister Bheki Cele's spokesperson. However, in February, while
delivering the crime statistics from October to December 2022, Cele
said there was evidence that guns were stolen from the police and
households.
GFSA's director Adèle Kirsten said: "As the virus of gun violence
spreads, it's time to hold the police accountable for their
negligence."
Litigants in the class action include the parents and guardians of
children who were injured, dependants of victims killed, and those
who survived a shooting with a Prinsloo gun.
Several families have already given witness statements and work
continues to identify further claimants. A firm of attorneys has
taken the case pro-bono, and secured senior and junior legal
counsel to represent the litigants in the Western Cape High Court.
Kirsten said the police had failed to ensure South Africa had a
strong and effective weapons and ammunition management system in
place and this had enabled Prinsloo to steal guns in police stores
and leak them into communities for years, undetected.
"Furthermore, the police have failed to adequately address systemic
failures in SAPS' stockpile management system to prevent more legal
guns leaking into criminal hands, thereby contributing to the pool
of weapons in the country."
Kirsten said that with guns ever more available, gun violence had
increased and guns are now the leading cause of murder in South
Africa, with 34 people shot and killed every day between October
and December 2022.
On March 7 the legislature's standing committee on community safety
will be briefed by the police on their response to the 2021/22
policing needs and priorities report.
During a briefing to the legislature on the report in February,
Police Oversight and Community Safety MEC Reagen Allen urged the
police to continue to focus on firearm recoveries and confiscations
through stop and search and intelligence-led operations.
MEC Allen said: "Firearm stockpiles must be closely managed. SAPS
must report on all firearms and ammunition lost or stolen from
exhibits, stores or from members of SAPS."
He said it was necessary for confiscated firearms to be destroyed
on a more regular basis and that there needed to be further
regulation of the sale of ammunition to prevent "large amounts
being bought and sold or lent on to criminally-minded people."
Last August members of the standing committee were left frustrated
after being told the information they sought from provincial police
top brass on the destruction of illegal firearms was classified and
not to be revealed in an open session.
The committee members had invited Western Cape police management to
brief them on the slow progress in identifying a site in the
province where the guns could be destroyed instead of having to
transport them to Pretoria every so often. [GN]
COLLECTION MANAGEMENT: Esposito Sues for FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
EDWARD ESPOSITO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTION MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
d/b/a CREDIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-335
(W.D. Pa., Feb. 28, 2023) seeks redress for Defendant's violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's harassing collection
calls invaded Plaintiff's privacy and caused Plaintiff actual harm,
including: aggravation that accompanies unwanted calls, increased
risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction caused by
the unwanted calls, wear and tear to Plaintiff's cellular phone,
loss of battery charge, loss of concentration, mental anguish,
nuisance, the per-kilowatt electricity costs required to recharge
Plaintiff's cellular telephone as a result of increased usage of
Plaintiff's telephone services, and wasting Plaintiff's time.
Moreover, each time Defendant placed a call to Plaintiff's cellular
phone, Defendant occupied Plaintiff's cellular phone such that
Plaintiff was unable to receive other phone calls or otherwise
utilize his cellular phone while his phone was ringing. Due to
Defendant's refusal to honor Plaintiff's request that the calls
cease, Plaintiff was forced to file this lawsuit to compel
Defendants to cease their abusive collection practices, the suit
asserts.
Collection Management Company is a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based
debt collection agency that collects debts owed to third
parties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8181
E-mail: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Nurses Assoc. Members File Labor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
East Oregonian reports that members of the Oregon Nurses
Association have filed a class-action lawsuit against CommonSpirit
Health, the parent company of CHI St. Anthony Hospital, Pendleton,
for months of pay discrepancies.
ONA represents more than 500 registered nurses and health care
workers at CommonSpirit-owned Mercy Medical Center in Roseburg and
St. Anthony. The nurses association in a press release Wednesday,
March 8, announced its members filed the lawsuit in February. The
legal action seeks to stop CommonSpirit from committing wage theft
and recoup lost pay for health care workers at the hospitals in
Roseburg and Pendleton.
According to the Oregon Nurses Association, CommonSpirit in October
2022 experienced a cyberattack that compromised more than half a
million patients' personal health information and shut down
hospital information technology systems, including electronic
timekeeping.
In the following pay periods, the ONA alleges CommonSpirit
significantly underpaid many nurses and health care workers, while
also claiming it overpaid certain workers. The ONA alleges
CommonSpirit did not provide proof of these overpayments and
illegally withheld workers' earnings from future paychecks. The ONA
also alleges CommonSpirit failed to correct inaccurate
underpayments, leaving frontline workers waiting months to receive
full pay and benefits.
Nurses have been asking CommonSpirit to address its wage theft and
inaccurate payments since November, according to the ONA. In
December, more than 370 ONA nurses and health care workers at Mercy
Medical Center and St. Anthony Hospital delivered a signed petition
to hospital management demanding CommonSpirit provide documentation
of alleged overpayments.
The ONA said workers also met with hospital management to ask for
an independent audit but were denied, which has led nurses to take
legal action. [GN]
CORNHOLE WORLDWIDE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornhole Worldwide,
LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Cornhole Worldwide, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01859 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cornhole Worldwide -- https://www.cornholeworldwide.com/ --
provides backgrounds and textures for beaches, cities, landmarks,
cornhole-themed emergency rescue, fishing, flags, and
gambling.[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
CORRECTCARE INTEGRATED: Court Consolidates Hiley and Yates Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, VIRGINIA HILEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. CORRECTCARE
INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC., Defendant; and MARLENA YATES, Plaintiff v.
CORRECTCARE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Civil Action Nos.
5: 22-319-DCR, 5: 23-021-DCR (E.D. Ky.), Judge Danny C. Reeves of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
Central Division, Lexington grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
to consolidate and appoint interim class counsel.
Plaintiffs Virginia Hiley, Anthony Leroy White, and Marlena Yates
have filed a motion to consolidate Hiley, et al. v. CorrectCare
Integrated Health, LLC, No. 5: 22-CV-319-DCR and Yates v.
CorrectCare Integrated Health, LLC, No. 5: 23-CV-021-DCR. They
request that the consolidated actions be filed under the docket of
the first-filed Hiley action, and given the new name "In re
CorrectCare Data Breach Litigation" going forward.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Benjamin F. Johns of
Shub Law Firm, LLC, Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Phillips
Grossman PLLC, J. Gerard Stranch IV of Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC, and Lynn A. Toops of Cohen & Malad, LLP, as the
interim co-lead class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The Defendants do not oppose the relief requested.
CorrectCare is a third-party health administrator which facilitates
access to medical providers and manages claims payment processes
within correctional environments. In the course of conducting its
business, it gathered and maintained information from the
Plaintiffs and putative class members including their names, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, inmate IDs, and limited health
information.
The Plaintiffs allege that CorrectCare discovered on July 6, 2022,
that one of its web servers was misconfigured such that patients'
private information could be publicly accessed over the internet.
According to their motion, the data was subject to unauthorized
access for nearly six months and involved at least 496,589
patients' private information.
Virginia Hiley's private information was compromised during the
Data Breach. She subsequently experienced numerous breaches of her
personal accounts and was subject to multiple phishing and scam
calls. Hiley filed Lexington Civil Action 22-CV-319 on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated on Dec. 7, 2022. She alleges
claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, negligence per
se, breach of fiduciary duty, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of
privacy, and unjust enrichment based on the Data Breach. Marlena
Yates filed a similar Complaint against CorrectCare in the Fayette
Circuit Court on Feb. 1, 2023, which the Defendants subsequently
removed to the Court. While Yates' legal claims are not identical
to Hiley's, the underlying factual allegations are the same in both
cases.
Judge Reeves explains that consolidation is governed by Rule 42 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that if
actions before the court involve a common question or law or fact,
the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at
issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any
other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
Whether cases involving common factual and legal issues should be
consolidated for trial is a matter within the discretion of the
trial court. Once a court determines that there are common
questions of law or fact, it also must consider the following
factors before consolidating: whether the specific risks of
prejudice and possible confusion are outweighed by the risk of
inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues; the
burdens placed on parties, witnesses, and judicial resources posed
by multiple lawsuits; the length of time required to resolve
multiple suits as opposed to a single one; and the relative expense
to all concerned of a single trial compared to multiple trials.
In the instant case, Judge Reeves finds that common questions of
law and fact predominate and therefore considerations of judicial
economy would be served by consolidation. There is no indication
that any party would suffer prejudice as a result of consolidation,
as the defendants do not object to the Plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate. Because of the risk of duplicative discovery and
motion practice, Judge Reeves is satisfied that the advantages of
consolidation outweigh the specific risk of prejudice and possible
confusion. Accordingly, the motion to consolidate will be granted.
The Defendants also seek designation of interim class counsel
pursuant to Rule 23(g)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which gives district courts authority to designate interim counsel
to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to
certify the action as a class action. Six attorneys have entered an
appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs in Hiley. Two of them --
attorneys Johns and Klinger -- seek to be designated as co-lead
interim class counsel. Six different attorneys have entered an
appearance on behalf of the plaintiff in Yates. Two of those
attorneys -- Stranch and Toops -- seek to be designated, as well.
The plaintiffs and their attorneys agree that this arrangement is
in the best interest of the plaintiffs "to form a unified front and
cooperatively litigate the claims" against the defendant.
Judge Reeves explains that it is common, and efficient, to appoint
interim co-lead counsel in the same stroke as consolidating related
actions. Designation of a co-leadership structure eliminates
uncertainty regarding who will be primarily responsible for leading
the consolidated action. The Class counsel, including the interim
counsel, must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
class.
When considering whether to designate interim class counsel, the
Court must consider the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1): the
work counsel has done in identifying or investigating the potential
claims involved in the action; counsel's experience in handling
class actions, complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted
in the action; counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and the
resources that counsel will devote to representing the class. It
also may consider any other factors relevant to counsel's ability
to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.
The Plaintiffs report that proposed interim counsel have committed
"substantial, yet appropriate, time and resources" to the
litigation, including reviewing consumer communications concerning
the Data Breach and engaging in ongoing communications with absent
class members. Further, it appears that each of the attorneys and
their law firms are willing and able to expend the resources
necessary to ensure vigorous prosecution of the Plaintiffs'
claims.
Based on the foregoing analysis, Judge Reeves grants the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate and appoint interim
class counsel. He consolidated Lexington Civil Action Nos. 5:
22-319-DCR and 5: 23-021-DCR for all purposes. The lead case is
thereafter Lexington Civil Action No. 5: 22-319-DCR, and all
further filings are directed to be made in that civil action. The
consolidated action will be styled: "In re CorrectCare Data Breach
Litigation."
Judge Reeeves designates the following attorneys the interim
co-lead class counsel: Benjamin F. Johns; Gary M. Klinger; J.
Gerard Stranch IV; and Lynn A. Toops.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2r3k4vu5 from
Leagle.com.
CREDIT SUISSE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 8
------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a
class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS) securities
between December 1, 2022 and February 17, 2023, for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Credit Suisse, together with
its subsidiaries, provides various financial services in
Switzerland, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, and
Asia Pacific.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Credit Suisse. Shareholders
who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their
papers by May 8, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
What is this Case About: Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) Misled
Investors
Regarding Customer Outflows and Overstated its Financial Position
and Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that contrary to the representations of Credit
Suisse's Chairman, Axel P. Lehmann, in December 2022, the sharp
increase in customer outflows Credit Suisse began experiencing in
October 2022 remained ongoing. Accordingly, Credit Suisse had
downplayed the impact of the Company's recent series of quarterly
losses and risk and compliance failures on liquidity and its
ability to retain client funds, and as a result, Credit Suisse had
overstated the Company's financial position and/or prospects.
In October 2022, Credit Suisse began experiencing a sharp increase
in customer outflows, or withdrawals of client funds, after a
series of quarterly losses and risk and compliance failures
significantly decreased the Company's American Depositary Share
("ADS") price. On December 1, 2022, Lehmann stated in an interview
with Financial Times that customer outflows had not only
"completely flattened out," but had, in fact, "partially reversed."
The following day, in an interview with Bloomberg Television,
Lehmann reiterated his previous statements, reassuring investors
that as of November 11, 2022, customer outflows had "basically
stopped". On this news, Credit Suisse's ADS price rose $0.29 per
ADS, or 9.36%, to close at $3.38 per ADS on December 2, 2022.
On February 9, 2023, Credit Suisse announced its 2022 financial
results, reporting customer outflows of 110.5 billion Swiss francs
in the final three months of 2022, which exceeded market
expectations. On this news, Credit Suisse's ADS price fell $0.56
per ADS, or 15.64%, to close at $3.02 per ADS on
February 9, 2023.
Then, on February 21, 2023, Reuters reported that the Swiss
Financial Market Supervisory Authority ("FINMA"), was reviewing
Lehmann's previous comments regarding customer outflows. On this
news, Credit Suisse's ADS price fell another $0.10 per ADS, or
3.31%, to close at $2.92 per ADS on February 21, 2023.
Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Credit Suisse Group AG settles or to receive free alerts
when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock
Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
CUBESMART LP: Bradford Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CUBESMART, L.P. D/B/A CUBESMART SELF
STORAGE, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-002651 (Fla. Cir., 17th
Judicial, Broward Cty., March 1, 2023) arises from the Defendant's
alleged violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic
communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
the consumer debt. Each of the electronic communications were sent
to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time
zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the Plaintiff's
consent to communicate with him between the hours of 9:00 PM and
8:00 AM. As such, by and through each of the electronic
communications, Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the suit.
CubeSmart, L.P., d/b/a CubeSmart Self Storage, operates as a real
estate company. The Company focuses on the ownership, operation,
acquisition, and development of self-storage facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
CURIE BRANDS: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curie Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Curie Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01869 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Curie Brands, Inc. -- https://curiebod.com/ -- is a manufacturer
and retailer of deodorants intended to provide natural and
aluminum-free products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
D&B TILE AND RELATED: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D&B Tile and Related
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. D&B Tile and Related
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01901 (S.D.N.Y., March 6,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
D&B Tile and Related Enterprises Inc. -- https://dbtile.com/ --
wholesales and distributes building construct supplies and
materials.[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
DAPPER LABS: S.D. New York Refuses to Dismiss Amended Friel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEEUN FRIEL, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAPPER LABS, INC. and ROHAM
GHAREGOZLOU, Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 5837 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.
Lead Plaintiff Gary Leuis and named plaintiff John Austin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated bring
the action against Defendants Dapper Labs and its CEO, Roham
Gharegozlou, alleging that Dapper Labs violated the securities laws
by offering for sale to the public certain non-fungible tokens
("NFTs") known as NBA Top Shot Moments without filing a
registration statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Plaintiffs assert two causes of action: (1) violations by
Dapper Labs of Sections 5 (15 U.S.C. Section 77e) and 12(a)(1) (15
U.S.C. Section 77l) of the Securities Act of 1933 for the
unregistered offer and sale of a security, to wit, Moments, sold on
its NBA Top Shot application; and (2) violation of Securities Act
Section 15 (15 U.S.C. Section 77o) against Gharegozlou as control
person liability for the primary violations alleged in the first
cause of action.
Dapper Labs, founded by Gharegozlou, is a Vancouver, Canada-based
corporation that develops blockchain technologies. In simplest
terms, a "blockchain" is decentralized digital ledger used to
record and validate transactions. After previous foray into
developing blockchain-based assets on other blockchains, Dapper
Labs created its own, the Flow Blockchain. Dapper Labs developed
the Flow Blockchain as part of a larger so-called Flow Network,
which would host applications that run atop and whose transactions
are validated on the Flow Blockchain.
Moments was not Dapper Labs's first foray into blockchain
technology and crypto assets. In November 2017, Dapper Labs
released CryptoKitties, which was built on the Ethereum blockchain,
a public blockchain using a "Proof of Work" protocol. Following the
launch of CryptoKitties, Gharegozlou stated in an interview with
USA Today that Dapper Labs had started to work on a "scaling
solution" for the business. Dapper Labs created 1.25 billion FLOW
tokens in September 2020 and distributed them to institutional
investors and the public between September 2020 and October 2020.
Dapper Labs first announced its blockchain application, NBA Top
Shot, in July 2019 as a joint venture between itself, the National
Basketball Association ("NBA"), and the NBA Players Association
("NBAPA"). NBA Top Shot is a platform or application, owned and
operated by Dapper Labs and built on top of the Flow Blockchain.
Moments are NFTs. And NFTs are digital assets whose authenticity
and ownership can be recorded on a blockchain.
The Plaintiffs' putative class includes individuals who purchased
Moments between June 15, 2020, and the present. According to Dapper
Labs, as of April 2021, more than 800,000 people used the NBA Top
Shot platform to purchase Moments. Many thousands of those
purchasers fall within the putative class. Dapper Labs has not
filed any registration statement for the sale of Moments with the
SEC at any point.
On May 12, 2021, Plaintiff Jeeun Friel filed a putative class
action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County. On July 7, 2021, Dapper Labs removed the action from
the state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, 1446,
and 1453. On Aug. 11, 2021, Dapper Labs requested that the Court
suspends the deadline to respond to the Complaint until the
Plaintiffs had complied with the requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), including the
Court's appointment of a Lead Plaintiff in the case. On Oct. 5,
2021, Plaintiff Gary Leuis moved, unopposed, to serve as Lead
Plaintiff. And on Oct. 8, 2021, the Court granted that motion,
appointed Leuis as Lead Plaintiff and approved The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A. as Lead Counsel.
On Oct. 22, 2021, the Court granted the parties' joint request for
an extension of time for Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint and
for Defendants to respond. The Plaintiffs filed their Amended
Complaint on Dec. 27, 2021.
On Jan. 27, 2022, the Defendants filed a pre-motion letter
addressed to the Plaintiffs, pursuant to the Court's Individual
Rules of Practice, Section II.B., stating grounds justifying
dismissal of the action under Rule 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs opposed
those grounds by letter dated Feb. 3, 2022. And on Feb. 22, 2022,
the Defendants indicated to the Court that the pre-motion letter
practice was unable to resolve the dispute and avoid motion
practice at this point and requested a conference on the proposed
motion to dismiss. On June 24, 2022, the Court denied the request
for a conference and directed the parties to submit a proposed
briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss.
On Aug. 31, 2022, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a request for Judicial
Notice supported by the declaration of the Defendants' attorney,
Erin Zatlin, with accompanying exhibits, and their brief in support
of the Motion. The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition on Oct. 31,
2022 and the Defendants submitted a Reply in further support of
their motion on Nov. 30, 2022.
The Defendants ask the Court to not be distracted by the
Plaintiffs' references to and allegations about the FLOW tokens
that Dapper Labs created. They urge the Court to ignore FLOW tokens
because they and digital basketball cards (Moments) are, as
alleged, separate products. They caution the Court to not be
confused by the Plaintiffs' talking a lot about technology and
cases involving cryptocurrencies, namely, the ICO Cases. And they
insist that the securities analyses for these products, FLOW and
Moments, are, likewise, separate.
Ultimately, Judge Marrero's conclusion that what Dapper Labs
offered was an investment contract under Howey is narrow. He says
not all NFTs offered or sold by any company will constitute a
security, and each scheme must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Rather, it is the particular scheme by which Dapper Labs offers
Moments that creates the sufficient legal relationship between
investor and promoter to establish an investment contract, and thus
a security, under Howey.
And that legal relationship is derived primarily from the plausible
allegations that Dapper Labs maintains private control over the
Flow Blockchain, which significantly, if not entirely, dictates
Moments' use and value; that Dapper Labs touted Moments as a means
for purchasers to realize substantial profits through the low sale
prices for packs and marketing of the substantial profits others
had made through sale on Dapper Labs's proprietary Marketplace; and
that without Dapper Labs's essential efforts in maintaining the
Flow Blockchain and Marketplace, Moments would be valueless.
In totality, Judge Marrero holds that the economic realities of the
case support the Court's conclusion that the AC's allegations pass
muster at this stage. In sum, the Plaintiffs adequately allege that
Dapper Labs's offer of the NFT, Moments, was an offer of an
"investment contract" and therefore a "security," required to be
registered with the SEC.
The Defendants' only argument for dismissal of the Section 15
control person claims against Gharegozlou is that the Plaintiffs
have not alleged a primary violation of the Securities Act. As he
concludes that yr Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged primary
liability under Sections 5 and 12 of the Securities Act, Judge
Marrero also finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
violations of Section 15 and denies the Defendants' motion to
dismiss on that ground.
For the reasons he discussed, Judge Marrero denies the motion of
Dapper Labs and Gharegozlou to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. He directs the Defendants to answer within 21 days of
the date of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y29b3esh from Leagle.com.
DENSHAZ INC: Florentino Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Florentino, an individual, on behalf of herself, all
aggrieved employees, and the State of CA as a Private Attorneys
General v. DENSHAZ, INC. a California Corporation and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV04804 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 6, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and the California Labor Code for the
Defendants failure to pay proper wages.
The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours
worked; failing to pay wages due upon termination; failing to
provide rest breaks; (4) failing to provide uninterrupted meal
breaks and second meal breaks; failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements and violating record keeping requirements. The
Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under the Cal.
Labor Code and the PAGA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an employee for the Defendant.
The Defendant owns and operates several Denny's restaurants in
Southern California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
DESIGNER BRANDS: Lupolover Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Lupolover, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Designer Brands Inc., Case No.
50-02022-CA-011865-XXXX-MB was removed from the 15th Judical
Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on March 3, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:23-cv-80349-XXXX to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Designer Brands Inc. -- http://www.designerbrands.com/-- is an
American company that sells designer and name brand shoes and
fashion accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Fornaro, Esq.
MATTHEW FORNARO, P.A.
11555 Heron Bay Blvd., Ste. 200
Coral Springs, FL 33076
Phone: (954) 324-3651
Fax: (954) 248-2099
Email: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Oswaldo Mena, Esq.
Martha Rosa Mora, Esq.
AVILA RODRIGUEZ HERNANDEZ MENA & GARRO LLP
2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1225
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 779-3575
Fax: (305) 779-3561
Email: dmena@avilalaw.com
mmora@arhmf.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Parrott Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OLIVIA PARROTT, et al., Plaintiffs v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-2930-RCL (D.D.C.), Judge
Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia grants in part and denies in part the District's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs Olivia Parrott, Bardino Joyner, Dreyvon Iracks, and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals allege that the
District violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and
committed a common-law tort known as "unlawful detention of
property" by seizing their vehicles and smartphones for use as
evidence in criminal cases in which they were not themselves
defendants and retaining that property long after it had been
"processed" as evidence.
Pursuant to Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") General Order
601.1, "Recording, Handling and Disposition of Property Coming into
the Custody of the Department," MPD designates property that comes
into its possession under one or more of several classifications,
including, "evidence," or "held for civil forfeiture." However,
General Order 601.1 does not explain in detail how property
designated as evidence is to be released to its owner once a
properly signed PD Form 81-C has been executed. Moreover, the
amended complaint alleges that MPD in practice has no reliable
system for making sure that some member promptly obtains a PD 81-C
from a prosecutor for vehicles or smartphones or other property
when it is no longer needed for evidentiary reasons.
The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint in the Court
on Nov. 5, 2021, asserting claims of Fourth Amendment unreasonable
seizures, Fifth Amendment due process violations, Fifth Amendment
uncompensated takings, and the supposed common-law tort of
"wrongful detention of property." The same day, the Plaintiffs
filed a notice designating Smith v. District of Columbia, No.
15-cv-737-RCL, as a related case. The District moved to dismiss the
initial complaint on Feb. 7, 2022, but the Plaintiffs then filed an
amended complaint by right, amending several allegations but
asserting the same claims, on March 15, 2022.
The District moved to dismiss the amended complaint on April 22,
2022. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 18, 2022 and
the District filed its reply on Aug. 16, 2022. Additionally, on
Aug. 31, 2022, the District filed a notice of supplemental
authority informing the Court of a decision granting the District's
motion to dismiss in a similar case, Cameron v. District of
Columbia, No. 21-cv-2908-APM, 2022 WL 3715779 (D.D.C. Aug. 29,
2022). The Plaintiffs filed a response to the District's notice on
Oct. 10, 2022 and the District filed a reply on Nov. 9, 2022.
Count I of the amended complaint alleges that the District has a
policy or custom of retaining property seized as evidence in a
criminal case until the conclusion of that case, or potentially
indefinitely if no case is charged, and that that policy or custom
violated the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights against
unreasonable seizure of their property because any seizure that
endures longer than it takes to "process" and photograph evidence
is unreasonable, even if such a seizure would have been reasonable
at its inception.
The District argues that Count I does not state a claim that the
District violated the Plaintiffs' rights because the Fourth
Amendment has nothing to say about the length of a seizure of
property that was lawful at its inception. In the alternative, it
contends that the seizure of the Plaintiffs' property was
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the property was
retained in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation or
prosecution.
Judge Lamberth rejects the District's primary argument regarding
the alleged Fourth Amendment violation but agrees with its
alternative argument. And because he concludes that the amended
complaint does not state a plausible claim for relief under the
Fourth Amendment, Judge Lamberth need not consider whether it
adequately pleads a policy or custom for Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), purposes.
Because the allegations in the operative complaint, taken as true,
establish that all of the Plaintiffs' seized and retained property
was pertinent to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution,
Judge Lamberth holds that the Plaintiffs do not state a claim that
those ongoing seizures, which were reasonable at their inception,
became unreasonable because of their duration. Accordingly, he
dismisses Count I.
The Plaintiffs' procedural due process claims are split across
Counts II to IV and VI but they essentially involve three theories.
First, the Plaintiffs argue that the District violated their due
process rights by failing to provide a procedure by which they
could retrieve their property before a criminal case was charged.
Second, they argue that the District violated their due process
rights by failing to give them prompt notice that MPD had seized
their property or of any procedures available to retrieve it.
Third, in Count VI only, they argue that the District violated Mr.
Joyner's and Mr. Iracks's due process rights by failing to make a
post-deprivation procedure available to them while holding their
property both as evidence and for potential civil forfeiture.
As to the first point, the District argues that D.C. Superior Court
Rule 41(g) provides an adequate procedure for return of plaintiffs'
property. As to the second, it argues that, even taking the
allegations in the complaint as true, plaintiffs were promptly
notified of the seizures, and that it was unnecessary to give
individualized notice of available remedies because Rule 41(g) is
publicly available and provides sufficient notice. As to the third
point, the District argues that the unavailability of a separate
remedy where property is held both as evidence and for forfeiture
is irrelevant to plaintiffs' due process rights and does not form
the basis for a standalone claim.4
Judge Lamberth agrees with the Plaintiffs in part and the District
in part. He says the District has not established that Superior
Court Rule 41(g) is a constitutionally adequate remedy for
individuals in the Plaintiffs' situation because it has not
demonstrated as a matter of law that that rule applies where no
criminal case has been charged. Judge Lamberth also agrees with the
District that the amended complaint does not adequately allege a
failure to notify the Plaintiffs that their property had been
seized, but he cannot accept the District's argument that publicly
available sources put the Plaintiffs on notice that Superior Court
Rule 41(g) was available to them. He further agrees with the
District that Count VI does not state a standalone claim specific
to individuals whose property is being held both as evidence and
for civil forfeiture.
Therefore, Judge Lamberth dismisses the procedural due process
claims in Counts II to IV only insofar as they allege a lack of
notice that the seizures occurred but dismisses in full the
separate due process claim in Count VI.
Count V of the amended complaint alleges that the District's
seizure and retention of the Plaintiffs' property constitutes an
unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment. The District moves to
dismiss that count on the ground that the seizure and retention of
property for use as evidence in a criminal case categorically is
not a taking for public use within the meaning of the Fifth
Amendment.
Judge Lamberth need not accept the District's argument in every
particular to dismiss Count V, because no court has held that the
seizure of retention of such property can constitute a taking
before the associated criminal case has concluded, and the
Plaintiffs have given the Court no reason to become the first.
However, he finds that the Plaintiffs do not state a cognizable
Fifth Amendment takings claim. Because the amended complaint does
not adequately allege a taking for public use within the meaning of
the Fifth Amendment, Judge Lamberth dismisses Count V.
Count VII of the amended complaint alleges that by seizing the
Plaintiffs' property and retaining it after processing it for
evidence, the District committed the tort of "unlawful detention of
property." The District argues that no such tort exists, and in the
alternative, that the Plaintiffs do not state a plausible claim for
conversion.
The District is correct that the Plaintiffs do not plead a
cognizable tort claim. The Plaintiffs, in their opposition, defend
Count VII as "an action for conversion." If the Plaintiffs wished
to plead a claim for conversion, they should have done so in their
amended complaint. Because the amended complaint pleads a tort that
apparently does not exist, and because the Plaintiffs address the
elements of conversion and frame their tort claim as such for the
first time in their opposition brief, Count VII is dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lamberth grants in part and denies
in part the District's motion to dismiss. Specifically, he
dismisses Counts I and V to VII in full, as well as Counts II to IV
to the extent as they allege that the District unlawfully failed to
notify the Plaintiffs that their property had been seized at all. A
separate Order will be issued this date.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sruurwtc from Leagle.com.
DONOTPAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Subscription Service
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Bay Area reports that DoNotPay Inc., a San Francisco-based
company started to fight parking tickets by using artificial
intelligence and automated processes, has been sued for the
unauthorized practice of law.
In a lawsuit filed on March 7 in San Francisco Superior Court,
Jonathan Faridian of Yolo County seeks damages for alleged
violations of California's unfair competition law, alleging that he
would not have subscribed if he knew that the "World's First Robot
Lawyer," as the company calls itself, was not actually a lawyer.
Faridian requests the court to certify a class of all people who
have purchased a subscription to DoNotPay's service.
DoNotPay was founded in 2016 by a Stanford University undergraduate
named Joshua Browder who has managed in his short career to garner
an extraordinary amount of media attention.
The book "System Error: Where Big Tech Went Wrong and How We Can
Reboot," written by three Stanford professors, begins with a
description of Browder.
"Joshua Browder," it says, "entered Stanford as a young, brilliant
undergraduate in 2015. His Wikipedia page describes him as a
"British-American entrepreneur and he's already been named to
Forbes magazine's '30 Under 30' list."
The book reports that in the first three months of his freshman
year, Browder programmed a chatbot to help people challenge parking
tickets, and by 2016 he was CEO of DoNotPay and bragging that the
company successfully challenged 160,000 tickets, saving clients $4
million.
The professors quote Browder saying, "I would like to hopefully
replace lawyers with technology" and they say his long-term vision
is "that you'll never need a trained, human lawyer again."
While the professors might have celebrated the accomplishments of a
Stanford student, they said his story is "exactly the type of story
. . . that gives us pause."
The professors say that Browder is "not a bad person. He just lives
in a world where it is normal not to think twice about how new
technology companies could create harmful effects."
While they note that many people do not like the legal profession,
they ask rhetorically, "do we really want to live in a society
where people can sue at the push of a button?"
The class action does not fault DoNotPay's service on philosophical
grounds; the plaintiff's lawyer Jay Edelson says that the problem
with DoNotPay is that it "DoesNotWork."
The complaint alleges that Faridian subscribed to DoNotPay and used
the service to perform a variety of legal services on his behalf.
For example, he used DoNotPay to "draft demand letters, an
independent contractor agreement, a small claims court filing, two
LLC operating agreements, and an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission job discrimination complaint."
While Faridian stops short of saying that he thought the World's
First Robot Lawyer was literally a lawyer, he says he "believed he
was purchasing legal documents and services that would be fit for
use from a lawyer that was competent to provide them."
He alleges that the services he received were "substandard and
poorly done."
In one case, he alleges that a demand letter prepared by the
service was not delivered to its recipient. When Faridian opened
it, he allegedly found it to be an otherwise-blank piece of paper
with his name printed on it.
According to the complaint, "DoNotPay is merely a website with a
repository of -- unfortunately, substandard -- legal documents that
at best fills in a legal adlib based on information input by
customers."
Faridian says that he "would not have paid to use DoNotPay's
services had he known that DoNotPay was not actually a lawyer."
The Education section of Faridian's LinkedIn profile on March 8
appeared to show that he holds a "Doctor of Law (J.D.)," from
American Heritage University School of Law and Public Policy.
However, in responding to an inquiry, Edelson explained, "Jon is
not a lawyer and has never held himself out as such. As his
LinkedIn profile explained, he took classes in pursuit of a JD at
American Heritage. We agree that the profile could have been
clearer and Jon has updated it."
The lawsuit alleges that DoNotPay violates California's unfair
competition law, which among other things, bars a business from any
"unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice" and from
"deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising."
Faridian argues that DoNotPay is engaging in an unlawful practice
because a California law provides that "No person shall practice
law in California unless the person is an active licensee of the
State Bar."
According to Faridian, "Providing legal services to the public,
without being a lawyer or even supervised by a lawyer is reckless
and dangerous. And it has real world consequences for the customers
it hurts."
Browder's Twitter feed features a quote calling him the "Robin Hood
of the Internet," and he portrays the company as leveling the
playing field for consumers who are being taken advantage of by big
corporations.
The company's website also reports that "DoNotPay has been awarded
the 2020 Louis M. Brown Award by the American Bar Association for
its 'commitment to increasing legal services to those of modest
means.'"
Browder recently garnered media attention by claiming on Twitter
that "For the first time ever, a robot will represent someone in a
US courtroom."
The plan was that one of the parties to an actual court case would
go to court wearing a pair of glasses with a microphone connected
to a chatbot that would tell him or her what to say to the judge.
Browder later backed off from the plan, explaining on Twitter,
"after receiving threats from State Bar prosecutors, it seems
likely they will put me in jail for 6 months if I follow through
with bringing a robot lawyer into a physical courtroom. DoNotPay is
postponing our court case."
A text message request to Browder requesting comment on the new
lawsuit was quickly returned with a text attributed to a "DoNotPay
spokeswoman."
The text stated, "DoNotPay denies the false allegations. It is
unsurprising that a lawyer who has made hundreds of millions is
suing an A.I service that costs $18 for 'unauthorized practice of
law.' We look forward to defending ourselves in court."
Edelson reacted to that quote by stating that DoNotWork is
"basically a scam led by a modern day carnival barker. Everything
Josh says publicly, whether about our firm, or others who have
called him out is simply noise. It might get him some twitter
traffic but it will not be helpful in a court of law."
Bay City News asked Browder if DoNotPay would be represented by
actual lawyers in the class action lawsuit or if it would rely on
its chatbot.
No response was received by press time. [GN]
E.I. DU PONT: Hamrick Sues Over ERISA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Mary J. Hamrick, David B. Beckley, and Valentin Rodriguez, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, the ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF THE
DUPONT PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00238-UNA (D. Del., March 3, 2023), is brought against
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont"), the Administrative
Committee of the DuPont Pension and Retirement Plan (the
"Committee"), and the Committee's members concerning their failure
to calculate benefits for participants that select the Income
Leveling Option ("ILO") under Title I of the DuPont Pension and
Retirement Plan (the "Plan") using the actuarial assumptions
required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").
The Plan is a defined benefit pension plan comprised of several
parts, which DuPont calls "Titles." Under Title I, participants
earn benefits in the form of a single life annuity ("SLA")
beginning at age 65 but can start receiving their benefits as early
as age 50.
Participants that commence their benefits before age 62 can select
the Plan's Income-Leveling Option ("ILO"). The ILO modifies the
flat monthly pension benefit that the participant would receive for
life under the Plan, increasing the participant's benefits before
age 62 to account for the fact that participants are not yet
eligible to begin their Social Security benefits. Participants'
benefits under the ILO then decrease when they reach age 62,
attempting to provide them with equal monthly income before and
after age 62 when their Plan benefits are combined with their
Social Security benefits.
In simple terms, participants borrow against their flat stream of
lifetime benefits under the Plan when they select the ILO,
receiving higher monthly amounts before Social Security benefits
commence in exchange for lower monthly benefits after Social
Security benefits commence.
ERISA allows plans to offer ILOs. However, the statute requires
plans to use specified actuarial assumptions when calculating ILO
benefits. For accelerated forms of benefit like ILOs (or lump
sums), ERISA requires that plans use "the applicable mortality
table and the applicable interest rate," actuarial assumptions
published by the Treasury Department, which are based on current
mortality rates of pension plan participants and market interest
rates.
The Defendants did not use the Treasury Assumptions to calculate
ILO benefits. The Defendants instead used an antiquated formula
comprised of an interest rate that was higher than the "applicable
interest rate," and a mortality table that DuPont developed in 1985
that is materially different from the "applicable mortality table."
The net result from Defendants' failure to use the Treasury
Assumptions is that Plaintiffs' and each Class member's ILO
benefits are lower than ERISA.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court declaring
that the conversion factors used to determine ILO benefits violate
ERISA; requiring Defendants to pay all amounts improperly withheld
in the past; requiring Defendants to recalculate Plaintiffs' and
the Class's ILO benefits in a manner consistent with ERISA's
requirements; requiring Defendants to increase the amounts of
Plaintiffs' and the Class's future benefit payments; and such other
relief as the Court determines to be just and equitable, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for DuPont.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a corporation formed under
Delaware law with its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 984-3816
Email: ckeener@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Phone: (860) 493-6292
Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
dneedham@ikrlaw.com
cbarrett@ikrlaw.com
ELECTROCORE INC: Awaits Schedule for Pending Dismissal Bid Argument
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ElectroCore Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 8, 2023, that the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey hasn't set a schedule
for the pending dismissal motion argument for the Turnofsky class
suit.
On September 26, 2019, and October 31, 2019, purported stockholders
of our company served putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned
Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400,
and Priewe vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653,
respectively. In addition to our company, the defendants include
present and past directors and officers, and Evercore Group L.L.C.,
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the
underwriters for the company's IPO.
The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of stockholders who
(i) purchased our common stock in the IPO or whose purchases are
traceable to the IPO, or (ii) who purchased common stock between
the IPO and September 25, 2019. The complaints each alleged that
the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with respect to
(i) the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO,
and (ii) certain post-IPO disclosures filed with the SEC. The
complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.
The Priewe case was voluntarily dismissed on February 19, 2020.
In the Turnofsky case, on November 25, 2019, several plaintiffs and
their counsel moved to be selected as lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.
On April 24, 2020, the Court granted the motion of Carole Tibbs and
the firm Bragar, Eagel & Squire, P.C.
On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
Turnofsky. In addition to the prior claims, the amended complaint
adds an additional director defendant and two investors as
defendants, adds a claim against the Company and the underwriters
for violating Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.
On September 15, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a
claim.
On November 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss.
The Company and the other defendants filed reply papers in support
of the motion on December 7, 2020.
Argument of the motion to dismiss occurred on June 18, 2021.
On August 13, 2021, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with
leave to re-plead.
On October 4, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.
On November 17, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the new
complaint.
Briefing on the motion was complete on January 7, 2022.
On July 5, 2022, the case was reassigned to Judge Zahid N.
Quraishi, who has ordered that he will consider the pending motion
to dismiss in due course.
Argument of the motion has not yet been scheduled.
ElectroCore Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient-administered non-invasive vagus
nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various
conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
ELECTROCORE INC: Oral Argument for Kuehl Suit Set for April 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
ElectroCore Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 8, 2023, that the oral argument for
the Kuehl class suit is set for April 19, 2023.
On July 8, 2019, and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of our
company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court
of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs.
electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 and Shirley
Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19,
respectively. In addition to our company, the defendants include
present and past directors and officers, Evercore Group L.L.C.,
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the
underwriters for our IPO; and two of our stockholders.
On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order
consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which proceeded under
Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19. Each plaintiff was appointed a co-lead
plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
which sought certification of a class of stockholders who purchased
our common stock in our IPO or whose purchases are traceable to
that offering.
The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with
respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for
the IPO. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
On October 31, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to stay the
action in favor of the pending federal action (discussed below).
On February 21, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.
On March 2, 2020, the court entered an amended order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.
On March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
N.J. Superior Court - Appellate Division.
The appeal was argued on September 27, 2021.
On October 8, 2021, the Appellate Division issued an order
reversing the decision of the Superior Court. The case has been
remanded to the Superior Court for oral argument on the motion to
dismiss.
On November 11, 2021, the defendants filed a supplemental motion to
dismiss based on the forum selection clause in our certificate of
incorporation's.
On December 10, 2021, the Superior Court heard argument of the
original motion to dismiss and the supplemental motion to dismiss
based on the federal forum selection clause.
On December 14, 2021, the Superior Court granted the supplemental
motion to dismiss based on the federal forum selection clause with
prejudice and granted the original motion to dismiss without
prejudice.
On January 27, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Appellate Division.
On April 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their appeal brief. The
brief of defendant-appellees was filed on May 16, 2022.
The appeal is fully briefed.
Oral argument is scheduled for April 19, 2023.
ElectroCore Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient-administered non-invasive vagus
nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various
conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
EMERALD TREE & SHRUB: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ever Ramirez, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated
v. EMERALD TREE & SHRUB CARE INC.; EMERALD TREE AND SHRUB CARE
SERVICES, INC.; EMERALD TREE CARE INC.; and STEVEN FARRELLY,
individually, Case No. 7:23-cv-01836 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2023), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that he is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid wages and overtime compensation; liquidated
damages and statutory penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff worked or the Defendants continuously in such
capacity beginning in June 2019, until March 2021. During the
Plaintiff's employment by the Defendants, he often worked over 40
hours per week. The Plaintiff was not paid wages for all hours
worked, or given overtime compensation. Work performed above 40
hours per week was not paid at time and one-half his regular hourly
wage, as required by state and federal law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a driver, tree
maintenance helper/groundsman, performing various aspects of the
tree care business on June 2019.
Emerald Tree & Shrub Care Inc., is a domestic business corporation,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street — 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
ENTERTAINMENT 2851: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Evans Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN EVANS; YVELLY MCNALLY; DAYUANA MONTEAGUDO; CLAUDIA GAMBRELL;
KOMAE WILLIAMS; KAYLA MCQUEEN; ABIGAIL CARELA; SAMANTHA BLOCKER;
ALEXIS CHRISTIAN; NORMA FERREIRA; CHAYENNE DESOUZA; ASHLYN METCALF;
AUTUMN GULLICK; and TANIYA DOZIER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENTERTAINMENT 2851
LLC, dba EMPEROR'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB fka "DIAMONDS"; AJ 3860, LLC
dba EMPEROR'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; MICHAEL TOMKOVICH; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00498 (M.D.
Fla., March 6, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest
periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers.
ENTERTAINMENT 2851 LLC operates an adult-oriented entertainment
facility located at Tampa, FL, under the name "Emperor's
Gentlemen's Club" fka "Diamonds."
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S Orlando Avenue
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Email: cleach@theleachfirm
- and -
Alina S. Vulic, Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 West Olympic Boulevard.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 273-1230
Facsimile: (310) 858-1063
Email: kristensen@cz.law
avulic@cz.law
- and -
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford St.
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Email: leigh@ellzeylaw.com
FASCINATING FACETS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fascinating Facets,
Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Fascinating Facets, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01658 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fascinating Facets, Inc. doing business as Fascinating Diamonds --
https://www.fascinatingdiamonds.com/ -- offers custom engagement
rings, wedding rings & bands and other diamond jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FIDELITY NATIONAL: PBPFPF Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Palm Bay Police And Firefighters' Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIDELITY NATIONAL
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., GARY NORCROSS, JAMES WOODALL, and
STEPHANIE FERRIS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00252 (M.D. Fla., March 6,
2023), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Fidelity National common stock between February 9, 2021
and February 10, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against
Fidelity National and certain of its officers (collectively
"Defendants") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Company is most known for its development of Financial
Technology, or FinTech, and offers its solutions in three primary
segments: Merchant Solutions; Banking Solutions; and Capital Market
Solutions. The Merchant Solutions segment accounted for
approximately 30% of the Company's total revenue in 2021, and
serves merchants by enabling them to accept, authorize, and settle
electronic payment transactions. Throughout its history, Fidelity
National has acquired several other financial technology firms.
Relevant to the allegations here, on July 31, 2019, Fidelity
National announced it had closed the acquisition of payments
company Worldpay, Inc. for $43 billion, consisting of $35 billion
in cash and the assumption of $8 billion in debt. As a result of
the acquisition, the Worldpay business became part of the Merchant
Solutions segment.
During the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements about Fidelity National's latest acquisition
of Worldpay by assuring investors it had "successfully completed
the Worldpay integration" and touting the benefits of the Worldpay
integration for the Company. As a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
during the Class Period were materially false and /or misleading.
Investors slowly learned that the Company's important Merchant
Solutions segment was underperforming and that the Company's
integration of Worldpay was not "successfully completed."
First, on August 4, 2022, Fidelity National announced that its
Chief Financial Officer, James Woodall, planned to "step down" as
Corporate Executive Vice President and CFO effective November 4,
2022. On this news, the price of Fidelity National stock fell more
than 7%, from a closing price of $104.13 per share on August 3,
2022 to a closing price of $96.57 per share on August 4, 2022.
Other management changes soon followed. On October 18, 2022, the
Company announced that Stephanie Ferris, who was appointed
President of the Company in February and had served as the CFO of
Worldpay, would become the new Chief Executive Officer effective
January 1, 2023. The Company also announced that that the outgoing
CEO, Gary Norcross, who had been with the Company since 1988 and in
the CEO role since 2015, would become Executive Chairman of the
Board of Directors upon the transition.
Then, on November 3, 2022, Fidelity National reported that its
Merchant Solutions segment--namely Worldpay--suffered a "margin
contraction of 430 basis points." In response to this news, the
price of Fidelity National stock declined more than 29%, from a
closing price of $79.47 per share on November 2, 2022, to a closing
price of $57.18 per share on November 3, 2022. Analysts reported
the new Fidelity National management "recognized the need to
rebuild investor confidence."
Finally, before markets opened on February 13, 2023, Fidelity
National announced it would spin off Worldpay, and in the process,
the Company recognized a stunning $17.6 billion write-down on the
asset. In response to this revelation, the price of Fidelity
National stock fell more than 12%, from a closing price of $75.43
per share on the prior trading day of February 10, 2023, to a
closing price of $66.00 per share on February 13, 2023. As a result
of Defendants' wrongful acts and misleading statements, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Palm Bay Police and Firefighters' Pension Fund is a
public pension fund providing benefits for eligible police and
firefighters in Palm Bay, Florida.
Fidelity National provides technology products and services for
financial institutions and businesses worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Joseph E. White, Esq.
Lester Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Phone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 Northwest 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Phone: (954) 916-1202
Email: bob@robertdklausner.com
stu@robertdklausner.com
FITNESSEXPERTS LLC: Fletcher Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Fletcher, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. FITNESSEXPERTS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, RONALD SELLERS, and NINA BELLOMO, individuals, jointly and
severally, Case No. 9:23-cv-80363-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2023),
is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(hereinafter "FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week during most weeks
of his employment, without being paid the federally mandated wage
for overtime. Specifically, the Plaintiff was paid at varying rates
at the whim of SELLERS and BELLOMO and at no point did said rates
include a time and a half premium for any hours worked over 40
hours per week. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty per week
at the applicable time and one-half rate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a gym equipment installer for the
Defendants, installing equipment throughout the state of Florida
from October 2021 to January 2023.
FITNESS, is a Florida Limited Liability Company that sells and
installs gym equipment throughout the state of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
James A. Peterson, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Phone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
Email: Rob@floridawagelaw.com
James@floridawagelaw.com
FOCUS FINANCIAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Proposed Clayton 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:
Focus Financial Partners Inc. (NASDAQ: FOCS), relating to its
proposed sale to affiliates of Clayton Dubilier & Rice LLC. Under
the terms of the agreement, FOCS shareholders are expected to
receive $53.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/focus-financial-partners-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
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.
Sumo Logic, Inc. (NASDAQ: SUMO), relating to its proposed sale to
affiliates of Francisco Partners. Under the terms of the agreement,
SUMO shareholders are expected to receive $12.05 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/sumo-logic-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
INDUS Realty Trust, Inc. (NASDAQ: INDT), relating to its proposed
sale to affiliates of Centerbridge Partners, L.P. and GIC Real
Estate, Inc.. Under the terms of the agreement, INDT shareholders
are expected to receive $67.00 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/indus-realty-trust-inc. 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 any of the above listed companies 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]
FORD MOTOR: Ont. Court of Appeal Affirms Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fasken disclosed that in 2018, a class action claiming $1.5 billion
in damages was certified against Ford Motor Company and related
entities. [1] The claim centred on fuel consumption ratings set out
in EnerGuide labels on new Ford 2013 and 2014 models. The plaintiff
alleged that Ford had breached the federal Competition Act and
certain provincial consumer protection statutes, which prohibit
false or misleading advertising and false, misleading or deceptive
representations, respectively.
The plaintiff, Mr. Rebuck, alleged he reviewed the EnerGuide label
when he purchased his new 2014 Ford Edge SUV. The label gave a
rating of 36 mpg for highway driving, and he claimed that his
on-board fuel consumption display showed 23 mpg. A review of Ford's
test methods used to generate the fuel consumption data on the
EnerGuide labels demonstrated that Ford had used a "2-Cycle Test"
in respect of 2013 and 2014 vehicles, even though it used a
"5-Cycle Test" for comparable vehicles in the United States. It was
material that the "5-Cycle Test" was not adopted by the federal
Department of Natural Resources in Canada until 2015.
The class action was dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on the Ford defendants' motion for summary judgment in
mid-2022. [2] On Appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the
decision to dismiss. [3] The Court of Appeal agreed with the
motions judge that the Ford defendants had complied with the
federal government's directives and guidelines, including by using
the 2-Cycle Test in 2013 and 2014.
As stated above, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the class
action on a motion for summary judgment in 2022. Justice Belobaba
dismissed the Competition Act claim primarily on the basis that the
Ford defendants had complied with federal government guidelines
that prescribed a 2-Cycle Test method. The plaintiff had also
failed to establish any general impression conveyed by the labels
that was false or misleading.
With respect to the consumer protection claims, the plaintiff's
argument was that Ford should have disclosed, alongside the labels,
additional information about the differences between 2-Cycle and
5-Cycle testing. Justice Belobaba focused his analysis on whether
there had been false, misleading or deceptive "non-disclosure". His
Honour found, based on the Ford defendants' expert evidence, that
the EnerGuide labels referred to Fuel Consumption guides published
by the federal government, which provided detailed information
about the testing methods, and that consumers for whom fuel
consumption was important would have consulted the guides.
The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged these findings on appeal.
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that:
-- although by 2014, the 5-Cycle Test was widely acknowledged as
better approximating real-world driving conditions, this did not
mean that Ford was obligated to shift to the 5-Cycle Test in Canada
when the government only required the use of the 2-Cycle Test;
-- the "general impression" conveyed by the EnerGuide label to
the average car buyer was not that the listed estimates predicted
actual fuel consumption; and
-- the EnerGuide label prominently directed customers to the
federal guides, such that they were provided with "accurate and
valuable information about fuel consumption."
This is an important case for participants in the auto industry and
all potential class action defendants, as it demonstrates the
courts' unwillingness to find parties liable for private law claims
where they have complied with government requirements. This is
noteworthy as we see climate claims against private entities on the
rise.
[1] Rebuck v. Ford Motor Co., [2018] O.J. No. 6709 (QL).
[2] Rebuck v. Ford Motor Company, 2022 ONSC 2396.
[3] Rebuck v. Ford Motor Company, 2023 ONCA 121. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Truck Owners Urge Panel to Revive Fuel Economy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
despite the automaker never being charged criminally by the federal
government, a class of Ford truck owners argued before an appeals
court on March 8 that the company manipulated fuel economy tests
and can be held liable in a civil lawsuit.
Consumers who bought F-150s from 2018-2020 and 2019 and 2020
Rangers brought a federal multidistrict lawsuit in 2019 claiming
they were persuaded, in part, by inflated fuel economy statistics.
The buyers alleged numerous Ford employees notified the company
about irregular fuel economy testing practices that generated
inflated results, but the automaker refused to disclose concerns to
the public.
Ford was investigated by the federal government and although no
criminal charges were ever filed, independent testing confirmed the
fuel economy statistics disclosed in advertisements were some 10 to
15% higher than the actual values.
The multidistrict litigation included truck owners from 28 states
and was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, where a federal
judge ultimately granted Ford's motion to dismiss in February
2022.
U.S. District Judge Sean Cox, an appointee of George W. Bush, ruled
all of the trucker owners' claims were preempted by federal law and
agreed with Ford's claim that a court cannot impose
"'non-identical' testing and disclosure requirements" other than
those included in the Environmental Policy and Conservation Act.
In its brief to the Sixth Circuit, the class pushed back on Cox's
characterization of the lawsuit and argued the owners "do not seek
to hold Ford accountable to a higher or different standard
regarding fuel economy estimates than required by the EPA."
The state-law fraud claims related to Ford's advertisements and
claims of "best-in-class" fuel economy are not preempted, according
to the brief.
"By cheating, Ford made its F-150 and Ranger trucks more appealing
and competitive in the marketplace . . . which, in turn, drove up
sales and profits," it said.
Ford focused on the lack of criminal proceedings in its brief to
the Cincinnati-based appeals court and emphasized the issue was
closed when the Environmental Protection Agency concluded its
investigation and found no wrongdoing.
"The factual premise underlying the complaint has been disproven,"
it said. "Since the complaint was filed, the EPA . . . fully
investigated these allegations, closed its investigation, and
notified Ford that it did 'not intend to take further action.'
"That notwithstanding, plaintiffs ask this court to reverse so
that, ultimately, a jury can substitute its opinions as to Ford's
fuel economy testing for that of the EPA's . . . regardless of what
the EPA found and federal law required Ford to disclose."
Attorney Steve Berman of Hagens Berman in Seattle argued on
March 8 on behalf of the truck owners and told the court his
clients' claims were not preempted because the fuel economy
requirements imposed by the states were identical to those mandated
by the EPA.
U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Griffin, a George W. Bush appointee,
asked Berman about primary jurisdiction and why the EPA shouldn't
decide this dispute on its own.
"The EPA has closed the matter," the attorney said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, a Donald Trump appointee, pivoted
back to Berman's initial argument about the requirements he seeks
to impose.
"You would require them to disclose a different [fuel economy]
number," Murphy said. "I don't see how it could be described as
identical."
"Ford did not follow the [correct] procedures," Berman answered.
"If Ford had complied with the law, they would have published a
different number."
Griffin asked about the process by which the fuel economy numbers
are determined, and specifically whether the EPA has ultimate
authority over the calculations.
"Ford does the test," Berman said, "Ford sends the numbers to the
EPA. The EPA is relying totally on Ford's numbers."
The truck owners' attorney finished his allotted time by
emphasizing their experts – the same individuals who were used in
the Volkswagen emissions case – had conducted independent tests
that confirmed Ford's numbers were incorrect.
Attorney Stephanie Douglas of Troy, Michigan-based Bush Seyferth
PLLC argued on behalf of Ford and immediately disputed her opposing
counsel's view of the matter.
"Test data isn't test data until the EPA says it's test data,"
Douglas said, which invalidates tests completed by the owners'
experts.
"The idea that anybody can run the test without the EPA's oversight
and come up with the same numbers is incorrect," she continued,
telling the panel admission of other test results "entirely upsets
the regime."
Douglas reiterated the EPA closed both its criminal and civil
investigations without taking further action against her client and
pointed out Ford went to the EPA when its employees first disclosed
concerns about its testing protocols.
"Ford told the EPA when the questions came up. Ford cooperated with
the EPA and the DOJ," she said.
In his rebuttal, Berman called the current setup for fuel economy
standards an "honor system" that allows automakers to determine
their own numbers prior to submission to the EPA.
"We're honoring Ford's numbers and adopting them," he said. "These
are not the EPA's numbers."
Murphy disputed the attorney's claim and told him the argument
sounded more like a critique of the way the EPA operates.
"Legally, I don't think it's significant," the judge said.
U.S. Circuit Judge John Bush, another Trump appointee, rounded out
the panel. No timetable has been set for the court's decision. [GN]
FORTRA LLC: Anderson Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortra, LLC. The case
is styled as Valerie Anderson, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. Fortra, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-00533
(D. Minn., March 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract.
Fortra -- https://www.fortra.com/ -- offer leading solutions like
data security, infrastructure protection, managed services, and
threat research and intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
FTX TRADING: Judge Refuses to Consolidate Investors' Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezra Reguerra, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a federal
judge has refused to consolidate several proposed class-action
lawsuits against the FTX exchange by investors. According to the
judge, the exchange and its defendants have not yet been heard.
On March 8, United States District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley
laid down the order that denied plaintiffs a request to consolidate
five proposed class-action lawsuits against the bankrupt crypto
exchange. Despite no defendants opposing the motion, the judge
pointed out that not all defendants had the opportunity to respond
yet. The order stated:
"While Plaintiffs state that no Defendant has filed an opposition,
they offer no declaration attesting that they have met and
conferred with Defendants and that they do not oppose
consolidation."
Plaintiffs, including Julie Papadakis, Michael Elliott Jessup,
Stephen Pierce, Elliott Lam and Russell Hawkins, accused the former
FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and other executives of misappropriating
assets, filing cases in California. While all the plaintiffs are
going after Bankman-Fried, the cases also include various other
defendants, including outside auditors and those promoting the
exchange.
Because of this, the judge also pointed out there's no need to
consolidate before hearing the defendants' side. "The Court
discerns no need to do so now without giving Defendants the
opportunity to be heard. And it would be premature to appoint
interim class counsel before consolidation," the order wrote.
Meanwhile, Bankman-Fried's lawyers have recently signaled that
there might be a need to push back the criminal trial scheduled in
October. In a letter dated March 8, lawyers representing
Bankman-Fried said that while they're not formally requesting a
date change, it may be necessary as they're waiting for a
substantial chunk of evidence to be sent to them. In addition, the
lawyers noted that more charges were filed against Bankman-Fried in
February. [GN]
GAVRIEL'S JEWELRY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gavriel's Jewelry,
Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Gavriel's Jewelry, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01705 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gavriel Fine Jewelry offers premium quality jewelry & custom
engagement rings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Sued Over Disclosure of Private Information
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Marquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., META PLATFORMS, INC., GOOGLE
LLC, and CRITEO CORP., Case No. 5:23-cv-00940 (N.D. Cal., March 2,
2023), is brought on behalf of all California residents who have
accessed and used the GoodRx website, www.goodrx.com (the
"GoodRxWebsite"), and the GoodRx mobile applications (the "GoodRx
Apps") (collectively, the "GoodRx Platform"), a platform that
Defendant GoodRx owns and operates, against the Defendants'
interception and disclosure of users' private information without
consent constitutes which is an extreme invasion of the Plaintiff's
and Class members' privacy.
The Defendant GoodRx aids employs, agrees, and conspires with
Defendants Meta, Google, and Criteo to intercept communications
sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including
communications containing protected medical information. GoodRx's
privacy policies promise to safeguard users' data. Between October
2017 and March 2019, GoodRx's policy stated that "we never provide
advertisers or any other third parties any information that reveals
a personal health condition or personal health information." GoodRx
further promised that it would only use personal information in
"limited cases," such as to fulfill a user's request for a specific
prescription coupon.
Health entities are regulated under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPPA"), which restricts the
use of personal health information and electronic personal health
information. Relevant to this case, HIPPA requires the user's
authorized consent in writing before an entity can share personal
information with third parties. GoodRx's HeyDoctor website
prominently displayed a HIPPA seal, seemingly advertising that it
complied with HIPPA.
Despite GoodRx's own policies against sharing users' sensitive
information, and public statements from its management that GoodRx
ensures safeguarding of the same information, GoodRx repeatedly
violated its promises to users by sharing sensitive user
information with third-party advertising companies and platforms
like Meta (formerly Facebook), Google, and Criteo (collectively,
"Tracking Defendants"), without providing notice to its users or
seeking their consent. The information shared with these third
parties included GoodRx's users' prescription medications, personal
health conditions, contact information, and unique advertising and
persistent identifiers. GoodRx permitted these third parties—some
of the most prominent social media companies in the United
States—to use and profit from the information for their own
business purposes.
By incorporating Tracking Defendants' tracking technology,
including tracking pixels and software development kits ("SDKs"),
on the GoodRx Platform, Tracking Defendants knowingly and
intentionally intercepted Plaintiff and Class members' personal
health information, including information related to individual
medical conditions, symptoms, and prescriptions communicated
through the GoodRx Platform. This information was neither
aggregated nor deidentified, and the Tracking Defendants were not
prohibited from using this information for their own benefit. The
Tracking Defendants did in fact use this information for their own
purposes, including to allow GoodRx to advertise on their
respective platforms using GoodRx users' health data, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff Jose Marquez provided his personal information,
including health data relating to his medical history and
prescriptions to GoodRx.
GoodRx is an American healthcare company based in Santa Monica,
California, that operates a telemedicine platform and a free-to-use
website and mobile app that track prescription drug prices in the
United States and provide cheap drug coupons for discounts on
medications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Jenna L. Gavenman, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
jgavenman@bursor.com
GOODYEAR TIRE: Posadas Sues Over Unlawful Communication Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph T. Posadas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Case No.
3:23-cv-00402-BEN-DDL (S.D. Cal., March 2, 2023), is brought
against Goodyear for wiretapping the electronic communications of
visitors to its website, www.goodyear.com, in violation the
California Invasion of Privacy Act and constitutes the torts of
invasion of the privacy rights and intrusion upon seclusion of
website visitors.
Goodyear procures third-party vendors, such as Microsoft
Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code
("Session Replay Code") on Goodyear'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 Goodyear's website, including their mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an
information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time ("Website
Communications"). These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session
Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at
Goodyear's request.
After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications,
Goodyear and the Session Replay Providers use those Website
Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.goodyear.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video
replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to
Goodyear for analysis. Goodyear'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 Goodyear website for the entire duration of their
website interaction.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons in California whose Website Communications
were intercepted through Goodyear's procurement and use of Session
Replay Code embedded on the webpages of www.goodyear.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.goodyear.com on his computer while in
California.
Goodyear operates the website www.goodyear.com and is an online and
brick-and-mortar retailer for rubber tires and other automobile
accessories.[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
Fax: (212) 202-4322
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
GREEN JUICE BAR: Esteban Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ortiz Esteban, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GREEN JUICE BAR & GRILL INC (D/B/A GREEN JUICE BAR &
GRILL) and MOHAMMED ALI, Case 1:23-cv-01649 (E.D.N.Y., March 3,
2023), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations
of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, the 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.
Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a
timely basis. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a deli worker at the Defendants'
deli.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in Jamaica,
New York under the name "Green Juice Bar & Grill."[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
GROOMING LOUNGE.COM: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grooming Lounge.com,
LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Grooming Lounge.com, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01857 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Grooming Lounge -- https://www.groominglounge.com/ -- is the #1
destination for upscale men's grooming products, advice and
Barbershop + Men's Spa services.[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
GUMPS SAN FRANCISCO: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gumps San Francisco
LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Gumps San Francisco
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01929 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gumps San Francisco LLC -- https://gumps.com/ -- is a local retail
legend with high-end gifts, housewares, jewelry, clothing & a famed
holiday window.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
GWB LLC: Amendola Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
BETH AMENDOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GWB, LLC D/B/A GRAND WESTERN STEAKS,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-002625 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., March 1, 2023) is a class action complaint for legal
and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant in sending automated telephonic sales calls, in the form
of text messages, to Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the
cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across Florida,
in clear violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
Prior to making or knowingly allowing another person to make on its
behalf the subject telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff and the
members of the Class, Defendant allegedly failed to obtain the
"prior express written consent" from Plaintiff or any member of the
Class. Each of the telephonic sales calls made by Defendant to
solicit a sale of consumer goods or services to Plaintiff's 3625
Number and to the Class members' telephone numbers occurred using
an "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone
numbers," in violation of the FTSA, says the suit.
GWB, LLC, d/b/a Grand Western Steaks, is a steak delivery
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
HAT WORLD INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hat World, Inc. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Hat World, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01861
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hat World, Inc. doing business as LIDS Sports Group --
http://www.lids.com/-- is an American retailer specializing in
athletic headwear.[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
HECLA MINING: Amended Gluck Complaint Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT GLUCK, et al., Plaintiffs v. HECLA MINING CO.
et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-4883 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.
Lead Plaintiffs Robert Gluck, Emma Gluck and Sarah Gluck bring the
securities class action against Defendants Hecla, Phillips S.
Baker, Jr., Lindsay A. Hall, and Lawrence P. Radford, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of
themselves and a class of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded common stock of Hecla between March 19, 2018 and May 8,
2019.
The dispute arises from Hecla's July 2018 acquisition of Klondex
Mines, Ltd. On March 19, 2018, Hecla, a mining company, announced
that it was acquiring Klondex -- a company that operated three
high-grade gold mines in Nevada. In sum, the Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding Hecla's
business, operations and prospects related to Klondex and the
Nevada Mines.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not disclose the
extent or severity of the problems with the Nevada Mines beginning
on March 19, 2018, when it publicly announced its acquisition of
Klondex. These misstatements and omissions were made in Hecla's
routine filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
and associated press releases and public statements. The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants' disclosures during this time continued
to mask the true extent and severity of problems plaguing the
Nevada Mines. They allege that the Defendants finally fully
disclosed the extent and severity with the issues plaguing the
Nevada Mines in May 2019.
The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on May 24, 2019. They filed a
consolidated Amended Complaint on Sept. 9, 2020. On May 25, 2020,
the Court appointed the Gluck Family as the Lead Plaintiffs and
consolidated the action with Bhattacharya v. Hecla Mining Co. et
al., 1:19-cv-05719 (ALC).
Subsequently, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, arguing that (1) the alleged misstatements are
actionable because they are protected by the statutory safe harbor
for forward-looking statements and were not false or misleading;
(2) the Plaintiffs have not plead with particularity any false or
misleading statements of fact and (3) the Plaintiffs do not plead
with particularity facts giving rise to a "strong inference" of
scienter. The Plaintiffs filed their memorandum of law in
opposition to the motion on Jan. 22, 2021. The Defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion on Feb. 22, 2021.
The Plaintiffs also filed a letter advising the Court of
supplemental authority on Sept. 21, 2021, to which the Defendants
responded. They filed an additional notice of supplemental
authority on Dec. 22, 2022, to which the Defendants responded on
Dec. 27, 2022.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, Judge
Carter finds that the Plaintiffs have not articulated sufficient
factual allegations to carry their assertions beyond the
speculative level: many of the Defendants' alleged misstatements
are protected by the PSLRA safe harbor; the Plaintiffs have not
asserted sufficient facts to indicate a strong inference of
scienter and have failed to plead sufficient facts demonstrating
the Defendants' statements were false when made.
In the event that the Court determines that any part of the Amended
Complaint is legally deficient, the Plaintiffs have requested leave
to amend. Given the Defendants' disclosures regarding the negative
conditions at the Nevada Mines and the paucity of allegations
supporting the Plaintiffs' allegations of scienter and falsity,
Judge Carter is doubtful that an amendment would certainly cure
these defects. However, he grants leave to amend. Any amended
complaint should be filed by March 15.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Carter grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to
terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 94. The Plaintiffs are
granted leave to file a second amended complaint by March 15,
2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yve2p2vn from Leagle.com.
HERMES HOSPITALITY: Terry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Shaniqua Terry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HERMES HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC d/b/a TAP HOUSE GRILL
PLAINFIELD, Case No. 1:23-cv-01276 (N.D. Ill., March 1, 2023), is
brought for failure to comply with provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act ("IWPCA"), and Illinois Minimum Wage Act ("IMWA"), and to
recover applicable tips and minimum wages for certain hours worked
for the Plaintiff.
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. During the past 3 years Defendant has
enforced policies of failing to pay Servers proper wages, 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. Plaintiff seeks
to recover the tip credit taken by Defendant for herself and all
members of the putative classes, 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 as a Server at Tap House Grill in Plainfield,
Illinois.
The Defendant operates Tap House Grill in Plainfield,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
Catherine@usaemploymentlawyers.com
HERSHEY COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Secret Reporting of PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00398-BEN-DEB
(S.D. Cal., March 2, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") as a result
of the Defendant who secretly report all the details of the
visitor's personally identifiable information ("PII"), the titles
watched, and more.
Whenever someone watches a video on
https://www.thehersheycompany.com/en_us/home.html (the "Website"),
the Defendants secretly report all the details to Facebook: the
visitor's personally identifiable information ("PII"), the titles
watched, and more. When the Plaintiff played videos on
thehersheycompany.com, the Defendants disclosed event data, which
recorded and disclosed the video's title, description, and URL, to
Facebook. Alongside this event data, the Defendants also disclosed
identifiers for the Plaintiff, including the c_user and fr cookies.
In other words, the Defendants did exactly what the VPPA prohibits:
they disclosed Plaintiff's video viewing habits to a third party.
Given the nature of Defendants' business, visitors would be shocked
and appalled to know that the Defendants secretly disclose to
Facebook all of the key data regarding a visitor's viewing habits.
The Defendants' conduct is illegal, offensive, and contrary to
visitor expectations: indeed, a recent study conducted by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, a respected thought leader
regarding digital privacy, found that: nearly 9 in 10 adults are
"very concerned" about data privacy, and 75% of adults are unaware
of the extent to which companies gather, store, and exploit their
personal data. By disclosing Plaintiff's event data and identifiers
to Facebook, Defendant knowingly disclosed Plaintiff's PII to a
third party, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual consumer advocate who viewed the
"Say Hola" a video on the Website.
The Hershey Company, commonly known as Hershey's, is an American
multinational company and one of the largest chocolate
manufacturers in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
HIGHMARK INC: Steetle Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highmark, Inc. The
case is styled as Barbara Steetle, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Highmark, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00362-NR (W.D. Pa., March 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Federal
Trade Commission Act.
Highmark -- http://highmark.com/-- is an American non-profit
healthcare company and Integrated Delivery Network based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaheen Wallace, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF SHAHEEN WALLACE
5850 Ellsworth Avenue, Suite 230
Pittsburgh, PA 15232
Phone: (412) 345-1164
Fax: (888) 659-2741
Email: szw@wallaceinjury.com
HOMELAND SECURITY: Class Certification Denial in Kluge Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN C. KLUGE, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, Respondent, No. 2021-1787 (Fed. Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Federal Circuit, affirms the decisions of the Merit
Systems Protection Board.
The decisions denied class certification, dismissed the Office of
Personnel Management as a Respondent, and found that Mr. Kluge's
former employer, the Department of Homeland Security, owed him
differential pay in the amount of $274.37 plus interest under 5
U.S.C. Section 5538.
Mr. Kluge, a commissioned officer in the United States Army Reserve
and a civilian employee of the Department of Homeland Security
("DHS"), was ordered to report to active duty in January 2011 in
support of a contingency operation, Operation Enduring Freedom. He
was ordered to active duty under 10 U.S.C. Section 12301(d), which
provides for voluntary active duty of reservists. J.A. 223. Because
of his service, he was absent from his DHS job from January 15 to
July 30, 2011.
For the first few weeks of this period, Mr. Kluge was on paid
military leave from his job at DHS. From February 27 until July 30,
2011, Mr. Kluge was on unpaid leave. DHS did not pay him for any of
those days except for the July 4 holiday.
In 2019, Mr. Kluge filed an appeal before the Board, seeking to
recover differential pay under 5 U.S.C. Section 5538 for himself
and similarly situated service members employed by the federal
government. He named the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") as
the respondent in that appeal.
The administrative judge assigned to Mr. Kluge's appeal denied
class certification and substituted DHS for OPM as the respondent.
DHS and Mr. Kluge then stipulated that he was eligible for
differential pay. The administrative judge determined that DHS owed
Mr. Kluge $274.37 plus interest. The administrative judge's
decision became the Board's final decision under 5 C.F.R. Section
1201.113.
Mr. Kluge appeals from that final decision. He raises three issues
on appeal. First, he asserts that the administrative judge abused
her discretion in denying class certification. Second, he argues
that the administrative judge erred in dismissing OPM as a party.
Finally, he contends that the administrative judge miscalculated
the amount of differential pay he is owed.
First, the Federal Circuit concludes that the administrative judge
did not abuse her discretion in denying class certification. The
administrative judge did not err by not considering all criteria in
Rule 23 or by considering criteria not specifically listed in Rule
23. Mr. Kluge has not shown that the administrative judge erred in
finding that putative class members lack commonality or that
identifying class members and adjudicating their claims as a class
would not be a fairer or more efficient way to proceed. Although it
disagrees with the administrative judge's finding that
certification of the class would require revealing all class
member's private pay information to all other class members, the
Federal Circuit finds that that error does not compel it to reverse
the denial of class certification.
Next, the Federal Circuit concludes that Mr. Kluge has not shown
any legal error or other abuse of discretion in the administrative
judge's substitution of DHS for OPM and dismissal of OPM. It finds
that Section 4324 does not permit Mr. Kluge to recover differential
pay owed by DHS from OPM. Also, there are simply no plausible
allegations that Mr. Kluge, or anyone else, was ever denied
differential pay due to the OPM guidance.
Lastly, the Federal Circuit concludes that Mr. Kluge's arguments
regarding the calculation of differential pay unpersuasive because
his proposed method is contrary to 5 U.S.C. Section 5538. It does
not hold that the administrative judge's calculation method is the
best or only way to calculate differential pay under Section 5538.
It only holds that Mr. Kluge has failed to show that the
administrative judge violated Section 5538 or otherwise abused her
discretion in calculating the differential pay owed in the case.
The Federal Circuit has considered Mr. Kluge's other arguments and
finds them unavailing. For the foregoing reasons, it affirms the
Board's final decision.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4fhhbux2 from Leagle.com.
JAMES RENNE, Arlington, VA, argued for the Petitioner.
GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for the
Respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE,
MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.
IL BUCO CORP: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against il Buco Corp. The
case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. il Buco Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-01657
(E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Il Buco Corp. -- https://ilbuco.com/ -- offers Mediterranean
cuisine, using the best locally sourced and imported artisanal
ingredients served in a warm and welcoming environment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ILLINOIS: Swanson Can't Proceed in Forma Pauperis in Suit v. Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN SWANSON, Plaintiff v. GREGG SCOTT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-4163 (C.D. Ill.), Judge James S. Shadid of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois denies
with leave to renew the Plaintiff's Petition to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel.
The pro se Plaintiff is detained at the Rushville Treatment and
Detention Center and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP).
The Plaintiff has identified five Rushville Defendants, including
former Director Gregg Scott, current Director Greg Donathan,
Assistant Director Eric Kunkel, Grievance Officer Sandra Simpson,
and Grievance Officer Paul Vincent. Unfortunately, he does not
clearly articulate his claims, Judge Shadid holds.
The Plaintiff begins by stating he seeks to bring his claims on
behalf of other Rushville residents in a class action lawsuit. But
Judge Shadid finds that the Plaintiff is the only plaintiff named
in the caption and the only individual who signed the complaint.
Further, a plaintiff bringing a pro se action cannot represent a
class of plaintiffs.
The Plaintiff then cites to case law concerning a denial of access
to the courts, but he has not provided any information concerning
his specific claim, nor has he stated how any named Defendant was
involved in his claim.
To satisfy the notice pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2), Judge Shadid says the Plaintiff must provide a
short and plain statement of his claim sufficient to give the
Defendants fair notice of his allegations. But he finds that the
Plaintiff has failed to meet this standard and therefore he has
failed to articulate a claim.
Judge Shadid allows the Plaintiff one opportunity to file an
amended complaint. He says the Plaintiff must abide by the
following directions:
1) The Plaintiff must limit his claims to allegations directly
concerning him and not other Rushville residents.
2) The Plaintiff must not include caselaw in his amended
complaint.
3) The Plaintiff's complaint must include numbered paragraphs.
For each claim, he must briefly state what happened, when it
happened, who was involved, and how it impacted him. He must
clearly provide a time frame, and he must clearly state how each
Defendant was involved.
4) If the Plaintiff is alleging a claim based on the denial of
access to the courts, he must clearly allege Defendants hindered
his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim.
If the Plaintiff fails to follow these directions in his amended
complaint, of fails to file his amended complaint by the deadline
provided, his case will be dismissed.
Finally, if the Plaintiff wishes to request a temporary restraining
order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction, he must first clearly
state his intended claims in an amended complaint. He may then file
a separate motion for injunctive relief demonstrating why he is
entitled to either a TRO or a preliminary injunction.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Shadid denies the Plaintiff's
Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with leave to renew.
Consequently, he denies the Plaintiff's motion to waive the reduced
filing fee is consequentl. If the Plaintiff renews his motion to
waive the fee, he must include a copy of his Trust Fund Ledger
demonstrating he is unable to pay a reduced fee.
Judge Shadid dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to
state a constitutional violation. If he Plaintiff believes he can
cure the deficiencies noted in his complaint, the Plaintiff may
file an amended complaint by March 16, 2023. The pleading must be
titled Amended Complaint and must include all claims and the
Defendants without reference to the initial complaint. Failure to
file an amended complaint in compliance with the Order or on or
before the deadline will result in the dismissal of the case.
Judge Shadid denies the Plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel with leave to renew after he clarifies his claims. He is
reminded he must demonstrate he has made a reasonable attempt to
obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to reset the internal merit
review deadline within 21 days of the instant Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Case Management Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/4weh6626 from Leagle.com.
INTEGY INC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integy Inc. The case
is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Integy Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01930
(S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Integy -- https://www.integy.com/ -- is a manufacturing company
that specializes in manufacturing radio-controlled cars, parts, and
tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
JAMAICAN HOUSE: Mckenzie Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zedbert Mckenzie, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other
persons similarly situated v. JAMAICAN HOUSE CUISINES INC. and
LINFORD MCKENZIE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01730 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023),
is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations ("NYLL"),
as well as for failure to furnish accurate wage statements for each
pay period under NYLL, for failure to provide a wage notice upon
his hire under NYLL.
Throughout his employment, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to
work, and the Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours during
each workweek. Throughout his employment, the Defendants failed to
pay the Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in
excess of forty hours in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The
Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with a proper notice and
acknowledgement of his wage rate upon hire, or at anytime
thereafter, as required by NYLL. The Defendants willfully
disregarded and purposefully evaded record keeping requirements of
the FLSA and NYLL by failing to pay Plaintiff in accordance with
their respective hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff commenced his employment with the Defendants in 2010
as a chef, a position that he held until June 30, 2022.
The Defendants are a restaurant and its owner and day-to-day
overseer, that serve Jamaican cuisine at their principal place of
business, located in Jamaica, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (631) 257-5588
KAENON LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaenon, LLC. The case
is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kaenon, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01903
(S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kaenon -- https://kaenon.com/ -- is a luxury performance eyewear
brand based in Newport Beach, California.[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
KALMBACH MEDIA: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kalmbach Media Co.
The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Kalmbach Media Co., Case No.
1:23-cv-01765 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kalmbach Media -- https://www.kalmbach.com/ -- is an American
publisher of books and magazines, many of them railroad-related,
located in Waukesha, Wisconsin.[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
KAUFMAN & CANOLES: Auguston Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaufman & Canoles.
The case is styled as Monet Auguston, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Kaufman & Canoles, Case No.
0:23-cv-00521-ECT-TNL (D. Minn., March 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Kaufman & Canoles -- https://www.kaufcan.com/ -- is the largest
business law firm headquartered in Southeastern Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carter B Lyons, Esq.
Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Phone: (612) 770-4221
Fax: (651) 704-0907
Email: carter@consumerjusticecenter.com
- and -
Christopher Wilcox, Esq.
Carl E. Christensen, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICE PLLC
305 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 375
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 823-3831
Fax: (612) 823-4777
Email: chris@clawoffice.com
carl@clawoffice.com
KAZ AMERICANA: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Polanco Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIO POLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAZ AMERICANA FAMILY DINER, INC. and ANDREAS
KYRIAKOU, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-01850-CS (S.D.N.Y., March 3,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide wage notices, failure to pay spread-of-hours
compensation, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher and general
restaurant worker from 2017 until May 9, 2022.
Kaz Americana Family Diner, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator
based in Middletown, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, PA
5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
KETTERING ADVENTIST: Murphy Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Murphy, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
KETTERING ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE D/B/A KETTERING HEALTH, and DAYTON
OSTEOPATHIC HOSPITAL, Case No. 3:23-cv-00069-TMR-PBS (S.D. Ohio,
March 6, 2023), is brought against Defendants for their failure to
pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act ("OPPA").
The Plaintiff worked, or they were scheduled to work, more than 40
hours in one or more workweek(s). During their employment with
Defendants, the Plaintiff was not fully and properly paid for all
overtime wages because Defendants required a 30-minute meal break
deduction from their compensable hours worked even when the
Plaintiff was unable to take a full, uninterrupted bona fide meal
break of 30 minutes. Although the Defendants required the deduction
of a daily 30-minute meal break, the Plaintiff was often unable to
take a full, uninterrupted bona fide meal break of 30 minutes or
otherwise took a shortened meal break because their break was
interrupted with substantive job duties.
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, or they
would have worked more than 40 hours per week if their hours were
not reduced by the meal break deductions. However, they were not
paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all of
hours worked over 40 as a result of the Defendants' deduction of 30
minutes for meal breaks that were not taken or that were otherwise
shortened/interrupted by work. The Defendants' failure to
compensate the Plaintiff resulted in unpaid overtime, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February 2019
until December 2022.
Kettering Health is a network of approximately 14 medical centers
and 120 outpatient facilities in the Dayton, Ohio and Cincinnati,
Ohio areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, 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
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
KETTERING HEALTH: Nurse Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Carbajal, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
a registered nurse in Ohio has filed a complaint in federal court
against a Kettering Health hospital, alleging the hospital failed
to pay overtime wages to nurses who worked through unpaid meal
breaks.
The class-action lawsuit was filed March 6 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio. According to the
complaint, Amy Murphy, RN, worked for Kettering Health's Dayton
Osteopathic Hospital in Miamisburg as an hourly, non-exempt
employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act. She was employed from February 2019 to December 2022.
The lawsuit claims the hospital required nurses to clock out for
30-minute unpaid meal breaks for each shift, even though they
worked through the breaks or cut them short on many occasions due
to interruptions or "substantive work duties." The complaint
alleges that as a result, Ms. Murphy and other nurses regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week and were not properly
compensated for overtime because of the hospital's failure to
account for occasions when meal breaks were unable to be taken.
Ms. Murphy is seeking unpaid overtime and other damages.
A spokesperson for Kettering Health said the organization does
comment on pending litigation in an email to Becker's. [GN]
KIINI LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kiini, LLC. The case
is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Kiini, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01781 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kiini -- https://kiini.com/ -- is home of the original crochet
elastic trimmed swimsuits that has been making a sensation in
resort wear for almost a decade.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
KNOWLTON TECHNOLOGIES: Mehaffy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Mehaffy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KNOWLTON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; EASTMAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC;
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, Case No. 5:23-cv-00292-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Defendants have generally paid shift differential pay to
Plaintiff for the second- and third-shift hours he has worked
during the relevant period; however, Defendants have excluded his
shift differential pay from his total compensation for purposes of
determining his statutory overtime rate of pay during weeks when he
worked in excess of 40 hours. The Defendants' failure and refusal
to include Plaintiff's shift differential pay as part of his total
compensation for purposes of determining his statutory overtime
rate resulted in the unlawful nonpayment of overtime compensation
in dozens of work weeks each year from 2017 to the present, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a nonexempt hourly worker employed by the
Defendants at their facility in Watertown, New York, where he has
been employed since 2006.
The Defendants maintain a manufacturing facility in Watertown, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. LaClair, Esq.
F. Wesley Turner, Esq.
BLITMAN & KING LLP
Franklin Center, Suite 300
443 North Franklin Street
Syracuse, NY 13204
Phone: (315) 422-7111
Email: bjlaclair@bklawyers.com
fwturner@bklawyers.com
KOHL'S INC: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Kohl's Inc., Case No. HUD-L-000425-23
was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March
3, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01237-JMV-JSA to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kohl's, Inc. -- https://corporate.kohls.com/ -- operates as a
specialty online retailer. The Company offers clothing, shoes,
home, kitchen, bedding, and toys.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Fax: (973) 525-2552
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexa D'angelo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
45 Rockefeller Center
New York, NY 10111
Phone: (212) 589-4614
Email: adangelo@bakerlaw.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Suits Over CPAP Machine Recall Pile Up
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Farah Law Firm disclosed that the Philips CPAP lawsuit has been
making headlines in recent months, with growing public concern over
the potential health risks associated with Philips' Respironics
CPAP machines.
If you have been using a Philips sleep apnea machine for at least 6
months, and if you are suffering from respiratory conditions such
as:
-- pulmonary fibrosis,
-- lung damage, or
-- cancer,
Then you could be eligible to receive substantial financial
compensation.
February 2023 Update
The Philips CPAP Recall Class Action Litigation has experienced an
influx of cases in the last month with 62 new cases added to the
MDL. This number is especially remarkable, considering that this
litigation only averaged 9 filings a month for all of last year!
Since the completion of its Claim Registration Program months ago,
we have been expecting such growth and anticipate it will continue
through 2023 – projecting more than 1,000 pending cases before
year's end. To date, 420 lawsuits are currently up for review
within this case's jurisdiction.
About Respironics CPAP Machines
First, let's look at CPAP machines and how they work.
CPAP stands for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, a device used
to treat sleep apnea. Sleep apnea is a common sleep disorder that
affects millions of people worldwide. It occurs when the airway is
blocked during sleep, causing the person to stop breathing for a
few seconds or more.
This disorder can happen multiple times throughout the night,
leading to poor sleep quality and other health issues. In
particular, it is associated with high blood pressure, heart
disease, and stroke.
One of the most effective treatments for sleep apnea is continuous
positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, which involves using a
machine that delivers a steady stream of air to keep the air
pathway open during sleep. This method helps prevent breathing
interruptions and allows for a better night's rest. Philips is one
of the leading manufacturers of CPAP machines, including the
Respironics line.
Philips' Mass CPAP Recall: What Happened?
Recent events have highlighted the medical concerns associated with
Respironics CPAP machines.
In June 2021, Philips voluntarily recalled millions of Respironics
CPAP machines, BiPAP machines, and ventilators due to concerns
about potential health risks. The recall affects millions of
devices worldwide, including those sold in the United States, such
as DreamStation, SystemOne, and REMStar.
The Respironics recall was initiated after Philips discovered
several issues with the machines, including a potential defect that
could cause the foam used in the device to break down and release
harmful particles into the air.
Specifically, the company discovered that the sound abatement foam
used in the devices could degrade and potentially release small
particles into the air pathway, which the user could inhale. The
particles could irritate the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract and,
in some cases, lead to serious health problems such as
inflammation, asthma, or even cancer.
PHILIPS CPAP RECALL LIST
DreamStation ASV
DreamStation ST
AVAPS
SystemOne ASV4
C Series ASV
OmniLab Advanced Plus
SystemOne (Q Series)
DreamStation CPAP
DreamStation Auto CPAP
DreamStation BiPAP
DreamStation Go
Dorma 400
Dorma 500 CPAP
REMStar SE Auto CPAP
Trilogy 100 and 200
Garbin Plus
Aeris
LifeVent
A-Series BiPAP
Health Risks Associated with Respironics CPAP Machines
The potential health risks associated with Respironics CPAP
machines primarily involve releasing harmful chemicals into the air
pathway. In some cases, users of the machines have reported
experiencing respiratory issues, headaches, and other health
problems.
Concerns about the potential for mold growth in the machines also
prompted the recall. According to Philips, the foam used in the
machines' sound abatement component can break down over time,
leading to mold growth. The mold can be inhaled by the user,
leading to respiratory and other health problems.
The potential health risks associated with Respironics CPAP
machines primarily involve releasing harmful chemicals into the air
pathway. In some cases, users of the machines have reported
experiencing respiratory issues, headaches, and other health
problems.
Class-Action Lawsuit Against Philips
In response to the Respironics recall, a class-action lawsuit has
been launched against Philips, alleging that the company knowingly
sold defective products that put users' health at risk. The Philips
CPAP class action lawsuit asserts that the company failed to alert
users of potential risks associated with its devices in breach of
various state consumer protection statutes.
The lawsuit is aimed at forcing Philips to take responsibility for
their actions and compensate those affected by the recall. The
plaintiffs are demanding restitution, including payment towards
replacement CPAP machines and medical costs linked with any health
issues caused by the devices.
Act promptly on any potential health issues arising from using
Philips CPAP machines. You must seek immediate medical attention if
you are experiencing respiratory issues, lung damage, or other
health problems.
Do You Qualify to File a Philips CPAP Lawsuit?
The expert medical device lawyers at Farahi Law Firm are now
looking for CPAP machine cases from people who used a recalled
Philips sleep machine and experienced detrimental health
repercussions. Don't hesitate to contact us if you believe that
your experience fits this description.
If you wish to file a Philips CPAP lawsuit, these are the essential
qualifications:
You have used one of the recalled Philips sleep apnea machines --
such as CPAP, BiPAP, or other devices listed in the table above --
for a period of 6 months or longer every night
After using the CPAP machine for six months or longer, you
experienced ill effects on your health?
If you've been diagnosed with a respiratory illness or experienced
any trauma to the lungs, pulmonary fibrosis could be a possible
outcome.
Damage to your liver or kidney
A diagnosis of lung cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, or any
other form of malignant neoplasms
How Much Time Do I Have to File a Legal Claim Regarding the CPAP
Recall?
Time is of the essence when filing a Philips CPAP device lawsuit.
Depending on where you live, your state's statute of limitations
could be as short as one year or as long as six years.
Recognizing this urgency and in order to ensure that all affected
users are properly represented, the applicable SOL deadline begins
June 14, 2021 – Philips' announcement date for their CPAP
recall.
In California, the SOL is two years, meaning that you have until
June 14, 2023 to file a Philips CPAP device lawsuit.
2023 Law Firm of the Year At Your Service
The Philips CPAP lawsuit highlights the importance of holding
companies accountable for their actions and protecting consumers'
health.
If you or a loved one have been affected by the Philips Respironics
CPAP machine recall and are seeking legal representation, reach out
to the award-winning product liability attorneys at Farahi Law
Firm. Our team of experts is dedicated to upholding the rights of
those impacted by this issue and will fight tirelessly to help you
get the justice you deserve.
We understand the seriousness of this situation and are here to
help guide you through the legal process every step of the way.
Contact us today to schedule a free case evaluation and learn more
about how we can help you. You can also us at (844) 824-2955 for
24/7 support. [GN]
KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Computer-Generated Wage Theft
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephenie Overman, writing for Virginia Mercury, reports that
Kroger employees in Virginia and West Virginia are pursuing a
class-action suit against the grocery giant, alleging that bugs in
the company's new payroll software system cheat them out of their
rightful wages.
The class-action lawsuit filed in Richmond in January is one of
four filed by employees in five states against the country's
largest supermarket chain. Allegations include nonpayment for
overtime or vacation time and unauthorized deductions from
paychecks.
The new payroll system, called My Time, has not been accurate since
it was introduced last spring, said Horace Campfield, a Richmond
Kroger employee who has worked for the company for more than 17
years. "They try to tell you to set it up through your cell phone.
They put a bulletin out to tell us to make sure our time is right.
We did our job. We clocked in. How are you making it our
responsibility? It's unfair to make it seem it like it's on us."
Wage theft occurs when employers do not pay workers according to
the law. The Kroger case falls in that category but is a little
different.
"Most cases we encounter are not due to some computer error. This
is a bit unique," said Matthew Handley, an attorney for United Food
and Commercial Workers International Unit Local 400 workers in
Virginia and West Virginia. He is a partner at Handley Farah &
Anderson, based in Washington, D.C.
Payroll errors are common enough, Handley said, but in the Kroger
suit, "it's the scope and duration that is remarkable. The rollout
of the new payroll system has really been an unmitigated disaster.
People have not been paid for weeks at a time or had things double
deducted. . . . It's not only that wages aren't going to workers,
but that Kroger is effectively keeping them."
Jonathan Williams, a spokesperson for UFCW Local 400, said when the
union first responded to reports of payroll issues, "we understood
this to be a small local problem, a glitch or two here and there"
but quickly realized the problem was nationwide.
"People were missing paychecks or they were having taxes deducted
from locations they didn't live in. It was not even consistent
within one store," according to Williams.
The company has not been helpful, he said. "We would not be filing
if they were addressing the problem."
Kroger, which also owns Fred Meyer, Ralphs and other grocery
chains, did not respond to a request for a statement.
In wage theft lawsuits, "the important part is the penalties,"
Handley said. "Virginia was slow coming to the table compared to
D.C. and Maryland, but it has in recent years given a bit more
teeth to the wage theft laws over and above what federal law
requires."
Under federal law, the penalty for wage theft is "two times what
you were underpaid," said Handley. In Maryland the penalty is three
times the pay due to the employee, and in the District of Columbia
the penalty is four times. A few states have also begun treating
wage theft as a criminal, not civil, violation, making jail time a
possibility.
Prior to 2020, Virginia law didn't allow employees who thought they
had been subject to wage theft to sue their employers over the
dispute. Instead, they had to file an administrative claim with the
Virginia Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI).
That year, legislation known as the Wage Theft Law created a
private right of action for employees to sue their employers. Under
that law, employees who can show a violation was egregious can get
up to three times their pay.
Another recent change in Virginia law that is pertinent to the
Kroger lawsuit came in 2019, when an amendment to the Virginia
Payment of Wage Law began requiring employers to provide employees
with written statements of their pay, either by paystub or through
online accounting.
The new paystubs issued by Kroger "are complicated documents,"
according to Handley. But, he added, at least employees in Virginia
now must receive them.
Williams said that when it comes to the Kroger paystubs, "even
attorneys had trouble making heads or tails of them. There are
terms that appear on the paystub that are never mentioned in the
bargaining agreement. It's not always clear what the rate is being
based on, based on federal law."
Campfield agreed the paystubs are confusing.
"It's a mess to me," he said. "I went on vacation for Thanksgiving,
and after I got back I had not received my check. It took three
weeks."
He said he's heard a number of similar complaints from coworkers.
"We recently had a guy who went about five weeks before he got his
pay right," Campfield said. It's a particular problem because "some
people are living check to check."
Wage theft in general is a commonplace problem. The Economic Policy
Institute estimates that it costs U.S. workers as much as $50
billion per year.
Handley said it is particularly rampant in the construction
industry, where workers are often employed by contractors and
"members of immigrant communit[ies] are vulnerable and easily
exploited."
According to Williams, "there are ways big and small" to cheat
people out of their pay, such as not paying for holidays, vacation
days or break times or not paying overtime when it is required.
"Every minute you work for an employer you should be paid for."
"Our members have a union and a grievance system and can recover
back pay," he said. "For non-union workers, it may go unnoticed and
there's no clear channel to address it."
In Virginia, the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy and
Virginia Employment Lawyers Association operate a hotline at
804-821-1768 that workers can call if they believe their employer
is engaging in wage theft.
The calls to the hotline come from "construction workers, people
incorrectly classified as independent contractors, home health
workers or caretakers of the elderly or children," said Sheila
Herlihy Hennessee, an organizer for the interfaith center. "Wage
theft hits low-wage workers more than higher-wage workers. It's
people who are just trying to make ends meet."
Workers can submit a complaint to the hotline and someone at the
center can draft a letter to try to address the issue, she said. If
that doesn't work, the groups can put the employee in touch with an
attorney.
"Once in a while we find people of good will who didn't know they
were committing wage theft and we have a lovely conversation," she
said. "More often they won't respond to the letter." [GN]
KULLA CORP: Funes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Marlen Orlando Funes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v, KULLA CORP. d/b/a VILLA D'AQUA, and TOMA
ULJAJ, as an individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-01660 (E.D.N.Y., March 3,
2023), is brought for violations of Federal and New York State
labor laws and to recover damages for Defendants' egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants who willfully failed and
refused to pay required overtime wages.
Although Plaintiff regularly worked 60 hours or more hours each
week from in or around June 2021 until in or around April 2022, the
Defendants did not pay 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. 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. The Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll
records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA. Additionally, the
Defendants willfully failed to provide Plaintiffs with a written
notice, in English, of his applicable regular rate of pay, regular
pay day, and all such information as required by NYLL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a dishwasher,
kitchen worker and cleaner while performing related miscellaneous
duties for the Defendants, from June 2021 until April 2022.
KULLA CORP. d/b/a KULLA CORP., 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
L'OREAL USA: Bridges Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Latonia Bridges, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC., L'OREAL
USA PRODUCTS, INC.; SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC; SOFT SHEEN/CARSON,
INC.; and SOFT SHEEN/CARSON (W.I.), INC., "L'OREAL" or "SOFT
SHEEN"; and STRENGTH OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC, a/k/a STRENGTH OF
NATURE, LLC; and BEAUTY BELL ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a HOUSE OF
CHEATHAM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-00257, was transferred
from the United States District Court for the District Of South
Carolina to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Feb. 28, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01086 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of
herself, and all similarly situated consumers who purchased
chemical hair straightening and/or hair relaxer products that were
harmful and defective because they contained known endocrine
disrupting chemicals that increased the risk of various diseases
and illnesses, including cancer, and which were formulated,
designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold
by the Defendants.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 N Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com
- and -
Aaron Seth Jophlin, Esq.
THE JOPHLIN LAW FIRM
219 N Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
Telephone: (843) 970-1820
E-mail: aaron@jophlinlaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
PO Box 2590
Georgetown, SC 29442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
E-mail: gsulpizio@edbelllaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Elizabeth McLaren, Esq.
Kerry K. Jardine, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
40 Calhoun Street, Suite 350
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 278-5900
E-mail: amclaren@grsm.com
kjardine@grsm.com
- and -
Peter George Siachos, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
18 Columbia Turnpike
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (646) 808-6358
E-mail: psiachos@grsm.com
L'OREAL USA: Grant Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Shelby J. Grant, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC., L'OREAL
USA PRODUCTS, INC.; SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC; SOFT SHEEN/CARSON,
INC.; and SOFT SHEEN/CARSON (W.I.), INC., "L'OREAL" or "SOFT
SHEEN"; and STRENGTH OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC, a/k/a STRENGTH OF
NATURE, LLC; and BEAUTY BELL ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a HOUSE OF
CHEATHAM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00260, was transferred
from the United States District Court for the District Of South
Carolina to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Feb. 28, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01087 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of
herself, and all similarly situated consumers who purchased
chemical hair straightening and/or hair relaxer products that were
harmful and defective because they contained known endocrine
disrupting chemicals that increased the risk of various diseases
and illnesses, including cancer, and which were formulated,
designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold
by the Defendants.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 N Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com
- and -
Aaron Seth Jophlin, Esq.
THE JOPHLIN LAW FIRM
219 N Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
Telephone: (843) 970-1820
E-mail: aaron@jophlinlaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
PO Box 2590
Georgetown, SC 29442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
E-mail: gsulpizio@edbelllaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Elizabeth McLaren, Esq.
Kerry K. Jardine, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
40 Calhoun Street, Suite 350
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 278-5900
E-mail: amclaren@grsm.com
kjardine@grsm.com
- and -
Peter George Siachos, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
18 Columbia Turnpike
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (646) 808-6358
E-mail: psiachos@grsm.com
LABORATORY CORP: Sullivan Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs MICHELLE SULLIVAN, et al., filed an appeal from a
district court's memorandum opinion and order dated February 13,
2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled SHERYL ANDERSON, MARY CARTER,
ROBERT HUFFSTUTLER, RAMZI KHAZEN, CHAIM MARCUS, LILY MARTYN, JONAH
MCCAY, HOLDEN SHERIFF, MICHELLE SULLIVAN, SHONTELLE THOMAS, and
JOSEPH WATSON, individually and on behalf of all, Plaintiffs v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00193-TDS-JLW, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.
The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices
unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with
private and public health insurers in violation of various state
consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of
implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
In May 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
complaint and strike class allegations; the motion to dismiss was
granted in March 2018 without prejudice.
On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought
similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional
counts regarding state consumer protection laws.
On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions.
On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' amended complaint and strike class allegations.
On August 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
denying the motion to strike the class allegations.
On April 28, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel
discovery which the Court granted in part on June 28, 2021 through
an order signed by Judge Joe L. Webster.
On August 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
class.
On February 13, 2023, Chief Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered a
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and denying as moot their motion for appointment of
class counsel.
The appellate case is captioned as Michelle Sullivan v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, Case No. 23-131, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on Feb. 28,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners MICHELLE SULLIVAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented
by;
Timothy D. Brennan, Esq.
Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10022-0000
Telephone: (212) 451-9600
- and -
Jeremy Michael Falcone, Esq.
Jonathan Drew Sasser, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P. O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Telephone: (919) 865-7097
- and -
David Andrew Nicholas, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
20 Whitney Road
Newton, MA 02460
Telephone: (617) 964-1548
Defendant-Respondent LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS is
represented by:
Scott Elliot Bayzle, Esq.
Stephen Vincent Carey, Esq.
Corri Ann Hopkins, Esq.
Charles Edward Raynal, IV, Esq.
Adam C. Setzer, Esq.
PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
P. O. Box 389
Raleigh, NC 27602-0389
Telephone: (919) 835-4627
- and -
B. Kurt Copper, Esq.
Aaron M. Healey, Esq.
Dustin M. Koenig, Esq.
JONES DAY
325 John H. McConnell Boulevard
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 281-3963
- and -
Heather M. O'Shea, Esq.
JONES DAY
77 West Wacker
Chicago, IL 60601-1692
Telephone: (312) 269-4009
- and -
Stephen Glenn Sozio, Esq.
JONES DAY
North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114-0000
Telephone: (216) 586-3939
LASTPASS US LP: Remhof Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
---------------------------------------------------------
Denise Remhof, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. LASTPASS US LP and GOTO TECHNOLOGIES, USA,
INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10493 (D. Mass., March 2, 2023), is brought
against the Defendant for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information
stored within the Defendants' information network, including,
without limitation, names, billing addresses, email addresses,
telephone numbers, as well as a vault of unencrypted data which
stored website usernames and passwords, secure notes, and
form-filled data (this type of information, inter alia, being
hereafter referred to as "personally identifiable information" or
"PII").
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms
they caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and countless
other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants in August 2022, by
which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected
network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII and financial
information, which was being kept unprotected (the "Data Breach").
While the Defendants claim to have discovered the breach as early
as August 2022, Defendants did not begin informing victims of the
Data Breach until November 30, 2022. Indeed, Plaintiff and Class
Members were unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters
from Defendants informing them of it. The Notice received by
Plaintiff was dated November 30, 2022.
The Defendants acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII and/or financial information. Therefore, at all
relevant times, the Defendants knew, or should have known, that
Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendants' services to store
and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII. By
obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendants assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from
state and federal statutes, regulations, and common law
principles.
The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure
of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate
protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of
data, even for internal use.
As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised
through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an
undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this
disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in
ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they are
entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
LastPass is a password management business designed to save and
protect all passwords using a browser extension.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erica Mirabella, Esq.
MIRABELLA LAW LLC
132 Boylston St, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 580-8270
Email: erica@mirabellallc.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, California 90211
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
737 Bainbridge Street, #155
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 393-0070
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Email: cmoore@reesellp.com
LASTPASS US: Linthicum Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LastPass US, LP. The
case is styled as Steven Linthicum, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LastPass US, LP, Case No.
1:23-cv-10502-PBS (D. Mass., March 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
LastPass -- http://www.lastpass.com/-- is a free password manager
and form filler optimized for Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera and
Safari..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Two Seaport Lane, 6th Flr.
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 439-3939
Fax: (617) 439-0134
Email: ehaber@shulaw.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Court Grants in Part Bids in Limine in Vasquez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE, on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. LEPRINO FOODS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' and the Plaintiffs' motions in limine.
The class action lawsuit, brought before the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), involves an employment dispute between
Plaintiff class representatives Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke
("Plaintiffs") and Defendants Leprino Foods Co. and Leprino Foods
Dairy Products Co. (collectively, "Leprino" or "Defendants"). On
March 30, 2020, the Court certified the Plaintiffs' claim that the
Defendants required their non-exempt workers to remain "on-call"
during their meal and rest breaks in violation of California law.
Pending before the Court are 10 motions in limine filed by the
Defendants and 9 motions in limine filed by the Plaintiffs. The
order resolves the parties' respective motions.
First, Judge Ishii examines the Defendants' second motion in
limine. The Defendants move to exclude testimony by the Plaintiffs
and their class member witnesses regarding their individualized
experiences and interpretations of Leprino's policies and
practices. They say such individualized testimony should be
excluded because it is not common proof and thus not helpful to the
jury. The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the ground
that the challenged witness testimony relates not to the witnesses'
individualized experiences but rather to their common experience of
being on-call during breaks.
Judge Ishii holds that the Defendants' argument ultimately goes to
the weight of the witnesses' testimonies, not their admissibility.
The testimony of the Plaintiffs' class member witnesses will be
relevant to that determination because, like the rest of the class,
they all worked at the same Lemoore West facility and were
subjected to the same policies and practices, even if their
individual experiences were not necessarily identical. Furthermore,
the challenged testimony of the Plaintiffs' class member witnesses
will not be unduly prejudicial to the Defendants because their
testimony will not take the focus away from the common policies and
practices at issue. Therefore, the Defendant's second motion in
limine is denied.
Second, the Judge Ishii examines the Defendant's third motion in
limine. The Defendants move to exclude the Plaintiffs, the
Plaintiffs' witnesses, and the Plaintiffs' attorneys from
introducing or referencing any evidence concerning any class
members taking late meal or rest breaks or not taking meal and rest
breaks at all. According to them, such evidence is irrelevant
because the Plaintiffs do not claim that Leprino failed to provide
timely breaks or that Leprino failed to provide breaks altogether.
The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the ground that
evidence of class members either taking late breaks or missing
breaks altogether is relevant to the extent they were caused by
Leprino's on-call policy.
Judge Ishii finds that evidence of late or missed breaks would
provide limited probative value to the Plaintiffs' on-call break
claim. He, however, agrees with the Defendants that missing a break
or receiving a late break is not necessarily tantamount to being
on-call. He further agrees with Defendants that the limited
probative value of the challenged evidence is substantially
outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
misleading the jury, and wasting time. However, with respect to the
"Written On-Duty Meal Agreement" exhibits, Judge Ishii will not
exclude them because they are relevant to the issue of whether
class members were subjected to an on-call break policy. Therefore,
in light of the above, he grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion.
Third, Judge Ishii examines the Defendant's fourth motion in
limine, which he grants in part and denies in part. The Defendants
move to exclude the Plaintiffs, their witnesses, and their
attorneys from introducing or referencing any evidence referring to
"Group Leaders" as "Supervisors," as having "supervisory
authority," or as having "supervised" other employees. The
Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the ground that job
titles do not determine an employee's status and that the
appropriate focus should be on the employee's actual job duties.
Judge Ishii agrees with the Defendants that referring to a Group
Leader as having the job title "Supervisor" when he or she did not
actually have that official title would be improper. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs may not ascribe the job title "Supervisor" to any
individual who did not have that official title.
However, excluding all references to Group Leaders as having
"supervisory authority" or as having "supervised" other employees
is another matter because based on their job duties and functions,
Group Leaders may still qualify as agents of Leprino who exercised
sufficient control over the work of class members. Therefore, Judge
Ishii will not exclude testimony that Group Leaders had authority
to "supervise" other class members in the common sense because that
could have been the case. If the Defendants believe that a Group
Leader lacked this authority, then they may voice objections and
present contrary evidence at trial.
Fourth, Judge Ishii examines the Defendant's fifth motion in
limine. The Defendants move to exclude any evidence concerning
Leprino's operations at any other Leprino facility because
according to them, such evidence is irrelevant, unfairly
prejudicial, and likely to confuse the jury and waste time. The
Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the ground that
evidence of Leprino's similar bad acts at its Lemoore East and
Tracy facilities is relevant to show that Leprino had a
company-wide on-call policy across all of its facilities in
California.
Judge Ishii holds that the evidence offered to show that Leprino
committed prior bad acts is limited because the fact-finder in
those cases might still determine that no such on-call policy
existed at those facilities. The probative value of these alleged
bad acts by Leprino is therefore also limited. Moreover, presenting
such evidence to the jury would also cause unfair prejudice,
confuse the issues, mislead the jury, and waste time. Therefore,
the Defendants' fifth motion in limine is granted.
Fifth, Judge Ishii examines the Defendant's sixth motion in limine,
which he granted. The Defendants move to exclude the Plaintiffs,
their witnesses, and their attorneys from introducing or
referencing any evidence concerning any other litigation in which
Leprino, or Leprino's managing agents, have been or are involved.
The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the ground that
evidence of other litigation involving Leprino is relevant to show
that Leprino has a corporate-wide on-call policy of placing
employees on-call across all of its facilities in California.
For the same reasons discussed in his order on the Defendants'
fifth motion in limine, Judge Ishii grants the Defendants' sixth
motion in limine. He says no facts have been determined with
respect to other Leprino facilities, and to permit evidence of
events at the other facilities would be unduly confusing,
misleading, and likely result in an unnecessary mini-trial related
to non-Lemoor West facilities.
Sixth, Judge Ishii examines the Defendant's seventh motion in
limine. The Defendants move to exclude the Plaintiffs, their
witnesses, and their attorneys from introducing or referencing any
evidence concerning the financial condition of Leprino, its
solvency or ability to pay a verdict or satisfy judgment, and
evidence or references to "punishing" Leprino or "sending a
message. The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the ground
that Leprino's financial condition is relevant to prove the motive
behind the implementation of Leprino's on-call policy.
Judge Ishii finds that evidence of Leprino's financial condition
provides no probative value to the Plaintiffs' on-call break claim.
Evidence of Leprino's financial condition would also present
dangers of prejudicing the Defendants and misleading the jury.
Therefore, Judge Ishii will exclude the Plaintiffs from presenting
evidence of Leprino's financial condition.
Furthermore, he will grant the Defendants' request to exclude
statements to the jury that they should "punish" or "send a
message" to Leprino. Because the Plaintiffs' claim is not eligible
for punitive damages, it would be improper for them to express the
above statements to the jury. Therefore, he will exclude statements
to the jury that they should "punish" or "send a message" to
Leprino. For these reasons, the Defendant's seventh motion in
limine is granted.
Seventh, Judge Ishii denies the Defendant's eighth motion in limine
without prejudice. The Defendants move to exclude all hearsay
statements in the text message screen shot photos and counseling
forms that the Plaintiffs are expected to present at trial. The
Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the ground that the
counseling forms are admissible business records and that the text
message screen shot photos are admissible present sense
impressions, recorded recollections, and admissions of a party
opponent.
Judge Ishii holds that the with respect to the text message screen
shot photos, there is no dispute that these materials are relevant
to the Plaintiffs' on-call break claim. He declines to exclude the
text message screen shot photos, but the Defendants may renew their
objections if the Plaintiffs seek to introduce these materials at
trial. Finally, with respect to the counseling forms, there is no
dispute that these materials are relevant to the Plaintiffs'
on-call break claim, and the Defendants do not argue that these
materials should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Judge Ishii
allows the Plaintiffs to present the counseling form at trial so
long as they lay the proper foundation that Plaintiff Hefke's
supervisor made the document. If they fail to lay this foundation,
then the Defendants may renew their objections.
Eighth, Judge Ishii grants the Defendants' ninth motion in limine.
The Defendants move the Court to bifurcate the trial into a
liability phase and damages phase under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42(b).
The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the ground that
bifurcation will not expedite or economize the resolution of the
case but will rather prolong the case because all the evidence
presented in the liability phase will have to be presented again in
the damages phase.
Judge Ishii finds that the Plaintiffs expert Brian Kriegler's
damages report provides a method that calculates, for example,
principal damages and pre-judgment interest by having the fact
finder determine what percent of shifts over 6 hours during the
class period failed to provide compliant rest periods, and then
multiply that percentage with the principal damage and pre-judgment
interest figures provided in his report. With respect to Leprino,
however, other damages issues exist in the form of affirmative
defenses. Kriegler's damages report acknowledges Leprino's
potential affirmative defenses in his damages calculation model.
For these reasons, the Defendants' ninth motion in limine is
granted.
Ninth, Judge Ishii denies the Defendant's tenth motion in limine.
The Defendants move to exclude all individuals from the class who
held the position of Supervisor or Group Leader at Leprino's
Lemoore West facility at any time during the class period. The
Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the ground that being
promoted does not mean that a class member's past hourly-employee
time should be eliminated or that they no longer have a claim in
the case.
Judge Ishii finds that he need not exclude from the class all
individuals who held the position of Supervisor or Group Leader at
any time during the class period. Any concern that shifts worked as
supervisors will be included in the damages calculations is
unfounded because the Plaintiffs will only include the shifts they
worked as hourly employees during the class period.
Tenth, Judge Ishii grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' eleventh motion in limine. The Defendants identify
three categories of testimony that they seek to exclude: (1)
testimony that lacks foundation and personal knowledge, (2)
testimony that is speculative, and (3) testimony that lacks proper
foundation and authentication.
Judge Ishii finds, among other things, that (i)the Plaintiffs'
class member witnesses may testify regarding their firsthand
observations of calls being made over Leprino's communications
systems instructing a class member to call a supervisor during a
break; (ii) the Plaintiffs' witnesses may testify about their
experiences of receiving calls during their breaks regarding
work-related questions or instructions, and about their manner of
responding to those calls; and (iii) the issue of whether some of
the messages are hearsay, non-hearsay, or exempt from the rule
against hearsay will be reserved for determination at trial.
Eleventh, Judge Ishii examines the Plaintiffs' first motion in
limine to exclude the Defendant's Trial Exhibit Nos. 17, 25, and
26. Trial Exhibit No. 17 consists of individual class member
personnel records. Trial Exhibit No. 25 consists of all written
disciplinary records for the class members during the class period
relating to insubordination and/or failure to communicate with
superiors and failure to communicate on radio/walkie talkie during
meal breaks and/or rest breaks. Trial Exhibit No. 26 consists of
"video footage of each area of the plant where class members worked
during the class period."
The Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence or argument that simply
having a written meal and rest break policy alone is sufficient to
prove that the Defendants provided them with legally compliant
breaks. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion on the ground
that it is unnecessary and speculative.
Judge Ishii finds that (i) the Defendants may have had no duty to
produce the individual class member personnel records; (ii) Trial
evidence of class member disciplinary records are not unfairly
prejudicial because Plaintiffs themselves agreed to the carve outs
in Request Nos. 24 and 27; and (iii) the evidence of video footage
at Lemoore West Facility is permissible so long as it is not
submitted to the jury for reasons related to investigations or
discipline. Therefore, he denies the Plaintiffs' first motion in
limine to exclude the Defendant's Trial Exhibit Nos. 17, 25, and
26.
Twelfth, Judge Ishii examines the Plaintiffs' second motion in
limine which he granted. The Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence or
argument that simply having a written meal and rest break policy
alone is sufficient to prove that the Defendants provided the
Plaintiffs with legally compliant breaks. The Defendants oppose
Plaintiffs' motion on the ground that it is unnecessary and
speculative.
Judge Ishii holds that the issue is not whether Leprino's written
meal and rest break policies were facially compliant. Rather, the
issue is whether an unwritten on-call break policy existed despite
the existence of Leprino's written break policies. Therefore, any
argument that the existence of Leprino's written break policies
alone automatically means that Defendants provided the Plaintiffs
with legally compliant breaks would be improper.
Thirteenth, Judge Ishii grants the Plaintiffs' third motion in
limine. The Plaintiffs move to preclude the Defendants from
presenting or eliciting any evidence or testimony concerning the
propriety of class certification or decertification. The Defendants
argue that the Plaintiffs' motion is unfounded because the
Defendant did not list as a factual dispute for trial whether or
not the Plaintiffs have established the elements for certification
under Rule 23.
Judge Ishii finds that the issue of certification under Rule 23 is
an issue appropriately reserved for the Court's review. He will
exclude any evidence or argument regarding Rule 23 certification to
the jury. However, such an exclusion does not mean that Defendants
are barred from arguing that the Plaintiffs' survey and class
member witness testimony are unrepresentative of the class.
Fourteenth, Judge Ishii grants the Plaintiffs' fourth motion in
limine. The Plaintiffs move to preclude the Defendants from calling
all class members to testify at trial and from arguing that all
class members must testify at trial. The Defendants argue that
their proffered class member witness testimony is not unnecessary
or cumulative.
Judge Ishii says in its prior order on the Defendants' renewed
motion for class decertification and witness list, the Court ruled
that it will not allow the Defendants to call 1,389 class member
witnesses to testify at trial, and ordered the Defendants to submit
a revised prospective class member witness list with proffers of
their expected testimony. That ruling and reasoning address the
Plaintiffs' current motion to preclude the Defendants from calling
all class members to testify at trial. Therefore, the Plaintiffs'
fourth motion in limine will be granted in accordance with the
Court's prior order. If the Defendants' revised witness list
presents any further evidentiary concerns, they will be addressed
at an appropriate time before or during the trial.
Fifteenth, Judge Ishii grants in part the Plaintiffs' fifth motion
in limine. The Plaintiffs move to exclude any argument or reference
that absent class members not testifying at trial shows that they
did not prove their case. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs'
motion is meritless because it provides no credible evidence that
Leprino forced class members to sign agreements prohibiting them
from participating in any class action against it.
Judge Ishii holds that the Defendants may not argue that the
Plaintiffs cannot prove their case solely due to an absence of all
class members' testimony. However, the Defendants are not barred
from arguing that the Plaintiffs' proffered evidence is
unrepresentative of the class.
Sixteenth, Judge Ishii denies the Plaintiffs' sixth motion in
limine. The Plaintiffs' sixth motion in limine seeks an adverse
evidentiary inference against Defendants for spoliating evidence.
The Defendants oppose the request for spoliation sanctions on the
ground that there is no evidence that they spoliated evidence.
Judge Ishii, under the Court's "inherent powers" that "must be
exercised with restraint," he will decline to impose a spoliation
sanction. He says the Plaintiffs still had control over their
efforts to engage class members and note in their briefing any
broad or abrupt trends of uncooperative behavior. The single copy
of the agreement alone does not necessarily mean that Leprino has
engaged in sanction-worthy spoliation.
Seventeenth, Judge Ishii grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' seventh motion in limine. The Plaintiffs move to
exclude non-testifying witnesses from the courtroom pursuant to
Fed. R. Evid. 615. The Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs' motion
to exclude all non-testifying witnesses from the courtroom,
including Plaintiffs' witnesses, until after those witnesses have
testified.
Judge Ishii says order that rebuttal witnesses are to be excluded
from Court while other witnesses are testifying. However, at this
time, he will decline to exclude Leprino's non-witnesses from the
courtroom. Therefore, he denies the portion of the Plaintiffs'
motion that seeks the exclusion of Leprino's non-witnesses from the
courtroom while another witness testifies.
Eighteenth, Judge Ishii grants the Plaintiffs' eighth motion in
limine. The Plaintiffs move to exclude any evidence, argument,
reference, statement, cross-examination, or comment about Plaintiff
Isaias Vasquez's application and receipt of unemployment insurance
benefits prior to his employment with Leprino and Plaintiff Linda
Hefke's worker's compensation claims, claims for state disability
benefits, complaint through the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration ("OSHA"), harassment claim with the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), unfair wage
garnishment claim with the Labor Commissioner, and application and
receipt of unemployment insurance benefits (collectively "Other
Claims"). The Defendants argue that evidence of the Other Claims is
relevant in that they have a tendency to show that the Plaintiffs'
on-call break claim is less likely to have a genuine basis and that
the Plaintiffs have a motive to "get back" at Leprino by filing the
present suit.
Judge Ishii holds that the Plaintiffs' prior claims are not
admissible to establish their motive to get back at Leprino by
filing the current lawsuit. Furthermore, there is no evidence in
the record showing that the Plaintiffs' prior claims bear on their
credibility and potential bias. Therefore, evidence or argument
concerning the Plaintiffs' Other Claims is excluded.
Nineteenth, Judge Ishii denies the Plaintiffs' ninth motion in
limine. The Plaintiffs move to exclude the testimony of the
Defendants' expert Stefan Boedeker and his report for several
reasons. The Defendants argue that Boedeker's report should not be
excluded because he is a qualified economist and statistician and
his report is reliable.
Judge Ishii finds that like the Defendants' challenges to the
reliability of Petersen's report, the Plaintiffs' challenges to the
reliability of Boedeker's report ultimately go to its weight and
not its admissibility. If the Plaintiffs take issue with Boedeker's
testimony during trial, then they may cross-examine and present
contrary evidence.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Judge Ishii grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' and the Plaintiffs' motions in
limine as he described.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yck2u3dk from Leagle.com.
LESSEREVIL LLC: Faces Class Action Over "Healthy" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit claims snack company LesserEvil has
misled consumers by advertising its products as "healthy" when they
contain high amounts of unsafe saturated fat.
The 41-page lawsuit says that the company's Himalayan Pink Salt
Popcorn, Himalayan Gold Popcorn, and "No Cheese" Cheesiness Paleo
Puffs are labeled with nutrient content claims such as "40% Less
Fat," "33% More Fiber" and "20% Fewer Calories." In addition, the
products are advertised as "Nutrient Dense," a "Good Source of
Fiber" and "healthier" than similar snacks, the suit relays.
However, despite the products' healthy representations, the snacks
contain five grams of saturated fat in each serving, a level that
"far exceeds the amount of saturated fat in a large order of
McDonald's fries," the case charges.
What's more, LesserEvil "notably omits" disclosure statements
concerning its products' fat content that are required by law, the
complaint adds. According to the filing, a food product that
exceeds four grams of saturated fat must include a statement on its
label that reads, "See nutrition information for fat content."
Per the lawsuit, a food product whose label includes the term
"healthy" must be low in fat, meaning it must contain three grams
of fat or less in the amount typically consumed. Because the
LesserEvil products at issue contain five grams of saturated fat
per serving, their label representations are unlawful and
"deceptive," the suit alleges.
According to the case, there is "no safe level" of saturated fat
consumption, as even small amounts increase the risk of serious
health conditions such as cardiovascular disease.
The plaintiff, a California resident, has purchased the Himalayan
Pink Salt Popcorn, Himalayan Gold Popcorn and "No Cheese"
Cheesiness Paleo Puffs numerous times in the past three years, the
complaint says. Like other consumers, the plaintiff believed, based
on the products' representations, that the snacks were healthy, the
filing relays. Had the woman known that the snacks actually
contained "dangerously high" amounts of saturated fat, she would
not have paid as much for the items, or purchased them at all, the
case contends.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased LesserEvil's Himalayan Pink Salt Popcorn, Himalayan Gold
Popcorn, or "No Cheese" Cheesiness Paleo Puffs at any time during
the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
LG ELECTRONICS: Gas Stoves Emit Nitrogen Oxides, Sherzai Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Sherzai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00429-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant distributed gas stoves that emit harmful pollutants, like
nitrogen oxides and omitted any warning about the pollutants.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sold its Products for
cooking inside the home, while omitting any warning of the serious
defect due to the harmful emissions. Defendant knew of the defect,
but actively concealed it. The Defendant should have, but did not,
warn consumers of the fact that its Products emit harmful nitrogen
oxides and pollutants when used for cooking. These warnings could
have been included on the packaging, stickers, or instruction
manual for the product. But Defendant did not include any such
warning.
The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Product on the assumption
that using the Product would not expose her to a significant air
pollutant risk. The Plaintiff would have paid significantly less
for the Defendant's Product had she known that it emitted harmful
pollutants like nitrogen oxide. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered
injury in fact when she: (a) spent money to purchase a Product she
would have paid less for absent Defendant's misconduct; (b)
overpaid for the Product due to the Defendant's misconduct; and (c)
paid for a defective product that, in truth, is worth less than she
paid, says the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Defendant's alleged conduct was immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to
consumers. The Defendant's conduct violated the public policy
against misleading product labels and defective products, which is
tethered to the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False
Advertising Law, as well as the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act.
In October 2022, Ms. Sherzai purchased a LG gas stove from the
Costco website while living in Vallejo, California. The stove had
the model number of LRGL5825F.
LG makes, sells, and markets household appliances, including gas
stoves, ovens, and ranges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa
Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
LIBRE BY NEXUS: Officers Appeal Ruling in Vasquez Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Ajin, Richard Moore, and Michael Donovan, the officers and
principals of Libre by Nexus, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, et
al., Plaintiffs v. LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00755-CW, in the United States District Court for Northern
District of California, Oakland.
The lawsuit is a civil class action seeking monetary damages,
restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendants
arising from their exploitation of Spanish-speaking migrant
detainees with so-called "lease agreements" for GPS trackers.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detains thousands of
undocumented immigrants each year. Once in detention, detainees who
are deemed to not pose a flight risk or a threat to public safety
are afforded the opportunity to post bond. Bond is typically set at
an amount that well exceeds the detainees' ability to pay, forcing
them to obtain third-party financing or remain in detention.
Through its false and deceptive advertising and pricing scheme, LBN
violated (and continues to violate) California law prohibiting
misleading sales practices. Specifically, LBN violated (and
continues to violate) California's Unfair Competition and False
Advertising Laws, Business & Professions Code, and the California
Consumers' Legal Remedies Act, says the suit.
On February 8, 2021, the Court entered a final approval order and
Judgment, in which the Court granted final approval of the parties'
settlement agreement.
On August 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for an order holding LBN
in civil contempt and imposing civil contempt sanctions on LBN.
On October 3, 2022, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for an order holding LBN in
civil contempt and imposing civil contempt sanctions on LBN. On the
same date, the Court issued a separate order delineating the civil
contempt sanctions that it imposed on LBN.
On November 4, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring the
parties to file a status report addressing the status of LBN's
compliance with the Court's October 3, 2022, orders and the
anticipated progress of the litigation.
On November 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order
holding the officers and principals of Defendant Libre by Nexus,
Inc., namely Micheal Donovan, Evan Ajin, and Richard Moore, in
civil contempt and imposing civil contempt sanctions against them.
The Defendants' deadline for filing a response to Plaintiffs'
motion was December 7, 2022 and no response was filed.
On January 7, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiffs
to file a reply in support of their motion for civil contempt
sanctions by January 17, 2023. On January 17, 2023, Plaintiffs
filed a reply in support of their present motion.
On January 23, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion in
part and denied it in part, holding Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in
civil contempt of Court and imposing sanctions.
Pursuant to the Court's January 23, 2023, Order for Civil Contempt
Sanctions Against Officers and Principals of Defendant Libre by
Nexus, Inc., the officers and principals of Libre by Nexus, Inc.,
namely Micheal Donovan, Evan Ajin, and Richard Moore are jointly
and severally liable for $165,350.77, that was immediately due and
payable to Plaintiffs as of February 6, 2023.
Evan Ajin, Richard Moore, and Michael Donovan, the officers and
principals of Libre by Nexus, Inc., seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, et al.
v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., Case No. 23-15278, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Feb. 28, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Evan Ajin, Michael Donovan and Richard Moore
Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 7, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by March 27, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on April 26, 2023;
-- Appellants Evan Ajin, Michael Donovan and Richard Moore
opening brief is due on June 5, 2023;
-- Appellees Kevin Calderon, Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, Libre
by Nexus, Inc., Gabriela Jamileth Perdomo Ortiz and Juan
Quintanilla Vasquez answering brief is due on July 5, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Appellants MICHAEL DONOVAN, RICHARD MOORE, and EVAN AJIN are
represented by:
Joshua Eleazar Matic, Esq.
MATIC LAW ASSOCIATES
20651 Golden Springs Dr., Suite 817
Walnut, CA 91789
Telephone: (646) 389-4384
Plaintiffs-Appellees KEVIN CALDERON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Jesse Newmark, Esq.
3022 International Boulevard, Suite 410
Oakland, CA 94601
Telephone: (510) 437-1863
- and -
Alison Edith Pennington, Esq.
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE
1322 Webster Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 467-0655
- and -
Annick Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI, LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Defendant-Appellee LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. is represented by:
Kenneth E. Payson, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
920 5th Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 757-8126
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Lordstown Motors Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal period ending June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 6, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from putative class suits.
Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against former
DiamondPeak directors and DiamondPeak Sponsor LLC on December 8 and
13, 2021 in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Hebert v. Hamamoto, et
al. (C.A. No. 2021-1066); and Amin v Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No.
2021-1085)). The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of
investors in DiamondPeak and assert breach of fiduciary duty claims
based on allegations that the defendants made or failed to prevent
alleged misrepresentations regarding vehicle pre-orders and
production timeline, and that but for those allegedly false and
misleading disclosures, the plaintiffs would have exercised a right
to redeem their shares prior to the de-SPAC transaction. On
February 9, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed
order consolidating the two putative class action lawsuits,
appointing Hebert and Amin as co-lead plaintiffs, appointing
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Pomerantz LLP as
co-lead counsel and setting a briefing schedule for the motions to
dismiss and motions to stay. The motions to stay were fully briefed
as of February 23, 2022 and the court held oral argument on
February 28, 2022.
On March 7, 2022, the court denied the motion to stay.
On March 10, 2022, defendants filed their brief in support of their
motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on April
27, 2022, and was scheduled for oral argument on May 10, 2022.
On May 6, 2022, defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss without
prejudice.
On July 22, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint asserting similar claims.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint on October 14, 2022. Plaintiffs' answering brief and
Defendants’ reply brief were due on November 18 and December 9,
2022, respectively.
Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 6,
2022.
On January 5, 2023, the defendants withdrew their motion to
dismiss.
On February 2, 2023, the court issued a case scheduling order
setting forth pre-trial deadlines and a date for trial in March
2024.
On February 3, 2023, defendants filed their answer to plaintiffs'
amended class action complaint.
On February 7, 2023, plaintiffs served the Company, as a non-party,
with a subpoena for certain information, which the Company
responded to on February 21, 2023.
The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the
litigation process.
Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of
developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted
for sale to fleet customers.
MAKER ECOSYSTEM: N.D. California Dismisses 2nd Amended Johnson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. MAKER ECOSYSTEM GROWTH
HOLDINGS, INC., NKA METRONYM, INC., a foreign corporation; and
MAKER ECOSYSTEM GROWTH FOUNDATION, a foreign corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02569-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M.
Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
Before the Court is Defendant Maker Ecosystem Growth Holding, Inc.,
NKA Metronym Inc., and Maker Ecosystem Growth Foundation's Motion,
filed Oct. 31, 2022, to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. Johnson has filed opposition, to which the
Defendants have replied.
The Defendants are two affiliated foreign companies that, according
to the Plaintiff, collectively operate, run, and manage the Maker
Ecosystem, a cryptocurrency platform, and, in the course thereof,
committed acts constituting neglect and malfeasance.
The Defendants developed a digital currency called DAI and, in
connection therewith, a protocol and various applications necessary
for minting, collateralizing, and transacting the DAI, namely, the
"Maker Protocol." The Maker Protocol involves the collateralization
of digital assets to create a stable coin -- DAI -- which is a
decentralized, unbiased, collateral-backed cryptocurrency
soft-pegged to the US Dollar. Once created, DAI is a store of
value, a medium of exchange, a unit of account and a standard of
deferred payment that is meant to be exchanged digitally between
peers in exchange for other digital assets or services, just like
US Dollars may be exchanged for goods and services.
The Defendants also developed the Maker Decentralized Autonomous
Organization ("MakerDAO") which enables holders of its governance
token, MKR, to manage the MakerDAO organization through a system of
scientific governance involving Executive Voting and Governance
Polling to ensure its stability, transparency, and efficiency. In
other words, MakerDAO sets all of the rules and regulations which
rules and regulations are 'codified' as the Maker Protocol. The
Maker Protocol, in turn, governs transactions in DAI.
A "distinguishing characteristic" of DAI is that, pursuant to the
Maker Protocol, it must be collateralized by another digital
currency, primarily, Ethereum ("ETH"). In practice, this means an
individual or entity wishing to transact in or otherwise procure
DAI" must take one of the following actions to obtain the currency:
(1) trade ETH (or other Ethereum tokens) directly for DAI through
Maker's 'Oasis' portal; (2) purchase DAI with USD via
cryptocurrency exchanges; or, as relevant to the instant action,
(3) create a collateralized debt position ('CDP'), thereby becoming
a Vault Holder. Where an individual seeks to obtain DAI through a
CDP, they may purchase $10,000 of ETH from an exchange, deposit
that ETH into a CDP contract as collateral, and then borrow against
their collateralized debt position by withdrawing DAI.
The Maker Protocol requires Vault Holders to maintain a 150%
collateral-to-debt ratio (the "Liquidation Ratio"). When the value
of a Vault Holder's collateral drops, leaving the Vault Holder's
DAI undercollateralized under the Liquidation Ratio, a liquidation
event" is triggered, whereby the Vault Holder's collateral is
auctioned off to settle the debt with the Maker Protocol, with the
balance of the ETH being returned to the Vault Holder. The
Defendants use a "price feed mechanism" called "oracles" to monitor
the price of ETH and thereby inform the Maker Protocol at large
whether a given Vault Holder's DAI becomes undercollateralized.
The Plaintiff is an "early investor in ETH" who was among a handful
of early Maker adopters and evangelists and a Vault Holder as of
March 12, 2020, a date now known as 'Black Thursday. According to
him, the Maker Foundation and other third-party user interfaces
repeatedly advertised and represented to Vault Holders users that,
because their CDPs would be significantly over-collateralized,
liquidation events would only result in a 13% liquidation penalty
applied against the drawn DAI amount, after which the remaining
collateral would be returned to the user, but, instead, Vault
Holders, including plaintiff, "lost 100% of their collateral" when,
on Black Thursday, the price of ETH dropped "significantly and
rapidly."
The Plaintiff attributes his losses to two features of the Maker
Protocol's liquidation process. First, the Maker Protocol's
utilized oracles failed to maintain accurate and updated prices,
resulting in price reporting at levels much higher than the actual
spot price of ETH. Second, the Defendants "severely limited who
could participate" in the auction process, limiting approved
bidders on the collateral in Vault Holders' CDPs to what are called
"Keepers," i.e., 'persons' who run liquidation-specific algorithms
("bots") on the Maker Protocol.
Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of himself
and a putative class, three Claims for Relief, titled,
respectively, "Negligence," "Intentional Misrepresentation," and
"Negligent Misrepresentation."
By the instant motion, the Defendants seek an order dismissing the
action in its entirety, on the asserted grounds that (1) Maker
Growth is not a proper defendant because it has been dissolved, and
therefore lacks capacity to be sued, and (2) plaintiff has failed
to allege facts sufficient to support each of his claims for
relief.
First, the Defendants seek dismissal of all claims against Maker
Growth, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands on the ground
it was dissolved prior to the filing of the SAC.
There being no dispute as to its dissolution, Judge Chesney holds
that all claims against Maker Growth are subject to dismissal. On
the same date that the Plaintiff filed his Opposition, he filed a
motion seeking discovery for the purpose of determining whether
Maker Growth has, in fact, been dissolved. In response, the
Defendants provided additional evidence of Maker Growth's
dissolution and the Plaintiff, thereafter, withdrew his request for
discovery.
Next, the Defendants seek, pursuant to Rule 9(b) and Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissal of all claims
alleged against Metronym.
Judge Chesney finds that (i) the SAC does not identify the specific
content of any false or misleading statement; (ii) the Plaintiff
fails to inform each of the Defendants of its participation in the
making of the alleged false statements; and (iii) although the
Plaintiff, in connection with his Opposition, has submitted a
declaration in which he further identifies the statements on which
he seeks to base his intentional and negligent misrepresentation
claims, a complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition
to a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's intentional
and negligent misrepresentation claims are subject to dismissal.
Finally, Judge Chesney finds that the Plaintiff's negligence claim
is subject to dismissal. She says although the Plaintiff contends
his negligence claim implicates neither policy concern, such that
the Court has no reason to even apply the doctrine in the first
place, the Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that
the analysis proceeds in such fashion. Moreover, whether the
special relationship exception applies is a fact-intensive inquiry
and the Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to support a
finding to that effect.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Chesney grants the Defendants'
motion. As there is no showing the deficiencies noted cannot be
cured, leave to amend is granted, and the Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint, if any, will be filed no later than March 17, 2023. In
light thereof, the Further Case Management Conference currently
scheduled for March 31, 2023 is continued to April 28, 2023 at
10:30 a.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/955tfxn2 from Leagle.com.
MAKITA USA: Court OKs Bid to Extend Briefing Schedule in May Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MAY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MAKITA U.S.A., INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00079-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh, Jr. entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to
extend the briefing schedule, and rescinding the previously set
deadline, with a new briefing schedule to be issued by the Court
after responsive pleadings are made.
On January 26, 2023, this Court issued an order requesting the
parties to submit supplemental briefing on the propriety of class
certification for plaintiff's remaining non-dismissed claim under
the Missouri Merchandising Protection Act. The Defendant moved to
extend and stagger the briefing schedule as to the propriety of
class certification.
The Plaintiff does not object to extending the schedule. The
Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint, alleging new facts,
realleging previously dismissed claims, and requesting class
certification for each claim.
Because defendant has yet to file responsive pleadings to
plaintiff's amended complaints, the Court will grant
defendant's motion, but will not set a new briefing schedule until
after defendant's response pleadings and any plaintiff response.
Makita develops the power tool including rechargeable, the wood
working machine, the air tool, and the gardening tool
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EPJoW5 at no extra charge.[CC]
MARYANN'S 353: Rosario Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Food Runners
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARYANN'S 353 MEX, INC. d/b/a ZONA TRIBECA
MEZCALERIA and HUASCAR THEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01851
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to pay
spread-of-hours compensation, and retaliation.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food runner from 2014
until April 2022, except for a period of five months at the
beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Maryann's 353 Mex, Inc., doing business as Zona Tribeca Mezcaleria,
is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of
business at 353 Greenwich St., New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 571-0700
Facsimile: (212) 505-2001
MATCH GROUP: Faces Bardaji Class Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEOPOLD RIOLA BARDAJI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATCH GROUP, INC.; SHARMISTHA
DUBEY; BERNARD KIM; and GARY SWIDLER, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00245-UNA (D. Del., March 6, 2023) is a class action on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Match common stock between November 3, 2021,
through January 31, 2023, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts, about the Company's business and
operations. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented and failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was not effectively executing on
Tinder's new product initiatives; (2) as a result, the Company was
not on track to deliver Tinder's planned product initiatives in
2022; and (3) therefore, Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock when the truth was revealed, the Plaintiff and other members
of the Class have suffered significant damages, says the suit.
MATCH GROUP, INC. is a dating service provider. The Company offers
diverse portfolio of apps and services which enables connections
across the spectrum of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, and
backgrounds. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
- and -
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Karissa J. Sauder, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
Email: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
ksauder@ktmc.com
MDL 2873: Delatour Alleges Cancer Risk From Toxic PFAS Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DELATOUR, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00809-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 28, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with colon cancer by exposure to AFFF
containing PFAS, the suit alleges.
The Delatour case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Callinan Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CALLINAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00805-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 28, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer by exposure to
AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges.
The Callinan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Duff Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DUFF, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00808-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 28, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer by exposure to AFFF
containing PFAS, the suit alleges.
The Duff case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Kolkana Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KOLKANA, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00804-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 28, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer by exposure to AFFF
containing PFAS, the suit alleges.
The Kolkana case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: McRae Claims Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MCRAE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00807-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 28, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer by exposure to
AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges.
The McRae case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
META PLATFORMS: Illinois Users Set to Get Second Settlement Check
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NBC 5 reports that Attention Illinois Facebook users: Remember that
check for $397 you received in the mail last year? You're due to
get some more cash as part of that $650 million settlement.
According to court documents, a recent class-action lawsuit alleged
the company broke the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by
collecting and storing biometric data -- also known as physical
characteristics -- of users without their consent, through things
like facial recognition technology.
A $650 million settlement reached in the case resulted in checks in
the amount of $397 sent last year to more than one million Illinois
Facebook users.
Now, the settlement website says those Class Members are set to
receive a "supplemental" payout.
"The Settlement Administrator began sending supplemental settlement
payments to class members who cashed their initial settlement
payment on February 28, 2023," an update on the website reads. "It
will take about two weeks to finish mailing the checks and
processing the electronic payments."
"If you are expecting a payment but haven't yet received it, we ask
that you wait until mid-April before making an inquiry," the update
continues."
According to a report from the Chicago Tribune, the additional
payments represent the more than $40 million left over in the
settlement fund from those who did not cash their first payments.
The supplemental payments, the settlement administrator says, are
in the amount of $30.61. However, payments will only be sent to
those who cashed that first payout. Additionally, the deadline to
file a claim, or request a check reissue has past.
As new checks continue to roll out, here's what to know.
How Do I Know if I Will Be Receiving a Second Payout?
On May 9, 2021, checks in the amount of $397 began hitting the
mailboxes and bank accounts of 1.4 million Facebook Illinois users,
according to the settlement administrator.
However, not all of those payments were accepted or cashed in, and
checks were voided in the fall of 2022, according to reports.
Those who did in fact accept the payments are now eligible for a
secondary payout to fully deplete the settlement fund.
If you did accept and cash your initial payment, you are set to
receive a supplemental payment in the amount of $30.61, the
settlement website says.
If you did not cash or accept the first payment, the deadline to do
has passed, and you will not be receiving a second payment, the
settlement administrator says.
When Will I Get My Second Payment?
According to the settlement website, supplemental settlement
payments to class members who cashed their initial settlement
payment started going out on Feb. 28, 2023.
"It will take about two weeks to finish mailing the checks and
processing the electronic payments," the settlement website says.
"If you are expecting a payment but haven't yet received it, we ask
that you wait until mid-April before making an inquiry."
I'm an Illinois Facebook User. Am I Part of the Class Action
Lawsuit?
According to the settlement website, Facebook's records were used
to identify certain Class Members.
Those people should have received notice through email or on
Facebook.
You might have gotten a notice if you are a current or former
Facebook user in Illinois who uploaded a photograph of yourself or
were "tagged" in a photograph on Facebook after June 7, 2011.
If photographs of you that were uploaded to Facebook after June 7,
2011 did not result in the creation of a face template while you
lived in Illinois, you were not notified to take part in the
lawsuit.
Not everybody in Illinois who uses Facebook was included, and only
Class Action Members received payout from the lawsuit.
Is There a Way I Can Check to See if I Am Part of the Lawsuit, and
If I Will Get a Payout?
According to the settlement website, "Facebook users located in
Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after
June 7, 2011" are eligible for a payout.
To have filed a valid claim under the Settlement, you must have
lived in the State of Illinois for a period of at least 183 days (6
months).
The deadline to file a claim form was November 23, 2020.
If you did not file a claim by that date — even if you are an
Illinois Facebook user, and meet the above above criteria—you are
not a Class Action Member, and you will not receive a payout.
If you don't remember, whether or not you filed out a claim form,
here's who to contact:
Settlement Administrator: 1-844-799-2417
Edelson PC, lawyer appointment to the case: 1-866-354-3015
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, lawyer appointed to the case:
1-800-449-4900
Labaton Sucharow LLP, lawyer appointed to the case: 1-888-219-6877
How Much Are the Checks For?
According to the settlement website, final checks are in the amount
of $397. The additional payout was just over $30.61.
Get updates on what's happening in the Chicago area to your inbox.
Sign up for our News Headlines newsletter.
What the Illinois Facebook Lawsuit Says, and How Facebook
Responded
According to the Settlement Administrator, "Facebook users in
Illinois sued Facebook claiming that its "Tag Suggestions" feature
and other features involving facial recognition technology,
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
That law, passed in 2008, says companies are not allowed to
collect, store, or give out "biometric data," which includes things
like face or fingerprint scans, without first giving notice and
obtaining personal consent. The act also requires companies to
specify how the information would be retained, and when it would be
destroyed
This case alleges that Facebook specifically broke the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by using facial recognition
technology to create face templates that can be used to identify
users in photos without the proper notice and consent.
Facebook denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability.
Facebook changed its technology in 2019, replacing the tool with a
broader facial recognition setting, which was turned off by
default. The website announced it would shut down its recognition
software entirely in 2021. [GN]
MOMENTUS INC: Jury Trial for Securities Class Suit Set for Nov. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
Momentus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 8, 2023, that the jury trial for
consolidated securities class suit is set for November 14, 2023.
On July 15, 2021, July 22, 2021 and August 4, 2021, three related
putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company, SRAC, Sponsor, certain officers and directors
of SRAC and Mikhail Kokorich, the Company's co-founder and former
CEO, alleging that the defendants omitted certain material
information in their public statements and disclosures regarding
the Business Combination in violation of the securities laws, and
seeking damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who
purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021.
On October 20, 2021, the securities class actions were consolidated
in the first filed matter under the caption In re Stable Road
Acquisition Corp. Securities Litigation (Case No.
2:21-cv-05744-JFW-SHK) and on November 12, 2021 the court-appointed
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against the
same defendants as well as certain additional officers and
directors of SRAC and current and former officers of the Company.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made certain
material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material
information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding
the Business Combination, in violation of the securities laws, and
seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who
purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021.
On February 14, 2022, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On July 13, 2022 the motions to dismiss were granted in part and
denied in part.
A jury trial date has been set for November 14, 2023.
As a subsequent event, on February 10, 2023, the Company and the
lead plaintiff reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Securities Class Action for Under the terms of the agreement in
principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons
that purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock between October
7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, would release the Company
from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the
Securities Class Actions and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in
exchange for payment of $8.5 million by the Company (at least $4.0
million of which is expected to be funded by insurance proceeds).
Momentus is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space
infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted
payloads and in-orbit services. Momentus believes it can make new
ways of operating in space possible with its in-space transfer and
service vehicles that will be powered by an innovative water
plasma-based propulsion system that is under development.[GN]
MONARCH RECOVERY: Appeals Summary Judgment in Rocke FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. filed an appeal from a district
court's January 25, 2023 order entered in the lawsuit entitled
SHERWYN ROCKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Civil Action No.
1:20-CV-11736-RWZ, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.
Rocke brought a class action complaint alleging that the Defendant
violated Sections 1692e and 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. The Plaintiff and the Defendant each filed a motion
for summary judgment.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Ray W.
Zobel of the District of Massachusetts entered an Order on January
25, 2023 granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and
denying the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Zobel
held that the evidence demonstrates that the Defendant sent the
Plaintiff a collection letter, stating that it would assume the
debt was valid unless he notified it "in writing" to dispute its
validity. The "in writing" requirement was in contravention of 15
U.S.C. Section 1692g and therefore also a "false, deceptive, or
misleading representation" as prohibited by 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e.
The appellate case is captioned as Rocke v. Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc., Case No. 23-1187, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Feb. 27, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appearance
form, Docketing Statement and Transcript Report/Order form were due
March 13, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC. is
represented by:
Ronald M. Metcho, Esq.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
220 Penn Ave., Suite 305
Scranton, PA 18507
Telephone: (570) 257-6510
- and -
Brian Patrick Voke, Esq.
CAMPBELL CONROY & ONEIL PC
20 City Sq., Ste 300
Boston, MA 02129-0000
Telephone: (617) 241-3000
Plaintiff-Appellee SHERWYN ROCKE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kevin Crick, Esq.
RIGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP PLLC
100 Cambridge St., Suite 1400
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (844) 574-4487
- and -
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
NOOM INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communications, Matousek Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANI MATOUSEK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NOOM, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01639 (C.D.
Cal., Mar. 6, 2023) alleges that Defendant wiretaps the electronic
communications of visitors to its website, www.noom.com, in
violation of the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff contends that Noom procures third-party vendors,
such as FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code
("Session Replay Code") on Noom'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 Noom's website, including their mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an
information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time. These third-party
vendors allegedly create and deploy the Session Replay Code at
Noom's request. Noom'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 Noom's website for the entire duration of their website
interaction, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and Class Members did not provide prior consent to
Noom's interception of their Website Communications, nor could
they, as the interception begins immediately upon arriving at
www.noom.com and/or its subpages. The Plaintiff brings this action
individually and on behalf of a class of all California citizens
whose Website Communications were intercepted through Noom's
procurement and use of Session Replay Code embedded on
www.noom.com, as well as its subpages, and seeks all civil remedies
provided under the causes of action, including compensatory,
statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Stephani Matousek currently resides and is domiciled in
Los Angeles, California.
Noom operates the website www.noom.com, as well as all of its
subpages. Noom is an airline whose planes serve more than a hundred
destinations domestically and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
- and -
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 978-6971
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: MGibson@TheFinleyFirm.com
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Files 7th Cir. Appeal in Freedman Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM is taking an appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled In re: Northshore University
HealthSystem Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-04446, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant on
behalf of other patients who allegedly paid higher prices for acute
inpatient care following the purchase of rival Highland Park
Hospital.
The appellate case is captioned NorthShore University HealthSystem
v. David Freedman, Case No. 23-8004, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 6, 2023. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM is
represented by:
Conor Reidy, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 558-7542
- and -
James Franklin Herbison, Esq.
Michael P. Mayer, Esq.
Dan K. Webb, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 558-5600
Plaintiff-Respondent DAVID FREEDMAN, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated, is represented by:
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
Matthew Eric Van Tine, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
145 S. Wells Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
- and -
Kathleen Ellen Boychuck, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
145 S. Wells Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (847) 401-2045
- and -
Charles Patrick Burns, Esq.
Joseph M. Burns, Esq.
JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ
One N. Lasalle Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-1646
- and -
Andrew Szot, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
145 S. Wells Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 933-2265
O'REILLY AUTO: $950,000 Settlement in FCRA Class Suit Heard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Certiphi on March 8 disclosed that O'Reilly Auto Parts agreed to
pay $950,000 to resolve FCRA violation claims that the company did
not secure valid authorizations prior to conducting applicant
background checks.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claimed that O'Reilly
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by allegedly
including extraneous information on its disclosure forms. The FCRA
is clear in stating that these forms need to be clear "stand-alone"
documents and not mixed in with other forms or information.
Members of the class action suit include individuals who signed
O'Reilly's disclosure, authorization and digital signature forms
and for whom the company procured a consumer report between January
31, 2015, and February 17, 2021.
Class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement
which is currently estimated at $2.92.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was March 5, 2023 and the
final approval hearing was set for March 6, 2023. [GN]
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Faces Holtz Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HOLTZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-002583 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty.,
Feb. 28, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
consumer debt. The communication was sent to Plaintiff between the
hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the Plaintiff's time zone. However,
the Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate
with him between the said hours. As such, by and through the
communication, Defendant violated FCCPA, says the suit.
Pentagon Federal Credit Union, widely known by its abbreviated name
PenFed, is a United States federal credit union.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
PETERSONS OIL: PIIC Seeks Declaratory Relief in POSI Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETERSONS OIL
SERVICE INC.; HOWARD WOOD PETERSON, JR.; KRISTEN PETERSON HALUS,
and SHARON PETERSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10499 (D. Mass.,
March 3, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
declaratory relief.
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (PIIC) seeks a judgment
declaring that it has no duty to indemnify any of the Defendants
under any of the policies of insurance that it issued to Petersons
Oil Service Inc. (POSI) with respect to claims asserted against
each of them in a class action proceeding that is pending the trial
court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court
Department, Worcester County, captioned Sheena Marandino, et als.
v. Petersons Oil Service, Inc., et als., C.A. No. 1985CV00792. PIIC
asserts that it is entitled to a declaration that it is under no
obligation to indemnify any of the Defendants against the action
because the insuring agreements in each of its policies has not
been satisfied.
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is an insurance company
with its principal place of business at One Bala Plaza in Bala
Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.
Petersons Oil Service Inc. (POSI) is an operator of a gas station
in Worcester, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander G. Henlin, Esq.
Iryna N. Dore, Esq.
SULLOWAY & HOLLIS, P.L.L.C.
53 State Street, Suite 1305
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (781) 320-5400
Facsimile: (603) 226-2404
E-mail: ahenlin@sulloway.com
idore@sulloway.com
PRECIGEN INC: Shareholder Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRECIGEN, INC. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 6, 2023, that the $13,000 settlement
in a shareholder class suit requires court approval.
In October 2020, several shareholder class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock. The complaints name as defendants the Company and
certain of its current and former officers.
The plaintiffs' claims challenged disclosures about the MBP program
from May 10, 2017 to March 1, 2019.
In March 2021, the court granted an order consolidating the claims
and, in April 2021, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in
the case, captioned In re Precigen Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:20-cv-06936-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
On May 18, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint.
On August 2, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Class Action Complaint.
On September 27, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint in lieu of a response to the defendants'
motion to dismiss.
On November 3, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint and on May 31, 2022, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint with leave to amend.
On August 1, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a Third Amended Class
Action Complaint.
On August 2, 2022 the Court granted the parties' request to conduct
a private mediation session to explore potential resolution of the
action.
On November 17, 2022, at the conclusion of the mediation session,
the parties executed a memorandum of understanding that agreed in
principle to resolve the claims asserted in the securities class
action. The settlement provides for a payment to the plaintiff
class of $13,000. The proposed settlement requires final
negotiation of the terms of settlement and both preliminary and
final approval by the court.
Should the court not approve the proposed settlement or if the
proposed settlement otherwise does not become final, the parties
will be returned to their litigation postures prior to the
agreement in principle to settle. In the event that the litigation
resumes, the defendants intend to move to dismiss the plaintiff’s
Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
Precigen, Inc. discovery and clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company based in Maryland.
RBC INSURANCE: Class Action Over Vacation/Holiday Pay Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Gambrill, writing for Canadian Underwriter, reports that P&C
insurance advisors for RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. have won a
certification motion for a class action lawsuit against the insurer
over how their vacation and holiday pay were determined.
Also, the court conditionally certified a similar class action
against Aviva General Insurance Company over the calculation of
vacation and overtime pay, but only if a new representative
plaintiff can be found in 100 days. The original representative
plaintiff's claim missed the legal time limit to launch a suit, the
court found.
Class certification does not consider the merits of the lawsuit.
At issue is whether insurers are allowed to include vacation and
public holiday pay as part of a variable compensation package (for
example, broker commission) under provincial Employment Standards
Acts. Alternatively, P&C advisors said vacation and holidays should
be calculated based on, and paid out on top of, the total
compensation amount (i.e., the sum of base pay plus variable
compensation).
The certified class includes P&C insurance advisors who worked for
RBC General Insurance Company from Nov. 1, 2012 to June 30, 2016.
Aviva Canada closed its deal to acquire RBC General Insurance
Company in July 2016. It also includes P&C advisors who worked for
RBC Insurance Agency from July 1, 2016 until the date notice was
provided to class.
Class counsel withdrew a claim based on RBC Insurance Agency and
Aviva General being a "joint employer," since Aviva Canada's
acquisition of RBC General did not include RBC General's insurance
sales and distribution business, which was transferred to RBC
Insurance Agency, a wholly owned subsidiary of RBC. Aviva Canada
only acquired the insurance underwriting and claims handling
business of the former RBC General, which was renamed as Aviva
General. Ontario's Superior Court only conditionally approved the
class action against Aviva General.
Essentially, the P&C insurance advisors' lawsuit takes aim at RBC
Insurance Agency's compensation agreement (and Aviva General's, by
virtue of its acquisition of portions of RBC General).
P&C advisors in the class earned both salary and variable
compensation. All were subject to the same compensation policy,
which states: "All variable compensation components of the plan
have been established at a level that includes both vacation pay
and statutory holiday pay."
"The P&C advisors allege that they were not paid vacation and
public holiday pay on top of their variable compensation, in breach
of the employment standards legislation (ESL) of each of the seven
provinces where they were employed: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec,
Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince
Edward Island," as the court framed the dispute. "The plaintiff
alleges that the terms of the [insurer's] compensation policy
violate the ESL, which requires that variable compensation be
treated as wages for the purposes of calculating the required
vacation and public holiday pay."
For their part, the defendant insurers noted they paid their
advisors more vacation/holiday time than they were required to pay
under the ESL (three weeks instead of two). Therefore, their
compensation policy paid out more in vacation/holiday time than the
advisors would have received had their vacation/holiday pay been
calculated at the ESL minimum of two weeks based on total pay
(including base pay and variable compensation). In other words, the
advisors suffered no loss.
Without deciding the issue at the class certification level, which
it cannot do, the court provided examples of how the different
calculations affected the advisors' pay, based on what the
different parties were arguing.
The court's hypothetical example is based on the average 2019
earnings of a P&C advisor statutorily entitled to two weeks'
vacation. It found the average P&C advisor earned $46,617.67 in
base salary in 2019 ($896.49 per week), plus $9,861.77 ($189.65 per
week) in variable compensation, for a total of $1,086.14 per week.
"Under the plaintiff's approach, the salary and wages would be
combined for purposes of calculating vacation pay, for total wages
of $56,479.44," Ontario Superior Court Justice Benjamin Glustein
wrote.
"Consequently, an average P&C advisor who worked 52 weeks would be
entitled to two weeks' vacation pay (at 4% of $56,479.44) for
$2,259.18. Public holiday pay would be paid on the combined wages,
and as such be included in the $56,479.44 amount (assuming the P&C
advisor did not work on the public holidays). Under this approach,
the total amount earned by the P&C advisors over the 54-week period
would be $58,738.62.
"If the [insurer] provided an additional week of vacation, then the
P&C advisor would be entitled to an additional $1,086.14, based on
one week's total wages. Consequently, the total compensation earned
over the 55-week period for that P&C advisor would be $59,824.76."
Under the insurers' approach, the court found, "the P&C advisor is
entitled to the statutory minimum of two weeks holiday pay. The
[insurers] submit that under the plaintiff's claim, a P&C advisor
would be entitled to $2,259.18 for two weeks' vacation (based on 4%
of total wages).
"The insures' submit that since they provided three weeks of
vacation based on salary, the P&C advisor received $2,689.48 (three
weeks' salary based only on annual base pay of $46,617.67) over
that period, so the P&C advisor received an additional $430.30
($2,689.48 less $2,259.18) on top of their statutory entitlement
and did not suffer a loss.
"The compensation earned by the P&C advisor over the 55-week period
(52 weeks of work and 3 weeks of vacation) would be $46,617.67 in
salary plus $9,861.77 for variable compensation and $2,689.48 for
three weeks of vacation. Public holiday pay would be based on
salary and as such would be included in the $46,617.67 amount
(assuming the P&C advisor did not work on the public holidays).
"Consequently, the total compensation under the [insurers']
approach, for the same 55-week period would be $59,168.92, which is
$655.84 ($59,824.76 less $59,168.92) less than the total
compensation paid under the plaintiff's approach."
The court observed it would take a trial to test the assumptions of
these examples and to consider other factors and adjustments that
might be raised during the trial process.[GN]
RCX LLC: Conditional Certification Granted in Part in Thompson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARA THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. RCX, LLC d/b/a
STADIUM CLUB, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-03386
(CJN) (D.D.C.), Judge Carl J. Nichols of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia:
a. denies Defendant Rudolph Cline-Thomas' motion to dismiss
the claims against him; and
b. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification.
Plaintiffs Barbara Thompson, Alexis Benton, and Emani Burgess,
proceeding individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
filed the suit against Stadium Club and Cline-Thomas seeking to
recover wages allegedly owed to them. Specifically, the Plaintiffs
claim that Defendants misclassified them (and others similarly
situated) as independent contractors, resulting in violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et
seq., the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law
("DCWPCL"), D.C. Code Sections 32-1301 et seq., and the District of
Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act ("DCMWRA"), D.C. Code Sections
32-1001, et seq.
At various times beginning in 2018, the Plaintiffs worked as exotic
dancers at Stadium Club, an adult entertainment venue in the
District of Columbia. They claim that the Defendants systematically
misclassified dancers as independent contractors and, as a result,
willfully violated federal and D.C. law by failing to pay dancers
minimum wage, by requiring dancers to pay "house fees," and by
forcing dancers to split their tips with other employees.
The Plaintiffs seek monetary relief through an FLSA collective
action on behalf of all exotic dancers who currently work at
Stadium Club or who worked there at some point during the three
years preceding the lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs name Cline-Thomas as a defendant. According to them,
he is an owner of Stadium Club and qualifies as their employer
under the FLSA. In particular, they allege that Cline-Thomas, at
all times relevant to the lawsuit, exerted operational and
management control over Stadium Club, controlled the nature, pay
structure, and employment relationship of the Plaintiffs and the
FLSA Class Members, had the authority to hire and fire employees,
and was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of Stadium Club.
Before the Court are two motions: Cline-Thomas's motion to dismiss
the claims against him, and the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a collective action under the FLSA.
Cline-Thomas contends that the Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege
that he was their employer. The crux of his argument is that the
Complaint simply recites the factors of the economic reality test
without alleging specific facts. The claims are, in essence, mere
restatements of the economic reality factors. And Cline-Thomas
stresses that a complaint cannot survive a motion to dismiss if it
simply parrots the elements of a cause of action.
Judge Nichols opines that the allegations are more than mere
recitations of the economic reality factors, and when accepted as
true (as they must at this stage), they give rise to a reasonable
inference that Cline-Thomas qualifies as the Plaintiffs' employer
under the relevant statutes. He therefore denies Cline-Thomas'
motion to dismiss.
Turning to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification,
Judge Nichols concludes that the "low first-stage hurdle" is easily
satisfied. That is because the Plaintiffs have made the requisite
"modest factual showing" that they and the potential opt-in
plaintiffs are similarly situated and were victims of a common
policy.
Having concluded that conditional certification is appropriate,
Judge Nichols must now resolve how potential opt-in plaintiffs
should be identified and notified. On this score, the Parties are
in near complete disagreement.
The Plaintiffs seek a three-year limitations period in defining the
scope of their collective action; the Defendants believe the period
should be limited to two years. The Plaintiffs wish to send notice
via mail, email, and text; the Defendants oppose using email and
text. The Plaintiffs ask that notice be posted in the dressing
rooms of Stadium Club and on its social media accounts; the
Defendants view these requests as unnecessary and intrusive. The
Plaintiffs request that opt-in forms be returned to their counsel;
the Defendants say these forms should be returned to the Court. The
Plaintiffs want the Court to toll the statute of limitations during
the opt-in period; the Defendants argue that the Court should deny
any tolling. And, on top of these disputes, the Parties disagree on
the specific language that should be included in the notices.
Despite these differences, however, Judge Nichols holds that
neither side contests that the Court has discretion with regard to
notice. With that in mind, the Parties will comply with the
procedures he specified in his Memorandum Opinion and in the
accompanying Order.
First, the limitations period will be two years, which will
continue to run for each potential opt-in plaintiff until that
person files a consent form. Second, the Court will allow notices
and consent forms to be sent via mail, email, and text. Third, the
Court will require that notices and consent forms be posted in the
dressing rooms of Stadium Club, but it will not require any
postings on Stadium Club's social media accounts. Fourth, the
notices will include instructions for opt-in plaintiffs to return
their consent forms to the Clerk of the Court rather than to the
Plaintiffs' counsel. Fifth, the Court will not toll the statute of
limitations because the Plaintiffs have not shown, nor have they
tried to show, that equitable tolling is warranted.
Sixth, as for the content of the notices themselves, the following
language will be added in the manner proposed by the Defendants:
"Your rights to bring your own lawsuit are not waived if you decide
not to join this lawsuit." Moreover, the notices will include
language informing potential opt-in plaintiffs that they may retain
their own counsel. The notices need not include the contact
information of Defendants' counsel, and they may include the phone
number of the Plaintiffs' counsel.
Finally, because the Defendants do not contest the duration of the
Plaintiffs' proposed opt-in period, the Court will allow an opt-in
period of 90 days.
For these reasons, Judge Nichols denies Cline-Thomas' motion to
dismiss, and grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification. A separate Order will be
issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3rn6hxxz from Leagle.com.
RICHS TOWING: Appeal From Dismissal of Klein Suit in Part Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOSHE KLEIN, ETC., Appellant v. RICHS TOWING, ET AL.,
Defendants, R & S JAMIESON AUTO BODY, INC., ETC., ET AL.,
Respondents, Case 2020-04961, Index No. 35543/19 (N.Y. App. Div.),
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second
Department, dismisses the appeal from an order of the Supreme
Court, Rockland County, granting in part and denying in part
Defendants R & S Jamieson Auto Body, Inc., and Rich Jamieson's
motion to dismiss.
In a putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for
violations of the Rockland County Code, the Plaintiff appeals from
an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Robert M. Berliner,
J.), dated May 12, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from,
granted that branch of the motion of the Defendants R & S Jamieson
Auto Body, Inc., and Rich Jamieson which was pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against
them, and denied the Plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to enter a
default judgment and to certify a class pursuant to CPLR article
9.
The Appellate Division dismisses the appeal with costs. It explains
that CPLR 5526 requires that a record on appeal contain the papers
and exhibits upon which the order appealed from was founded. It is
the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on
appeal.
In the case, the Plaintiff argues that the Supreme Court should
have denied that branch of the motion of the Defendants R & S and
Jamieson, which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the
complaint insofar as asserted against them and should have granted
the Plaintiff's cross-motion for a default judgment and to certify
a class pursuant to CPLR article 9. However, the record on appeal
does not contain the pleadings or any of the exhibits submitted in
support of, or in opposition to, the Defendants' motion or the
Plaintiff's cross-motion. Therefore, the record is inadequate to
allow the Court to render an informed decision and the appeal must
be dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nuwrtbvm from Leagle.com.
Joshua N. Bleichman -- bleichmanklein@gmail.com -- Spring Valley,
NY, for the Appellant.
Feerick Nugent MacCartney, PLLC, South Nyack, NY (Donald J.
Feerick, Jr. -- dfeerick@fnmlawfirm.com -- and Patrick J. McGorman
of counsel), for the Respondents.
RUSH UNIVERSITY: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Patients' Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has almost entirely dismissed a class action lawsuit
accusing Rush University Health System of exposing private patient
information through use of the MyChart digital service.
Marguerite Kurowski and Brenda McClendon alleged Rush, with deceit
and without consent, embedded third-party source code on both its
website and the MyChart patient portal, a widely used website and
smartphone application for medical records, appointments,
prescriptions, test results and other information. The women
further alleged the source code transmits personal patient data to
Facebook, Google and Bidtellect for advertising.
Their federal lawsuit includes claims for violation of the federal
Wiretap Act -- as amended in 1986 by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act -- and breach of implied duty of confidentiality, as
well as violating both the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices acts and
intrusion upon seclusion.
The technical aspect of allegations involve Rush's use of Google
Tag Manager on its website, which the plaintiffs said is a nested
frame that "funnels web bugs for third parties to secretly acquire
the content of patient communications without any knowledge,
consent, authorization or further action of patients." Rush
insisted the "bugs" in question are metadata commonly transmitted
during routine website use.
In an opinion filed March 3, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly
granted Rush's motion to dismiss everything aside from the
Deceptive Trade Practices Act allegation.
In arguing for dismissal, Rush said the Wiretap Act is a party to
the communications with its patients and therefore can't be held
liable for alleged data interception on the part of Facebook,
Google or Bidtellect. Kennelly said federal appeals courts have
split on arguments about the so-called "party exception" clause,
but noted none have answered whether a defendant is legally
considered a party to an intercepted communication.
Because he determined Rush was the intended recipient of
information, such as an appointment scheduling request, Kennelly
said the nonprofit hospital company can't be liable under the
Wiretap Act. He further explained the complaint doesn't have enough
allegations "to support an inference that Rush disclosed its
patients' individually identifiable health information."
While the complaint relies on U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services guidance suggesting online tracking technology can violate
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, he agreed
with Rush "that such regulatory guidance only applies
prospectively." He said the complaint includes hypothetical
suggestions regarding what might happen when anyone clicks on
certain parts of Rush's website, not what happens when an actual
Rush patient uses MyChart.
Kennelly further rejected plaintiffs' argument that Rush, by
providing access to MyChart, reaches the legal definition of an
electronic communication service. Rush is a licensee, he explained,
buying MyChart service through its creator, Epic, which isn't a
party to the lawsuit. He also agreed with Rush that Illinois law
doesn't allow breach of the implied duty of confidentiality
lawsuits for disclosing private health information. Even if that
were the case, he added, scope is limited to legal violations of
doctor-patient privilege.
"Rush's privacy notice contemplates the protection of care-related
patient information," Kennelly wrote. "It does not contemplate the
protection of a patient's name, IP address, cookie identifier or
other device-related identifying information unconnected with
information about the patient's care."
The complaint also failed to alleged the type of "actual, pecuniary
loss" the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act requires, Kennelly said, finding no basis under the state law
to allow a lawsuit based only on a "privacy injury."
Regarding the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, Kennelly
said the law's only remedy is an injunction, meaning the women
can't pursue financial damages, at least in part because they
didn't allege financial loss. Although Rush argued it isn't
deceiving patients, Kennelly said the women remain Rush patients,
must use the hospital's online services to obtain medical care and
none of Rush's legal defenses suggest it stopped using the
contested source code. As such, the alleged future harm does
support a claim for injunctive relief.
Finally, Kennelly tossed the invasion of privacy claim, based on
intrusion upon seclusion, by restating his assertion Rush was the
intended recipient of the communications supporting the lawsuit.
"Patients trusted that communications and queries directed at Rush,
their health care provider, would be kept private," Kennelly wrote.
"In other words, harm for which Rush is responsible, if any, is its
disclosure of patient data (which, as alleged, is not protected
private health information) -- not the obtaining of that data. The
actual intrusion upon patients' seclusion, via interception of
their communications, is carried out by third parties."
Kennelly gave Rush until March 24 to respond to the surviving claim
for injunctive relief and set a telephone status hearing for April
10.
Plaintiffs are represented in the case by attorneys Adam J. Levitt,
Amy E. Keller, Nada Djordjevic, Sharon Cruz, David A. Straite and
Corban Rhodes, of the firm of DiCello Levitt, of Chicago and New
York; and Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Eric S. Johnson and Jennifer Marie
Paulson, of Simmons Hanly Conroy, of New York and Alton.
Rush is represented by attorneys David A. Carney and Bonnie Keane
DelGobbo, of the firm of Baker & Hostetler, of Cleveland and
Chicago. [GN]
SAFAA IMPORT: Faces Perdomo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL PERDOMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAFAA IMPORT, INC. and FARAH REDA ABOUZEID,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01686 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed as a general worker at the Defendants'
Safaa Arabian Market from approximately May 2022 through and
including November 2022.
Safaa Import, Inc. is an operator of specialty markets under the
name Safaa Arabian Market, located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
SIG SAUER: Ortiz Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DERICK ORTIZ filed an appeal from a district court order
dated February 10, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled Derick
Ortiz v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01025-JL, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Concord.
Mr. 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 were subject to
a class certification motion.
On August 13, 2021, Mr. Ortiz sought to certify a nationwide class
of individuals from 50 states, who purchased the P320 prior to
August 8, 2017. Alternatively, Ortiz moved 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 argued that class certification of the nationwide class
and either subclass is improper under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
On February 10, 2023, the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered an
order denying Ortiz's motion for class certification.
The appellate case is captioned as Ortiz v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case
No. 23-8016, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, filed on Feb. 27, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner DERICK ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
888 7th Ave
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
701 Brickell Ave
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (212) 989-9113
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER, PA
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
- and -
Charles G. Douglas, III, Esq.
Megan E. Douglass, Esq.
Benjamin Thomas King, Esq.
DOUGLAS LEONARD & GARVEY PC
14 South St., Suite 5
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 224-1988
Defendant-Respondent SIG SAUER, INC. is represented by:
Benjamin B. Folsom, Esq.
MCLANE MIDDLETON PA
900 Elm St
Manchester, NH 03101
Telephone: (603) 628-1323
- and -
Brian Keith Gibson, Esq.
Robert L. Joyce, Esq.
LITTLETON PARK JOYCE UGHETTA & KELLY LLP
4 Manhattanville Rd., Ste 202
Purchase, NY 10577
Telephone: (914) 417-3400
- and -
Michael J. Quinn, Esq.
MCLANE, GRAF, RAULERSON & MIDDLETON
100 Market St.
Portsmouth, NH 03801-0000
Telephone: (603) 436-2818
SNAP INC: Faces Wrongful Death Class Action Over Fake Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Kandel, writing for Law & Crime, reports that families whose
children died from fentanyl overdoses have filed a class-action
lawsuit against Snapchat, alleging the social media platform is a
widely used conduit for drug dealers to promote the sale of
fentanyl-laced drugs to kids and young adults.
The lawsuit, filed by the families of nine children, alleges the
app's features make it difficult for parents to police the content
their children are viewing and is simple for drug dealers to find
young people online. The lawsuit also alleges that Snapchat creates
a feeling of dependency in still-developing brains, facilitates the
illegal and deadly sale of counterfeit pills, provides drug dealers
with a steady source of vulnerable customers, and obstructs
parents' ability to supervise their children's online
interactions.
"They all lost a child to fentanyl poisoning from counterfeit drugs
obtained through Snap -- not through Instagram, not through Tiktok
-- but through Snap. This isn't a social media problem. This is a
Snapchat problem." attorney Matt Bergman said in an interview on
ABC News.
The lawsuit, filed last month in Los Angeles Superior Court,
alleges negligence, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy and
public nuisance, and aiding and abetting. Families in the lawsuit
allege that Snapchat was involved in over 75% of fentanyl poisoning
deaths involving children between the ages of 13 to 18 and
involving a dealer who was connected with the child via social
media from 2020 to 2022.
"For context, this means that Snap was responsible for more of
these needless deaths -- thousands of American children -- than all
other social media products combined," the complaint said.
Snapchat said in a statement it is doing its part to combat the
fentanyl epidemic.
"The trafficking of fake prescription pills containing fentanyl is
an urgent national crisis," a spokesman said in a statement. "It is
devastating that these counterfeit drugs have taken the lives of so
many people, and our hearts go out to families who have suffered
unimaginable losses. We are committed to bringing every resource to
bear to help fight this national crisis, both on Snapchat and
across the tech industry overall."
While the company said it couldn't comment on active litigation,
the spokesman said the social media company is using cutting-edge
technology to find and shut down drug dealers' accounts. They block
search results for drug-related terms, redirecting Snapchatters to
resources from experts about the dangers of fentanyl. And the
company is expanding support for law enforcement investigations,
helping them bring dealers to justice.
The company is working closely with experts to share patterns of
dealers' activities across platforms to more quickly identify and
stop the illegal behavior, the statement said.
"We will continue to do everything we can to tackle this epidemic,
including by working with other tech companies, public health
agencies, law enforcement, families and nonprofits," the company
said.
The lawsuit said drug dealers have instant access to thousands of
young people in their communities through the use of Snap Map,
which pinpoints a user's geographical location. As a result, drugs
have become increasingly easy for kids to access, buy, and have
delivered to their front doors, the lawsuit said.
In nearly all Snapchat fentanyl deaths, the victim believed they
were buying Oxycontin, Percocet, Xanax, or some other prescription
drug from a dealer they connected with through the app, the
complaint alleges. The fake pills they received contained lethal
doses of fentanyl, readily available online since it's cheap and
easy to manufacture.
In a recent letter to the U.S. Justice Department, the National
Crime Prevention Council singled out Snapchat as a product "of
particular concern" when it comes to selling fentanyl to young
Americans, the complaint said.
This case is about nine children who believed that Snapchat was a
safe and silly social media product for kids, so they opened a
Snapchat account, the complaint said.
"Instead of providing a safe and silly product and services,
however, Snap's design and programming decisions created harmful
dependencies on its product, identified and targeted these children
with drug-themed content and drug menus, and affirmatively
connected them (and incentivized them to accept such connections)
to several Snapchat Drug Dealers," the complaint said.
The lawsuit alleges that "Snapchat is a 'digital open-air drug
market' that allows dealers to advertise and distribute fake pills
to tweens and teens who are unsuspecting" and may be lured into
obtaining dangerous and deadly drugs. The complaint notes that
Snapchat's disappearing messages feature draws in minors interested
in evading parental oversight and drug dealers interested in
engaging with vulnerable children without detection.
In 2021, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Arizona addressed
the Snapchat-fentanyl connection.
"Snapchat is the platform that gets used the most as it provides
anonymity, disappearing content, and doesn't allow third-party
monitoring," the agency said. "For example, drug dealers can post
anonymous stories with their 'menu' and receive 'orders' directly
on the app, all of which will disappear, making it hard to track."
According to the Social Media Victims Law Center, which is
representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, here are some steps you
can take to help protect your children:
-- Don't allow younger children access to Snapchat at all;
-- When you do allow your teenager to use Snapchat, require them to
give you their Snapchat password and periodically check for signs
of inappropriate content;
-- Have an honest discussion with your child about following the
safety rules of using Snapchat and the potential consequences of
not doing so.[GN]
SOUTH CAROLINA: Summary Judgment & Cert. Order in CYAP Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROLINA YOUTH ACTION PROJECT; D.S., by and through
her next of kin Juanita Ford, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; S.P., by and through her next of kin Melissa
Downs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs-Appellees, and NIYA KENNY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; TAUREAN NESMITH, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALAN WILSON, in
his official capacity as Attorney General of South Carolina
Defendant-Appellant, and J. ALTON CANNON, JR., in his official
capacity as the Sheriff of Charleston County, SC; on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; LUTHER T. REYNOLDS, in his
official capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the City
of Charleston, SC; REGINALD L. BURGESS, in his official capacity as
the Chief of the Police Department of the City of North Charleston,
SC; CARL RITCHIE, in his official capacity as the Chief of the
Police Department of the City of Mt. Pleasant, SC; on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; LEON LOTT, in his official
capacity as the Sheriff of Richland County, SC; on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; W. H. HOLBROOK, in his
official capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the City
of Columbia, SC; on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; JOHNNY MACK BROWN, in his official capacity as the
Interim Sheriff of Greenville County, SC; KEN MILLER, in his
official capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the City
of Greenville, SC; on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; LANCE CROWE, in his official capacity as the Chief of the
Police Department of the City of Travelers Rest, SC; on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; STEVE MOORE, in his official
capacity as Interim Chief of the Police Department of the City of
Simpsonville, SC; on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; M. BRYAN TURNER, in his official capacity as the Chief of
the Police Department of the City of Mauldin, SC; on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; DAN REYNOLDS, in his
official capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the City
of Greer, SC; on behalf of himself and others similarly situated;
A. KEITH MORTON, in his official capacity as the Chief of the
Police Department of the City of Fountain Inn, SC; on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; MICHAEL D. HANSHAW, in his
official capacity as Interim Chief of the Police Department of the
City of Simpsonville, SC Defendants. JUVENILE DEFENDER ADVOCATE;
NATIONAL POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT; NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW
CENTER, NAACP, NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK, NATIONAL CENTER
FOR YOUTH LAW, ADVANCEMENT PROJECT NATIONAL OFFICE, ANTI-DEFAMATION
LEAGUE, ATLANTA WOMEN FOR EQUALITY, BAZELTON CENTER FOR MENTAL
HEALTH LAW, BIRNBAUM WOMEN'S LEADERSHIP NETWORK AT NYU SCHOOL OF
LAW, CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN RABBIS, CHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR
WOMEN, DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES, FAMILY EQUALITY, GEORGETOWN
LAW-CENTER ON POVERTY AND INEQUALITY'S INITIATIVE ON GENDER JUSTICE
& OPPORTUNITY, LAWYERS CLUB OF SAN DIEGO, LEGAL AID AT WORK, MEN OF
REFORM JUDAISM, NASW, NATIONAL NETWORK TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
THE WOMENS LAW CENTER OF MARYLAND, INCORPORATED, UNION FOR REFORM
JUDAISM, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN
AFFAIRS, WOMEN LAWYERS ON GUARD INC., WOMEN OF REFORM JUDAISM,
WOMEN'S BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WOMEN'S BAR
ASSOCIATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND WOMEN'S LAW PROJECT Amici
Supporting Appellees, Case No. 21-2166 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the judgment of the
district court:
a. certifying one main class and two subclasses under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2); and
b. granting summary judgment for the Plaintiffs.
South Carolina law makes it a crime for elementary and secondary
school students to act "disorderly" or in a "boisterous manner";
use "obscene or profane language"; or "interfere with," "loiter
about," or "act in an obnoxious manner" in (or sometimes near) a
school. The Fourth Circuit's primary question is whether the
challenged laws give students fair warning about what expressive
behaviors may expose them to criminal penalties and contain
sufficient guardrails to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory
enforcement.
The case involves challenges to two provisions of the South
Carolina Code, neither of which represents an empty threat. The
first is known as the disorderly conduct law. As relevant in the
instant matter, that law makes it a misdemeanor to conduct oneself
in a disorderly or boisterous manner at any public place or us
obscene or profane language on any highway or at any public place
or gathering or in hearing distance of any schoolhouse or church.
The second provision is known as the disturbing schools law. During
the relevant time, that provision made it a misdemeanor for any
person willfully or unnecessarily (a) to interfere with or to
disturb in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any
school or college in the State, (b) to loiter about such school or
college premises or (c) to act in an obnoxious manner thereon.
Not all referrals result in a student being charged or adjudicated
delinquent. Referrals generally go first to the South Carolina
Department of Juvenile Justice, which makes a recommendation to the
local prosecutor's office. If the prosecutor chooses to go forward,
the case proceeds in family court. Even when charges are ultimately
dismissed, however, they continue to appear on a student's record
with the Department of Juvenile Justice and the local prosecutor.
In 2016, four students who had been referred or charged under the
disorderly conduct or disturbing schools laws, and a nonprofit
organization that advocates for at-risk youth, filed a putative
class action challenging both laws as unconstitutionally vague. The
district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, but the
Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that at least three of
the named plaintiffs adequately alleged a constitutionally
sufficient injury in fact.
On remand, two of the original plaintiffs were voluntarily
dismissed and a new plaintiff was added. At this point, the
Plaintiffs are: (1) two of the people who this Court held
adequately alleged injury in fact (S.P. and D.S.); (2) a high
school student charged with violating the disturbing schools law
for events alleged to have occurred at school when he was in eighth
grade (D.D.); and (3) the original organizational plaintiff.
After denying a motion to dismiss, the district court certified one
main class and two subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2).
The main class is represented by the individual plaintiffs (S.P.,
D.S., and D.D.) and includes: All elementary and secondary school
students in South Carolina, each of whom faces a risk of arrest or
juvenile referral under the broad and overly vague terms of the
disorderly conduct law while attending school.
The first subclass consists of: All elementary and secondary school
students in South Carolina for whom a record exists relating to
being taken into custody, charges filed, adjudication, or
disposition under the disorderly conduct law.
And the second subclass includes: All elementary and secondary
school students in South Carolina for whom a record exists relating
to being taken into custody, charges filed, adjudication, or
disposition under the disturbing schools law prior to May 17,
2018.
The district court later granted summary judgment for the
Plaintiffs. The court held that both laws were unconstitutionally
vague as applied to elementary and secondary school students, and
it permanently enjoined future enforcement of the disorderly
conduct law against those students. It also "permanently enjoined"
the Defendants from retaining the records of the members of each
subclass "relating to being taken into custody, charges filed,
adjudication, or disposition under either the disorderly conduct or
disturbing schools laws, except as would be permissible following
expungement under S.C. Code Ann. Section 17-1-40.
One of the named Defendants -- South Carolina's Attorney General --
appeals, lodging multiple challenges to the district court's
rulings. The Fourth Circuit reviews the district court's decision
to certify a class for abuse of discretion, its grant of summary
judgment de novo, and its decision to order injunctive relief for
abuse of discretion.
The Fourth Circuit do not hold that schools are powerless to
discipline elementary and secondary school students who disturb the
learning environment. Consistent with Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), and the
decisions following it, South Carolina educators possess
comprehensive authority consistent with fundamental constitutional
safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools. As
part of that authority, schools may adopt and enforce codes of
conduct, many of which appear to cover much of the behavior
punished under the disorderly conduct and disturbing schools laws.
But unlike the policy in Tinker or the codes of conduct maintained
in schools throughout the country, the Fourth Circuit opines that
the laws challenged expose minors to criminal prosecution and all
the collateral consequences that follow. Laws imposing such weighty
costs on free expression must define their bounds, so students have
fair warning about what is prohibited and the discretion of those
who enforce the laws is adequately constrained.
Because the laws before it fail to do so, the Fourth Circuit
affirms the judgment of the district court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc3pmysm from Leagle.com.
ARGUED: James Emory Smith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for the Appellant.
Sarah Hinger, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, New York,
New York, for the Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Robert D. Cook, Solicitor
General, Thomas T. Hydrick, Assistant Deputy Solicitor General,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for the Appellant.
Galen Sherwin, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, New York,
New York; Allen Chaney, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for the Appellees.
Aleksandra Chauhan, Juvenile Defender Advocate, SOUTH CAROLINA
COMMISSION ON INDIGENT DEFENSE, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Amicus Juvenile Defender Advocate. Lauren Bonds, Eliana Machefsky,
Keisha James, NATIONAL POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, New Orleans,
Louisiana; Trisha Pande, PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, for Amicus National Police Accountability Project.
Sabrina Bernadel, Hunter Iannucci, Sunu Chandy, Emily Martin,
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C.; Janette Louard,
Victor Goode, Anna Kathryn Barnes, Office of the General Counsel,
NAACP, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael Harris, Luke Fernbach, NATIONAL
CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW, Oakland, California; Courtney M. Dankworth --
cmdankwo@debevoise.com -- Adrian Gonzalez -- agonzale@debevoise.com
-- Dominique Jones -- dsjones1@debevoise.com -- DEBEVOISE &
PLIMPTON LLP, New York, New York, for Amici National Women's Law
Center, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, National Disability Rights Network, National Center for
Youth Law, and Additional Advocacy Organizations.
SPOKEO INC: Uses Alabama Citizens' Personal Info, Ridgeway Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIS LAMAR RIDGEWAY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01660 (C.D.
Cal., Mar. 6, 2023) sues the Defendant for violating the rights of
Alabama citizens by using their names, signatures, photographs,
images, likenesses, voices, and or similar imitations of those
attributes for the commercial purpose of advertising subscriptions
to Defendant's database services without obtaining consent from the
Plaintiff or the putative class.
According to the complaint, the Defendant offers the Plaintiff's
"Full Name Report" for a "Special Price" of $0.95. But the offer of
the Plaintiff's Full Name Report for $0.95 is not an accurate
representation because the fine print informs the user that
selecting this option will automatically enroll the user in a 7-Day
free trial, which will be automatically renewed as a full
subscription at the normal rate of $24.95 per month. Thus, Spokeo
does not sell the Plaintiff's information independently, but
instead sells a subscription-based service which permits a
subscriber unlimited access to its database to view profiles for
anyone in Spokeo's database, including the Plaintiff, says the
suit.
As such, the Defendant misappropriated the Plaintiff and the class
members' indicia of identity (names, photographs, images,
likenesses, voices, or other uniquely identifying information) for
its own commercial benefit (i.e., to advertise subscriptions to
access Defendant's database). Accordingly, the Defendant never
obtained consent from the Plaintiff or the class members to use the
indicial of their identities for any reason, and Defendant never
notified the Plaintiff of its use of his information within its
database or to advertise its services. In fact, the Plaintiff and
the class members have no relationship with Spokeo whatsoever, the
suit asserts.
Plaintiff Ridgeway is a resident of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The
Plaintiff and the putative class members are not customers of
Spokeo -- in fact, the Plaintiff and the putative class members
have taken no action to create a relationship with Spokeo
whatsoever.
Spokeo operates the website spokeo.com to make records available to
paying subscribers, which serves as a portal for those subscribers
to search for individuals of interest and view any information the
Defendant has collected on them in exchange for payment of their
monthly subscription fee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
Sara D. Avila, Esq.
Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
MILSTEIN JACKSON
FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
10990 Wilshire Blvd., 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 396-9600
Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
savila@mjfwlaw.com
mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com
- and -
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
Allen Carney, Esq.
Samuel R. Jackson, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W. 7th St.
Little Rock, AR, 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
acarney@cbplaw.com
sjackson@cbplaw.com
- and -
Chris Hood, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
2224 1st Avenue N
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
Facsimile: (205) 314-5919
E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com
STATE AUTO: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Travis Class Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTINA TRAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STATE AUTO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., d/b/a State Auto Insurance Companies, et al., Civil Action
No. 21-5395 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants in
part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Class Action Complaint.
Before the Court is the motion of Defendants State Auto and Milbank
Insurance Co. to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint filed
by Travis. Travis filed an Amended Complaint seeking relief for
alleged violations of RICO, breach of contract, violations of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
and fraud, as well as several other state law causes of action.
In July 2019, Travis, through her broker, purchased thirteen
Dwelling Fire insurance policies from Milbank to cover properties
that she owned. The coverage provisions of the Policy are set forth
in the section of the Policy entitled "Dwelling Property 2 - Broad
Form" and apply to the location described in the Policy. Coverages
A, B, D, and E of the Policy provide coverage for Dwelling, Other
Structures, Fair Rental Value, and Additional Living Expense,
respectively.
Section F ("Other Coverages") describes additional coverages.
Sections F.1 (Other Structures) provides that: "You may use up to
10% of the Coverage A limit of liability for loss by a Peril
Insured Against to other structures described in Coverage B," and
F.5 (Rental Value and Additional Living Expense) provides that:
"You may use up to 20% of the Coverage A limit of liability for
loss of both fair rental value as described in Coverage D and
additional living expense as described in Coverage E."
Travis claims that the Defendants maintained a policy to "cap" the
coverage for Sections B, D, and E in the amounts included in
Section A (10% for B and 20% for D and E). She asserts that the
Defendants developed a "scheme" designed to trick unsuspecting
consumers and their brokers into purchasing lines of phantom
insurance within Dwelling Fire policies, which caused the Plaintiff
policyholders to pay for coverage that was already included with
the policy. She alleges that the scheme began in 2015 and involved
misrepresentations communicated through Defendants' website portal
and on the Declaration Page of each Dwelling Fire Policy. Travis
claims the scheme ended in July 2021, when State Auto updated the
Connect Platform and issued revised Declaration Pages.
Travis alleges that she and her broker were "duped" into purchasing
worthless Section B, D, and E coverage through the Connect
Platform. She claims that the quote screen was misleading because
it did not remind the broker that 10% of the Section A Dwelling
coverage was available for Section B Other Structures coverage, or
that 20% of the Section A Dwelling coverage was available for
Sections D & E Fair Rental Value and Additional Living Expense
coverage.
Travis also alleges that the quote screen conveyed the message that
if one wants his or her Dwelling Fire policy to contain Sections B,
D, and E coverage, then he or she must check the box next to these
lines in order to make sure they are included. She claims that the
consequence of selecting the above check boxes for Sections B, D, &
E coverage was that the total cost of the premium on the policy
would increase, although in reality, there would be no
corresponding increase in coverage, and that policyholders were
paying extra for coverage they were already entitled to.
Travis alleges that beginning July 2, 2021, State Auto began
disclosing on the Connect Platform that 10% of Coverage A is
included for Coverage B Other Structures and 20% of Coverage A is
included for Coverage D Fair Rental Value, and that sometime after
July 2, 2021, the Declarations Pages on each policy were modified
to provide additional disclosures about the Sections B, D & E
coverages that were included with the purchase of Section A. She
claims that the Defendants' acts of changing their policies and
adding disclosures in July 2021 amounts to an admission that the B,
D, and E check boxes never belonged on the Connect Platform in the
first place and that each Declarations Page should have always
included disclosures that the B, D, and E coverage comes with the
purchase of A coverage. The Plaintiff also alleges that beginning
on July 2, 2021, State Auto began disclosing that additional limits
can be purchased for both B and D and thereby functionally
eliminated the Cap Policy in order to cover up its scheme.
Counts I and II of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contain claims
against State Auto and ten Jane Doe defendants under Sections
1962(c) and 1962(d) of RICO. Travis alleges in Count I that State
Auto violated Section 1962(c) when it exercised discretion on
behalf of Milbank by creating, overseeing, and controlling the
Connect Platform, which was the primary mechanism for stealing
additional premiums from policyholders, and that it therefore has a
role in directing the affairs of Milbank and/or one or more of the
JANE DOE Defendants.
Upon close review of Travis' RICO allegations, Judge Schmehl finds
that her RICO claims must be dismissed because she cannot plead a
proper RICO enterprise. State Auto is clearly not distinct from the
"enterprise" allegedly formed by Milbank and the Jane Does to have
conducted said enterprise within the meaning of Section 1962(c).
Further, there are no allegations that State Auto had a role in the
racketeering activity that was distinct from the undertakings of
those acting on its behalf, and therefore, the exception does not
apply. Accordingly, Count I of the Amended Complaint is dismissed.
Travis alleges in Count II of her Amended Complaint that State Auto
and the Jane Doe defendants agreed and conspired to engage in mail
and wire fraud in violation of 1962(d). As Travis' claim under
section 1962(c) must fail, it follows that the Amended Complaint
also fails to allege a conspiracy under Section 1962(d).
Accordingly, Count II of the Amended Complaint is dismissed.
The crux of the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is that
Milbank and State Auto breached sections F.1 and F.5 of the policy
by failing to provide the B, D, and E coverages as promised and
instead illegally charged additional premiums for coverage that was
already included. She also alleges that by use of the Connect
Platform and misrepresentations on the Declaration Pages, the
Defendants tricked her into purchasing coverage that she otherwise
would not have bought had she been given proper disclosures.
As the context of the instant motion requires Judge Schmehl to
accept the allegations contained in the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint as true, he finds that Travis has pled sufficient facts
in her breach of contract claim to survive a motion to dismiss. The
Plaintiff has properly alleged that the Defendants violated the
contractual obligations that were entered into when it sold the
Policies to her. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion is denied as
to Count III of the Amended Complaint.
Travis' Amended Complaint also alleges that the Defendants employed
fraud, deception, false promise, misrepresentation and the knowing
concealment, suppression or omission of material facts in their
sale, marketing, advertisement, and administration of the Dwelling
Fire policies sold through the Connect Platform from 2016-2021 in
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law. The Defendants argue that Travis does not allege
that she purchased the insurance policies in question primarily for
personal, family or household purposes.
Judge Schmehl opines that Travis owned 13 different properties on
two streets, which is clearly an investment or has an
income-generating purpose. Therefore, any insurance she purchased
on those properties would also be for investment purposes and would
not fall under the UTPCPL. Accordingly, Count IV is dismissed from
the Amended Complaint.
Travis also brings a fraud claim against the Defendants, alleging
that they made a number of materially misleading statements and/or
omissions in the advertising, marketing, sale, and administration
of their Dwelling Fire policies, and that Travis reasonably relied
on these misrepresentations and/or omissions to form the mistaken
belief that their money was being accepted by Defendants in
exchange for authentic insurance coverage. The Defendants argue
that Travis' fraud claim should be dismissed because it fails to
meet the particularity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b).
Judge Schmehl holds that the Amended Complaint sets forth the date
and content of each alleged fraudulent transaction, explains why
the broker was misled by the Connect Platform, specifies the
alleged lack of pertinent disclosures and affirmative material
misrepresentations on the Declarations Pages, and identifies facts
that substantiate the Plaintiff's allegations that she bought
coverage that she did not want and did not need. The Amended
Complaint also explains the purpose of each misrepresentation and
omission within the overall fraud. Judge Schmehl finds that the
Amended Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to
satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), and therefore, the
Defendants' motion is denied as to Count V.
Finally, Travis sets forth a claim for unjust enrichment, alleging
that the Defendants have been enriched and have received a benefit
as a consequence of their collection of illegal and excessive
premiums for B, D & E coverage through the Connect Platform, and as
a consequence of their receipt, retention and failure to pay back
the amounts by which they have been overpaid.
Travis however, has not pled any facts questioning the validity
and/or applicability of the Policies in question, nor does her
Amended Complaint request rescission of the Policies. Accordingly,
Judge Schmehl grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the unjust
enrichment claim, as the parties' relationship in this matter is
clearly founded upon written agreements. Since Travis does not
state a claim for unjust enrichment, Count VIII requesting the
imposition of a constructive trust on the Defendants must also
fail.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schmehl grants in part and denies
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. She grants the
Defendants' motion as to Counts I, II, IV, VI, VII and VIII and
dismisses said counts from the Amended Complaint with prejudice.
The Court denies the Defendants' motion as to Counts III and V of
the Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6uz3am from Leagle.com.
T-MOBILE US: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Shoemaker Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH SHOEMAKER, ANDREA L. ARROYO, BENJAMIN ATWELL, NICOLE
BAEZ, SPENCER CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BERGGREN, ANTONIO BODACOLOFFI
JOSEPH BURKA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BONNIE DAWSON, STACY DUTILL,
ALAINE EGELER, COLLEEN EVOLA, BRANDY FOSTER, MICHAEL W. GLIKO IV,
CHANTA GRAHAM, LAUREN GROVER, ALBA P. HARO, JESUS HERNANDEZ, SALLY
TAMI HERNANDEZ, NICOLE HINDS, HEATHER HOSFELD, MELISSA JOHNSON,
JONATHAN KELLER, KEN KNUTSON, BRANDON KRUSE, CHARLES LAYMAN,
JOHNATHAN LIMBERGER, CARMEN V. LOPEZ, KIRTI MANDAL, NATALIA MAYA,
PATRICK MELTON, BRIAN MILLS, TINA MITCHELL, FRANCIS OSORIO,
JENNIFER PADILLA, HELENE, GAYLE PRY, GREG SETH RESNICK, JEREMY
ROBBINS, TERRI RODGERS, JESICA ROSTINE, CINDY SALCEDO, GERRY
SCHETTINI, PATRICIA TORRES, JOSEPH VALDEZ, GABRIELLE D. VANN,
BRENDAN WILLIAMS, and ISAAC WILSON individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE US, INC. and T-MOBILE
USA, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00427-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2023)
alleges that the Defendant failed to protect their information
systems that contain personally identifiable information (PII) and
failed to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiffs and
other Class Members that their PII had been compromised.
On January 19, 2023, T-Mobile announced in a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Form 8K filing that a "bad actor" had
compromised the PII of "approximately 37 million current postpaid
and prepaid customer accounts" "without authorization." T-Mobile's
SEC 8-K revealed that it believes "the bad actor first 14 retrieved
data through the impacted API starting on or around November 25,
2022," 15 and that if failed to detect the unauthorized activity
until January 5, 2023.
The Plaintiff contends that the Data Breach was a direct result of
T-Mobile's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect the
Plaintiffs' and Class Member's PII.
The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated bring claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion
of privacy – intrusion upon seclusion, the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Consumer
Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair
Business Practices Act, the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Practices
Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, the Michigan Identity Theft
Protection Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, the New York
General Business Law, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the
Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Rhode Island Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer
Protection Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
The Plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages and injunctive
relief requiring T-Mobile to fully and accurately disclose the PII
and other information that has been compromised; to adopt
reasonably sufficient security practices and safeguards to protect
the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII from unauthorized
disclosures in order to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from
reoccurring in the future, and to safeguard the PII that remains in
T-Mobile's custody.
The Plaintiffs further seek an order requiring T-Mobile to (i)
strengthen its data security systems and monitoring procedures;
(ii) submit to future annual audits of those systems; and (iii)
provide free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance to all
Class Members for 10 years, as Plaintiffs and Class Members are at
risk and will continue to be at an increased risk of identity theft
due to the unauthorized disclosure of their PII as a result of
T-Mobile's conduct.
Plaintiff Shoemaker is a citizen and resident of the State of
California. She was notified by text, email, and/or upon logging
into her T-Mobile account of the Data Breach and the impact to her
PII.
T-Mobile is a telecommunications company that provides wireless,
messaging, and data services along with mobile phones and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Margaret MacLean, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: mmaclean@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
achristian@lowey.com
- and -
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Zachary Rynar, Esq.
Brett Burgs, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com
zrynar@sgtlaw.com
bburgs@sglaw.com
TARGET CORP: False-Pricing Class Action Suit Moved to Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Target will
get to fight a false-pricing class action lawsuit in its home
state, as an Illinois federal judge has kicked it to Minnesota.
Judge Ronald Guzman made the decision March 1 in Yoram Kahn's
lawsuit, finding the conduct at issue arose in Target's Minnesota
headquarters and not the Illinois store visited by Kahn.
Kahn says he bought two kinds of Ritz crackers in Niles, but the
shelf price was 30 cents less than what he was charged at checkout.
His lawsuit says this happen nationwide on many products and that
Target has been fined by at lest two state agencies.
Both sides venue was proper in either Illinois or Minnesota, so
Guzman decided whether a transfer north would be more convenient.
"In the Court's view, the material events in this case concern not
so much plaintiff's purchases (the significance of which is
undercut by the allegations that consumers across the country
experience the same pricing practices) as Target's alleged conduct
- its decisions to charge consumers across the country more than
the price displayed on shelves and refrain from implementing
controls to prevent that practice," the decision says.
Guzman rejected Kahn's argument that transfer would unfairly cause
him to have to transfer to Minnesota and pay for a hotel. An
Ohioan, Kahn said he could have stayed with family and friends for
free in Chicago.
He also claimed Chicago is "more accommodating" than Minneapolis
for practicing his religion "in terms of access to kosher food and
a synagogue," the ruling says.
"(G)iven that he chose a forum that is not his home forum, those
preferences receive little weight," Guzman wrote. [GN]
TASKUS INC: Hearing on Forsberg Class Suit Vacated
--------------------------------------------------
TaskUs Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period
ending June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 6, 2023, that the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware has vacated the Forsberg class suit
hearing on January 11, 2023 and the pending dismissal motions of
Shopify.
On April 1, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Gregory Forsberg, Christopher Gunter, Samuel Kissinger, and Scott
Sipprell vs. TaskUs, Inc. and Shopify, Inc., Shopify Holdings
(USA), Inc., Shopify (USA) Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00436-UNA, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
The complaint alleges the named defendants failed to exercise
reasonable care in securing and safeguarding consumer information
in connection with a 2020 data breach impacting Ledger SAS
cryptocurrency hardware wallets, resulting in the unauthorized
public release of approximately 272,000 pieces of detailed
personally identifiable information, including Plaintiffs' and
class members' full names, email addresses, postal addresses, and
telephone numbers.
The four named plaintiffs allege aggregate losses of approximately
$140,000, and allege that the damages exceed $5 million for
purposes of class action jurisdiction.
On December 22, 2022, the Court stayed the case for a 60 day period
and vacated the January 11, 2023 hearing on TaskUs' and Shopify's
pending motions to dismiss.
TaskUs, Inc. is a business process outsourcing company,
headquartered in New Braunfels, Texas. [BN]
TASKUS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Lozada Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
TaskUs, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 6, 2023, that the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Lozada class suit on February 17, 2023.
On February 23, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. et al., No. 22-cv-1479-JPC, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, our President,
and our Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the
registration statement filed in connection with the Company’s IPO
and the Company’s second and third quarter 2021 earnings calls
contained materially false and misleading information in violation
of the federal securities laws.
On October 20, 2022, the Court entered an order appointing Humberto
Lozada as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On December 16, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
alleging additional misstatements in certain of the Company’s
2021 earnings releases filed on Form 8-K and at an investor
conference, and asserting additional securities claims, including
against members of TaskUs' board of directors as well as BDP FC
Aggregator L.P.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as
equitable relief.
The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on February 17, 2023.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
TaskUs Inc. is a business process outsourcing company,
headquartered in New Braunfels, Texas. [BN]
TELSEC CORP: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO REMEDIOS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. TELSEC CORP, a Florida for profit
corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-20877 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 6, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
According to the complaint, Telsec has allegedly failed to pay all
the Plaintiffs, including the Plaintiff Remedios, their required
overtime rate of pay for all hours of work they performed in as
mandated by federal law. The uncompensated time includes time spent
by the Plaintiffs performing their regular work duties in excess of
40 hours per week and not getting paid at the required overtime
rate.
The Plaintiffs are hourly employees of Telsec who work or formerly
worked as security guards in South Florida and particularly in the
Miami area.
Mr. Remedios was employed by Telsec from April 2021 through
February of 2023.
Telsec is a security company located in Miami, Florida that employs
approximately 60 security guards in the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel A. Avila, Esq.
MANUEL A. AVILA, ESQ. & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
11120 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 200
Miami, FL 33176
Telephone: (305) 249-1111
Facsimile: (305) 647-0686
E-mail: mavila@avilalegal.com
- and -
Brian P. Mccafferty, Esq.
MCCAFFERTY LAW FIRM, LLC
117 Swamp Road
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (267) 872-0852
E-mail: cafstar@aol.com
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Murphy Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NANCY MURPHY and ROBERT STEWART, Plaintiffs, v.
THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS INC. d/b/a JEFFERSON HEALTH
and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04674, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on Feb. 28, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00899-JCS to the proceeding.
The complaint is a class action alleging violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications
Act, and ancillary claims for breach of contract, negligence and
intrusion upon seclusion to redress Defendants' practice of
capturing and sharing statutorily-protected health care
information, medical records and related information for commercial
gain without the knowledge or consent of Jefferson Health's
patients.
Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals Inc. is a multi-state
non-profit health system based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 873-4836
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
- and -
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
rstephan@stephanzouras.com
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
Defendant Meta Platforms Inc. is represented by:
Lauren Rosenblum Goldman, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2647
E-mail: lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Karl Gunderson, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862-2379
E-mail: karl.gunderson@kirkland.com
TIKTOK INC: Wiretaps Users' Electronic Communications, Tado Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE TADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK, INC., a California corporation, and BYTEDANCE
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01430 (N.D. Ill.,
Mar. 8, 2023) sues the Defendants for surreptitiously intercepting
the private electronic communications of users of TikTok's social
media application and its integrated website browser without their
consent.
According to the complaint, the Defendants intercept these private
electronic communications in violation of the Federal Wire Tap Act
by embedding JavaScript code into the third-party websites that are
accessed using TikTok's in-app browser, which enables Defendants to
track users' mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (e.g., text being
entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages
visited, and other electronic communications in real time. The
Defendants allegedly purposely and consciously wanted to intercept
these Website Communications as part of their business model
designed to monetize the personal information and data obtained
from these Website Communications, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all natural persons in the United States whose Website
Communications were intercepted by Defendants while using the
TikTok in-app browser to visit third-party websites, and seeks all
civil remedies provided under the Federal Wire Tap Act, including
appropriate equitable and/or declaratory relief, damages in an
amount to be determined at trial (assessed as the greater of (a)
the sum of actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff and the
proposed Class and any profits made by the Defendants as a result
of the violation, or (b) statutory damages of $100 per day per
violation or $10,000, whichever is greater), and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.
Ms. Tado is a citizen of the state of Illinois, and resided and was
domiciled in Cook County, Illinois.
TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for
creating and sharing short mobile videos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
E-mail:yzelman@marcuszelman.com
- and -
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Rd., Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 978-6971
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
TRIPLE CANOPY: Buckner Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TANISHA BUCKNER, BEN DOCENA, CARLOS COLLIER,
BENJAMIN WOODS, and GENE SUNSHINE, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. TRIPLE CANOPY,
INC. and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. CGC-23-604164, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Francisco to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on March 1, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00913 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts six purported causes of action
for: (1) meal period violations; (2) rest period violations; (3)
overtime violations; (4) wage statement penalties; (5) work
expenditure reimbursements; and (6) violation of Unfair Competition
Law.
Triple Canopy, Inc. is an American private security company that
provides integrated security, mission support and risk management
services to corporate, government and nonprofit clients.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
Andrew W. Russell, Esq.
Sarah Y. Oh, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
Telephone: (310) 315-8200
Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
arussell@mcguirewoods.com
UBER BV: Alberta Appeal Court Confirms Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Treacy, Esq., and K.C. Victoria Lee, Esq., of DLA Piper,
disclosed that in Setoguchi v. Uber BV, the Alberta Court of Appeal
refused to certify a proposed class action against Uber BV
("Uber"), as the negligence claim disclosed no compensable loss or
harm to the claimants. In so doing, it rejected a novel "first
loss" theory of damages. Further, the Court reaffirmed that a risk
of future harm or risk of increased harm is generally insufficient
to constitute compensable harm in Canadian tort law.
This decision also confirms a variety of factors may be considered
in the "preferability" analysis under section 5(1)(d) of the Class
Proceedings Act, SA 2003, c. C-16.5 ("CPA"), including negative
news coverage, regulatory penalties, and other external factors
that may already be sufficient to modify a defendant's behaviour.
In such cases, a class proceeding may provide no additional
behavioural modification benefits, thereby rendering another
procedure more appropriate for a fair and efficient resolution of
the action.
Background
In October 2016, hackers illegally accessed Uber's electronic user
and driver data, which was stored on a third-party cloud service.
The data included the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of
57 million Uber drivers and users worldwide. Upon receiving a
ransom demand, Uber paid $100,000 USD to the hackers, in return for
an assurance the hackers would "destroy and not disseminate" the
data. Over the following six years, there was no indication any
users or drivers suffered fraud or identity theft.
The proposed representative plaintiff, Dione Setoguchi (the
"Plaintiff"), sued Uber in breach of contract and negligence,
alleging Uber (1) failed to protect its collection of personal
information, and (2) failed to notify users of the data breach.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the Plaintiff's
certification application, finding both no evidence of any actual
harm or loss and no actual harm or loss. Additionally, the Court of
Queen's Bench found the Plaintiff failed to establish a class
proceeding was the preferable procedure under section 5(1)(d) of
the CPA.
Court of Appeal decision
In addition to confirming the lower court's refusal to certify
under section 5(1)(d), the Alberta Court of Appeal found the
Plaintiff failed to meet the section 5(1)(a) requirement of the
certification test.
Section 5(1)(a) - Cause of action: Analysis of the plaintiff's
negligence claim
Under section 5(1)(a), the pleadings must disclose a cause of
action. In considering the lower court's analysis of the
Plaintiff's negligence claim, the Alberta Court of Appeal rejected
the suggestion that the Plaintiff was required to provide evidence
of loss or harm. However, the Court of Appeal found the
Plaintiff's action, as pleaded, failed to disclose a cause of
action in negligence, as the tort of negligence requires harm,
loss, or injury resulting from a defendant's wrongful act.
In this case, the only "class-wide harm" pleaded was the
Plaintiff's novel "first loss" claim. This novel claim theorized
that, as personal information has inherent value, the theft of
personal information is a compensable loss common to all class
members. However, the Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the "first
loss" argument, finding the argument "attempt[ed] to maneuver
around [the Plaintiff's] inability to demonstrate actual harm or
loss from the data breach, by advancing a theory of damages not
recognized in law." Instead, the Court found the Plaintiff had "no
hope" of establishing the simple loss of publicly available
information (such as names, phone numbers, and email addresses)
amounted to compensable injury or loss.
The Plaintiff further argued that the data, aggregated and in the
hands of criminals, made the proposed class members more
susceptible to fraud in the future (especially phishing scams).
However, the Court likewise rejected this argument, as Canadian
tort law has generally refused to recognize damages for risk of
future harm or risk of increased harm. Moreover, there must be a
substantial risk of future identity theft for a compensable harm to
be recognized. No such "substantial risk" was present in this case,
so no compensable harm could be recognized.
Section 5(1)(d) - Preferability: Analysis of the plaintiff's breach
of contract claim
In reviewing the lower court's preferability analysis, the Alberta
Court of Appeal confirmed a class proceeding was not the preferable
procedure for the "fair and efficient resolution" of the common
issues. Specifically, given that class-wide harm could not be
clearly established, determining damages could require individual
assessments for each class member. Further, certification would
result in no additional behaviour modification, as significant
regulatory penalties had already been imposed against Uber
following the data breach. These penalties, together with the
negative press coverage, were sufficient to alter the behaviour of
Uber and others in its position. No additional behaviour
modification would result from a class proceeding.
Take-away
In assessing a proposed class action under section 5(1)(a) of the
CPA, courts will carefully consider whether the proposed
representative plaintiff(s) have pleaded each element of a cause of
action. Where an essential requirement of a cause of action is
absent (as in this case, where the negligence claim lacked the
essential element of compensable harm), the court will deny
certification.
This decision is consistent with the recent Ontario Court of Appeal
("ONCA") pronouncements in Owsianik v. Equifax Canada Co., 2022
ONCA 813 ("Equifax," as cited in Uber), in which the ONCA heard a
trilogy of class action appeals. In Equifax, the plaintiffs
unsuccessfully argued the "tort of intrusion upon seclusion" should
be expanded beyond the hackers in data breach cases, to find
"Database Defendants" -- those who collect and store personal
information for commercial purposes -- liable. In refusing
certification and dismissing the appeals, the ONCA likewise
exercised its gatekeeping function under section 5(1)(a)3,
finding the appellants' novel claim disclosed no cause of action:
"[t]here is no reason to think evidence adduced at the trial would
have any effect on the determination of whether, as a matter of
law, the tort could apply to Database Defendants whose failure to
properly protect the data permits independent hackers to access the
data."
Additionally, Uber affirms that a variety of factors may be
considered in the "preferability" analysis under section 5(1)(d),
including negative news coverage, regulatory penalties, and other
external factors that may already be sufficient to modify a
defendant's behaviour. In such circumstances, class proceedings may
not result in additional behaviour modification and may not,
therefore, be the "preferable procedure" for a fair and efficient
resolution of the action.
DLA Piper (Canada) LLP's leading Class Actions Group represents
clients in a variety of class proceedings, including high-profile
and multi-billion dollar actions. As part of a global law firm, the
Canadian Class Actions Group is a division of one of the largest
class actions teams in the world, offering international reach on
class action defence services for leading Canadian and
multinational businesses worldwide.
[1] The data also included driver's license numbers for 600,000
drivers in the United States.
[2] Significant regulatory penalties, including approximately
$194 million in fines in the United States, United Kingdom, and the
Netherlands, were imposed on Uber following this data breach.
[3] Equifax was decided under section 5(1)(a) of Ontario's
similarly-worded Class Proceedings Act, which reads: "The pleadings
or the notice of application discloses a cause of action." [GN]
UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Summary Judgment in MSP and MSPA Suits Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Florida profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee. MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. COVINGTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 21-12439, 21-12428 (11th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms the district
court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Covington and
United Auto.
When a private insurer is liable for a Medicare beneficiary's
medical expenses, Medicare or the Medicare Advantage Organization
has secondary responsibility for the payment. If Medicare or the
Medicare Advantage Organization pays these expenses up front, it
must seek reimbursement from the insurance company that has primary
responsibility for the payment.
In these consolidated actions, assignees of two Medicare Advantage
Organizations seek reimbursements from insurance companies that
they allege qualify as primary payers of beneficiaries' medical
expenses. The insurance companies argue, and the district courts
agreed, that the assignees' claims are barred because both
assignees failed to satisfy a procedural requirement: a contractual
claims-filing deadline in one case and a statutory requirement of a
pre-suit demand in the other. The assignees contend that the
procedural requirements are preempted by the Medicare Secondary
Payer Act.
These consolidated appeals involve separate complaints filed by
assignees of Medicare Advantage Organizations against private
insurers. The first was filed against Covington Specialty Insurance
Company, and the second was filed against United Automobile
Insurance Company.
MSPA Claims 1, LLC, is the assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus,
Inc., a Medicare Advantage Organization. It seeks to recover from
Covington for the medical expenses of Medicare beneficiaries who
were insured by Florida Healthcare Plus. MSPA pleaded an exemplar
claim to demonstrate its right to recover from Covington in a
putative class action.
The exemplar claim involves a Medicare beneficiary identified as
"P.M." In February 2014, P.M. fell while descending stairs at a
property owned by 3550 Palm Beach Holdings, LLC, and injured her
ankle and foot. At that time, Palm Beach Holdings was insured by
Covington under general liability and no-fault policies. P.M. was
enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan administered by Florida
Healthcare Plus. P.M.'s medical providers billed Florida Healthcare
Plus for her medical expenses, which the organization paid. Florida
Healthcare Plus's alleged right, as a secondary payer, to
reimbursement by Covington, as the primary payer, was ultimately
assigned to MSPA.
MSPA first notified Covington of its asserted "rights with respect
to the P.M. claim" in July 2015. Although the policy covered
medical expenses, Covington argued that it was not liable because
the expenses were not reported to Covington within one year of the
date of the accident, as the policy required. In 2016, Covington
settled directly with P.M., and P.M. released her potential
claims.
MSPA initially filed the action in the District of New Hampshire
and sought double damages under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act
and compensatory damages for breach of contract. The District of
New Hampshire transferred the action to the Southern District of
Florida. MSPA also moved to certify a class of Medicare Advantage
Organizations and assignees of such organizations that Covington,
as a primary payer, had allegedly failed to reimburse. The parties
filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation and granted summary judgment in favor of Covington.
It rejected MSPA's arguments and did not address class
certification.
Avmed, a Medicare Advantage Organization, assigned to MSP Recovery
Claims, Series LLC, its claims to reimbursement by United Auto. MSP
relied on a proprietary software to sift through publicly available
data and identify unreimbursed conditional payments made by Avmed
for which United Auto was responsible as the primary payer. MSP
filed a putative class action in the Southern District of Florida
and alleged that defendant United Auto had systematically and
uniformly failed to honor its primary payer obligation under the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act for accident-related medical expenses
and had failed to reimburse the class members.
MSP chose two exemplar Medicare beneficiaries to prove its right to
recover as Avmed's assignee. The two beneficiaries, identified as
"W.T." and "W.M.," were each injured in accidents by holders of
United Auto no-fault policies. MSP alleged that, in both instances,
United Auto failed to report its primary-payer status to the
government and failed to pay the beneficiary's expenses or
reimburse Avmed. It sought double damages under the Act.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of United
Auto. It found that MSP failed to send United Auto a pre-suit
demand letter, as required by Florida law. And it rejected MSP's
argument that the Act preempts the Florida statute.
First, in the Covington appeal, the Eleventh Circuit rejects the
argument that the Medicare Secondary Payer Act preempts the
claims-filing deadline in the Covington insurance policy. MSPA
argues that Covington's insurance policy establishes its
primary-payer status. also argues that even if Covington does not
qualify as a primary payer through its contractual obligation,
Covington is a primary payer due to "its settlement of an exemplar
claim."
The Eleventh Circuit finds that MSPA had the information it needed
to plead the claim it now asserts. Covington alerted MSPA to the
settlement agreement in March 2020 in its amended answers to MSPA's
second set of interrogatories. MSPA filed its motion for summary
judgment in March 2021. Even so, MSPA did not amend its complaint
in the interim. MSPA responds that Covington knew full well that
MSPA Claims had become aware of the settlement. But that fact, even
if true, would not relieve MSPA of its obligation to follow the
pleading requirements and allege in its complaint that the
settlement agreement served as a basis for liability.
Second, in the United Auto appeal, the Eleventh Circuit explains
that the Act does not preempt Florida's statutory requirement of a
pre-suit demand. MSP makes two arguments on appeal. First, it
contends that our precedents compel the conclusion that the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act preempts section 627.736(10)(a) of the
Florida Statutes. Second, it argues that even if our precedents do
not compel that conclusion, we should reach it now as a matter of
first impression.
Both arguments fail, the Eleventh Circuit holds. It finds that
Florida's pre-suit demand requirement does not meet the relatively
high bar. The statutory notice requirement and corresponding 30-day
cure period are procedural requirements that may result in a brief
delay. But the Florida law does not prevent or meaningfully impede
the reimbursement of Medicare Advantage Organizations that Congress
sought to facilitate. So, the provision does not create an
unconstitutional obstacle to the purposes or operation of the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act.
The Eleventh Circuit affirms the judgments in favor of Covington
and United Auto.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/53kmhykz from Leagle.com.
UNITED DENTAL: Settlement Hearing in False Ads' Suit Set May 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that United Dental agreed to a class
action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it misled Californians
about how much dentistry services would cost.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased implants,
orthodontics, scaling, X-rays, check-ups and/or consultations at
United Dental California locations between April 14, 2010, and Feb.
7, 2019.
According to the class action lawsuit, United Dental engaged in
unlicensed dentistry practices and falsely advertised the price of
its implants, orthodontics, scaling, X-rays, check-ups and
consultations. California customers allegedly paid a higher price
for these services than what was advertised.
United Dental Corp. is a dental management company founded by a
successful Australian dentist. The company partners with dentists
to offer accounting, payroll and other management services.
United Dental hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the false advertising class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the United Dental settlement, consumers can
receive a cash payment of $50. All class members will receive the
same $50 payment, regardless of how much they spent at California
United Dental locations.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 6, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
30, 2023.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by April 5, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased implants, orthodontics, scaling, X-rays,
check-ups and/or consultations at United Dental California
locations between April 14, 2010, and Feb. 7, 2019
Potential Award
$50
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM
https://www.uniteddentalsettlement.com/LogIn
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
04/05/2023
Case Name
Tu, et al. v. United Dental Corp., et al., Case No. BC542678, in
the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County
Final Hearing
05/30/2023
Settlement Website
UnitedDentalSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Khai Tu v. United Dental Corp., et al.
c/o CPT GROUP Inc.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
UnitedDentalSettlement@cptgroup.com
888-318-1017
Class Counsel
Gerald S Ohn
LAW OFFICES OF GERALD S OHN APC
Young W Ryu
LOYR APC
Defense Counsel
Jon P Kardassakis
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP [GN]
UNITED STATES: Suit by Black Farmers Unchanged Amid Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raven Santana, writing for NJ Spotlight News, reports that Joe
Bartee has been in the farming business for more than four decades.
Bartee co-owns K&J Organic Farms in Pittsgrove Township with his
grandson Kenneth since 2019; they specialize in fresh organic
produce. The 79-year-old Bartee, one of few Black farmers in the
area, says that he and his grandson aren't treated equally.
Nearly 20 years after a class-action lawsuit led by Black farmers
against the U.S. Department of Agriculture was settled, Bartee says
nothing has changed. When going out to sell his crops, he said he
often received bids lower than market price or would fail to secure
any bids on them. As a result, he needed to take out government
loans, but said he wasn't able to borrow as much as he really
needed.
U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is among several lawmakers who have
reintroduced the Justice for Black Farmers Act, legislation aimed
at correcting historic discrimination in federal farm assistance
programs and lending practices at the USDA. Booker said these have
caused Black farmers to lose millions of acres of farmland and
hundreds of billions of dollars of intergenerational wealth. Booker
first introduced the legislation in 2020. [GN]
UPHOLD HQ: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Rider's 1st Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THEODORE RIDER, et al., Plaintiffs v. UPHOLD HQ INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 22cv1602 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the first amended class action complaint in its
entirety.
The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a putative nationwide
class against Uphold and its former CEO for failing correctly to
implement security protections for its customers.
Uphold is a cryptocurrency exchange that enables users to transfer,
purchase, trade, hold, and sell cryptocurrencies on its platform.
Defendant J.P. Thierot was Uphold's CEO from September 2018 through
December 2021.
When Uphold users create an account, they are required to set up
two-factor authentication ("2FA"). 2FA provides an extra layer of
security for online accounts beyond just a username and password.
Upon log in, a 2FA transaction requires the use of an
authentication server, which sends a unique code to the device the
user has identified for 2FA. The user must then confirm their
identity from their Device. Thus, a 2FA security measure works to
protect a user's account from unauthorized access in the event the
user's email and/or password have been compromised because the
account can only be accessed by an individual that also has
possession of the Device.
The Plaintiffs are a putative class of current and former customers
of Uphold who had their Uphold accounts accessed by unauthorized
actors. They allege that Uphold failed to implement 2FA correctly,
which allowed unauthorized users to designate new Devices using
only the customer's email address and password (and, importantly,
without access to the account's original Device). The FAC alleges
that this flaw in Uphold's 2FA system continued from at least July
2020, until June 16, 2022, when Uphold updated its platform. The
update removed the feature which had allowed a redesignation of a
user's Device without additional identity verification.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants misrepresented
the scope of Uphold's security protocols and responsiveness --
including that it was compliant with requirements set by the
Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council ("PCI DSS"), and
that it provided year-round security monitoring for customer
accounts to respond immediately to any detected threat. They have
suffered the loss of their cryptocurrency savings and personal and
financial information stored in their Uphold accounts. They spent
time handling the consequences of the data breach and report
emotional distress.
The Plaintiffs brought the action against the Defendants on Feb.
25, 2022. On July 11, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint. The action was reassigned to this Court on August 17.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC on September 2. The motion
became fully submitted on October 14.
The FAC asserts one federal cause of action and eight state law
claims. The federal claim is brought under the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act ("EFTA"). The state law claims are for negligence,
gross negligence, negligence per se, and negligent
misrepresentation as against both named defendants, and violation
of New York General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349, breach of
contract, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment as against
defendant Uphold. The Defendants have moved to dismiss for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
First, Uphold moves to dismiss the claim for violation of the EFTA
on the ground that the EFTA applies by its terms to transfers of
"funds" and cryptocurrency does not constitute funds.
Judge Cote opines that the Defendants' argument fails. She says the
Defendants' argument that cryptocurrency is not "funds" under the
EFTA relies on a statement the CFPB released with a 2016 Rule. But,
in that release, the CFPB expressly stated that it was taking no
position with respect to the application of existing statutes, like
the EFTA, to virtual currencies and services. It advised that, as
part of its broader administration and enforcement of the
enumerated consumer financial protection statutes it continues to
analyze the nature of products or services tied to virtual
currencies. Id. In any event, ordinarily legislative history should
be used only to resolve ambiguity, a problem not presented in the
present case. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' EFTA claim may proceed.
Second, Uphold moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under GBL
Section 349 on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly
alleged materially deceptive or misleading conduct.
Judge Cote opines that the Plaintiffs' argument, that their GBL
Section 349 claim can be supported by violations of 23 NYCRR
Section 200 and 23 NYCRR Section 500, is foreclosed by Conboy v. AT
& T Corp., 241 F.3d 242, 258 (2d Cir. 2001). The Plaintiffs'
assertion that the Defendants violated Section 5 of the FTCA in
their failure to implement reasonable security measures and in
Uphold's abandonment of industry standards regarding the protection
of its users' private information,, is almost verbatim assertion in
support of their GBL Section 349 claim. As described, such
conclusory pleadings are insufficient to support a claim under GBL
Section 349. As such, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead a
free-standing claim of deceptiveness based on a FTCA violation. The
Plaintiffs' GBL Section 349 claim is dismissed.
Third, Uphold moves to dismiss the contract claim on the ground
that the Plaintiffs failed to specify any contractual provision
that Uphold allegedly breached.
Judge Cote opines that the FAC fails to specify which provision of
which contract was violated. The Plaintiffs only argue, in a
conclusory manner, that Uphold's "failure to properly secure their
accounts" amounts to a breach of the Terms of Service and the
Privacy Policy. Vague and conclusory allegations of this kind are
insufficient to make out a claim for breach of contract that can
survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the claim for breach of
contract must be dismissed.
Fourth, the Defendants move to dismiss the breach of warranty
claim. In New York, express and implied warranties apply only to
the sale of goods; there is no cause of action for breach of
warranty in the performance of a service.
Judge Cote dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim
because it is predicated on the provision of services. The Terms of
Service agreement itself refers only to the provision of services,
and does not mention the sale of any goods. It is the service
aspect of the transaction that predominates in the claims brought
and in Uphold's business more generally. Those services are not
"merely incidental."
Fifth, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' negligence claim
should be dismissed because it is duplicative of their contract
claim.
Judge Cote holds that the Plaintiffs' negligence claim must be
dismissed as duplicative of their contract claim. The Plaintiffs
have identified no legal duty independent of the parties'
contractual relationship. Accordingly, their claim for negligence
is dismissed as duplicative of the contract claim.
Sixth, the Defendants move to dismiss the claim of gross
negligence. A plaintiff may maintain both tort claims and
contractual claims only where "an independent tort duty is
present." The gross negligence claim arises from the same facts and
seeks the same damages as the alleged breach of contract claim. The
Plaintiffs have alleged no duty independent of the contractual duty
to maintain adequate security measures. As such, it must be
dismissed as duplicative.
Seventh, Uphold moves to dismiss the claim for unjust enrichment.
Judge Cote finds that the Plaintiffs do not explain how their
unjust enrichment claim is distinct from their contract claim. The
Plaintiffs argue that Uphold profited from their transaction fees,
and that it would be inequitable to let Uphold keep the profit it
saved by maintaining allegedly inadequate data protection measures.
But ultimately, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim simply
repackages the same theories of harm alleged in its contract
action. Accordingly, the unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed
as duplicative.
Eighth, the Plaintiffs base their negligence per se claim on
violations of the following statutes: Section 5 of the FTCA, the
Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA"), the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLBA"), and
the EFTA. Uphold argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim for negligence per se because the statutes upon which their
claim is premised do not provide for a private right of action (as
to the FTCA, BSA, and GLBA) or are inapplicable (as to the EFTA).
Judge Cote holds that to the extent that the Plaintiffs' opposition
is an attempt to amend their complaint, that effort must be denied.
The Defendants have not also challenged any other aspect of the
EFTA claim. Thus, the Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim based on
a violation of the EFTA may proceed.
Lastly, the Defendants move to dismiss the negligent
misrepresentation claims. Judge Cote finds that the FAC fails to
identify any misrepresentation by Uphold. The Plaintiffs also
failed to plausibly allege the requisite element of reliance.
Accordingly, the negligent misrepresentation claim is dismissed.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Cote grants in part the
Defendants' Sept. 2, 2022 motion to dismiss. She dismisses in full
the GBL Section 349, breach of contract, breach of warranty,
negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation claims. She dismisses in part the negligence per
se claim. The motion to dismiss the EFTA claim is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/s7p7m4p4 from Leagle.com.
Karl Stephen Kronenberger -- karl@kr.law -- Katherine E. Hollist --
kate@kr.law -- Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for
the Plaintiffs.
Benjamin Delalio Bianco -- bdb@msf-law.com -- Caitlin R. Trow --
crt@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York, NY, for the
Defendants.
VANCOUVER COLLEGE: BC Supreme Court Certifies Sexual Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hainsworth, writing for Burnabynow, reports that B.C.'s
Supreme Court has certified a class-action lawsuit against two
Catholic schools and the Vancouver archbishop for abuse by
Christian Brothers transferred from Newfoundland and Labrador's
Mount Cashel Orphanage.
It was more than 30 years ago that Canadians were horrified to hear
tales of physical and sexual abuse of boys by the Christian
Brothers order operating Mount Cashel Orphanage.
The class-action suit, filed in March 2022, said the Christian
Brothers transferred six abusive members from Mount Cashel
Orphanage to Vancouver College and St. Thomas More Collegiate in
Burnaby between 1976 and 1983.
The suit was initially filed in February 2021 with representative
plaintiff Darren Liptrot. He said in the claim he attended
Vancouver College from 1980 to 1985, for grades 8 to 12, and that
Brother Edward English sexually abused him.
"This is a major step forward in the journey to seek answers and
justice for all the students who suffered abuse at the hands of the
Christian Brothers at these schools," Liptrot said. "There is
strength in numbers, and collectively, we can force the schools and
the Vancouver Archdiocese to disclose what they knew and why they
failed to protect us."
Named as defendants in the notice of civil claim filed in B.C.
Supreme Court Jan. 31 are Vancouver College Ltd., St. Thomas More
Collegiate, Edward English, Joseph Burke, Douglas Kenny, Gerard
Gabriel McHugh, the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St.
John's, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver and the Catholic
Independent Schools of Vancouver Archdiocese.
Justice Simon Coval said the case relates back to the notorious
physical and sexual abuse of children at the Mount Cashel Orphanage
in St. John's.
"Those tragic events ultimately led to criminal convictions of many
Christian Brothers who ran the orphanage," Coval said.
Coval said that, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before the
events at Mount Cashel came to light, six Christian Brothers were
transferred from the orphanage to the two Greater Vancouver
schools.
"The claim alleges that senior Christian Brothers orchestrated the
transfers, despite knowing what had occurred at Mount Cashel, and
that the transferees and other Christian Brothers went on to abuse
students at the schools," Coval said.
In the 1990s, when the crimes at Mount Cashel were revealed and
prosecuted, four of the six transferees were convicted, including
English and Kenny, state court documents.
"The plaintiff's evidence establishes common factual and legal
issues regarding the institutional defendants' alleged knowledge of
what occurred at Mount Cashel, and their decisions, actions, and
policies regarding the Christian Brothers at the schools," Coval
said.
The judge said a class proceeding is preferable to individual
actions.
"It will enhance access to justice for the class members and
provide the fairest and most efficient method of managing their
claims," he said.
The case will now continue on behalf of all students enrolled at
Vancouver College between 1976 and 2013, and St. Thomas More
Collegiate between 1976 and 1989.
"The certification of this case as a class action is a significant
victory in the ongoing fight for accountability, which was
courageously brought to the courts by Darren and now allows others
to come forward," lawyer Reidar Mogerman said.
"We urge any former students, teachers, or staff who have
information about sexual or physical abuse at these schools to
contact us," he said. [GN]
VEE PAK: Black Workers' Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Jaquins, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit alleging a suburban beauty supply distributor
and staffing agencies enforced discriminatory practices against
Black workers is moving forward.
Named plaintiffs Joe Eagle, Michael Keys, James Zollicoffer and
Evan Franklin filed suit alleging that Vee Pak, located in
Countryside and Hodgkins, had a policy that favored hiring Latino
workers over Black applicants, and instructed several staffing
agencies to implement that policy when filling temporary positions
in its warehouse. The manufacturing facilities had workers fill and
cap bottles and tubes for personal-care and drug companies.
The legal action dates back to 2012, when Eagle, Keys, Zollicoffer
and Franklin, who are Black, first brought the putative class
action individually and on behalf of other Black temp workers
allegedly similarly denied work, against Vee Pak and three staffing
agencies, Alternative Staffing, Personnel Staffing Group and
Staffing Network, that allegedly implemented Vee Pak's alleged
discriminatory policy. Alternative Staffing and Personnel Staffing
Group, which does business as Most Valuable Personnel, or MVP, have
settled the claims against them; Vee Pak and the third staffing
agency, Staffing Network, remain in the case.
Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of Black workers who sought,
but were denied, work assignments at the three staffing agencies
from which they could have been referred to Vee Pak between 2011
and 2015.
The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted Feb. 23
by U.S. District Judge John Tharp in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Eagle and Keys were
appointed as staffing network subclass representatives, Zollicoffer
as MVP subclass representative, and Franklin as ASI subclass
representative.
The court appointed attorneys Joseph M. Sellers and Harini
Srinivasan, of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, of Washington, D.C.;
Christopher J. Williams, of National Legal Advocacy Network, of
Chicago; and Christopher J. Wilmes and Caryn C. Lederer, of Hughes
Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, of Chicago, as class counsel.
According to court documents, Eagle first sought work at Staffing
Network in March 2011. During his first visit, he allegedly
completed an application and was told to return the next morning.
This began an alleged pattern of Eagle arriving early in the
morning, signing in, and waiting for hours, allegedly to no avail.
While waiting, Eagle allegedly often observed that Staffing Network
assigned Latino workers, who arrived at Staffing Network in vans
the staffing agency provided, to Vee Pak. Eagle did not, however,
allegedly observe any Black workers on a van destined for Vee Pak.
Keys allegedly sought work from Staffing Network around the same
time as Eagle, in September 2011. Even though Staffing Network told
Keys it only accepted new applications two days a week, Keys
allegedly observed new Latino workers obtain work on other days of
the week. Keys said he was consistently among the first workers to
sign in, but the agency did not give him an assignment for two
weeks.
Keys also testified that Staffing Network assigned him to a few of
its clients but allegedly never to Vee Pak.
Zollicoffer testified that he experienced similar treatment to
Eagle and Keys at Staffing Network, although outside of the class
period in 2009 and 2010. After Zollicoffer moved to Chicago in
summer 2009, he allegedly sought work at MVP's Cicero office. The
first time he signed in and was told to come back the next day.
Although Zollicoffer allegedly returned early the next morning,
Staffing Network did not assign him work. Zollicoffer asserted that
on multiple occasions in 2009, he would travel to MVP's Cicero
office during the early morning hours on foot, seeking assignment
for temporary work. He further claimed that he observed MVP assign
Latino workers to clients on days when he was waiting for work for
multiple hours.
Franklin testified to similar alleged treatment from ASI, seeking
placements at ASI's Cicero office in September 2014. Franklin
continued to seek assignments from ASI on numerous occasions,
indicating she was available and had no work limitations. Franklin
received sporadic work placements over a period of several months,
but never at Vee Pak. She also allegedly observed ASI assigned
Latino workers, but not Black workers, to jobs when she visited the
ASI offices in person.
Employees at the three staffing agencies purportedly testified to
the defendants' discriminatory practices, which included first-hand
accounts of alleged discriminatory conduct at all levels of
management, including that Vee Pak allegedly told staffing agency
managers not to refer Black workers, that staffing agency employees
allegedly perpetuated these policies, that staffing agencies
allegedly used derogatory code words to refer to Black workers, and
that the few Black workers who did manage to bypass staffing
agencies allegedly were turned away at Vee Pak's door.
The court found testimony about specific mechanisms of
discrimination, from the upper echelons of staffing-agency
management to the staffing-agency dispatchers to the employees
facing the effects of discrimination, spoke to the existence of an
alleged discriminatory policy among the defendants.
Vee Pak and Staffing Network moved to bar the testimony of Marc
Bendick Jr., a labor economist on whose proffered opinions the
plaintiffs rely in their class-certification motion. Bendick
performed a statistical analysis of the relevant labor market that
purports to find a shortfall of staffing-agency placements of Black
workers at Vee Pak. He compared his expected representation of
Black applicants eligible to work at Vee Pak to Vee Pak's actual
hiring practices.
The defendants' motion to bar Bendick's testimony was denied. The
court said Bendick considered Black workers' potential interest in
the job, drew his relevant labor market based upon real data, and
applied a regression methodology that courts have repeatedly
endorsed. Although his results are not bulletproof, the court found
any deficiencies could be addressed on cross examination.
Vee Pak has been represented in the case by attorneys Joseph K.
Mulherin, of McDermott Will and Emery, of Chicago; and Donald S.
Rothschild and Brian M. Dougherty, of Goldstine, Skrodzki, Russian,
Nemec and Hoff, of Burr Ridge.
Staffing Network is represented by attorneys Carter A. Korey,
Elliot S. Richardson and Michele Denise Dougherty, of the firm of
Korey Richardson, of Chicago. [GN]
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gorlamari Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the fiscal period ending June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Gorlamari class suit in the the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On June 6, 2022, plaintiff Kranthi Gorlamari, or Gorlamari, filed a
putative class action complaint captioned Gorlamari v. Verrica
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors ("Defendants").
Gorlamari filed an amended complaint on January 12, 2023. The
amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose certain
manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where its contract
manufacturer produced bulk solution for the VP-102 drug device and
that such deficiencies posed a risk to the prospects for regulatory
approval of VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of Gorlamari and all other persons and
entities which purchased or otherwise acquired its securities
between May 19, 2021 and May 24, 2022.
The litigation is still in the early stages, and it intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations.
Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a clinical-stage medical
dermatology company based in West Chester, Pennsylvania.[BN]
WALMART INC: Sanchez Sues Over False and Deceptive Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01297 (N.D. Ill., March
2, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's false and deceptive
labeling with its frozen Great Value and Sam's Choice products that
uniformly promise to be "certified sustainable seafood" supported
by a prominent certification from the Marine Stewardship Council
("MSC") in the form of a blue stamp (referred to hereinafter as the
"Blue Tick") on the Product labels (hereinafter, the
"Sustainability Promise").
The prominent Sustainability Promise found on each and every
Product label deceives and misleads reasonable consumers into
believing the Products are sourced from sustainable fishing
practices. However, Walmart turns a blind eye to the unsustainable
fishing practices used in sourcing its Products and deceptively
uses the Sustainability Promise with the Blue Tick as proof of
sustainable fishing methods. However, as Walmart knew or should
have known, MSC hands out this certification to those who use
industrial fishing methods that injure marine life as well as ocean
habitats with destructive fishing methods. MSC also allows its
members to obtain their certification with a paid membership,
creating a potential conflict of interest.
Despite the MSC certification, Walmart sources its Products using
fishing practices that indiscriminately harm ocean ecosystems.
Walmart knows that conscientious consumers go shopping in search of
sustainable products, which, in turn, drives market share.
Reasonable consumers believe the fisheries providing these Products
are maintaining healthy fish populations and protecting ecosystems.
In fact, the MSC standards themselves promise such protections for
the oceans, marine life, and humans. However, MSC certified
fisheries do not provide these promised protections and, instead,
engage in the following conduct, which indisputably defies its
promise of sustainability: the suffocation and crushing of dolphins
caught in fishing nets that are then hauled onto fishing boats
while severely injured or dead; the torturously slow death of
endangered sea turtles after getting caught on large hooks meant
for haddock; and the entangling of critically endangered whales by
fishing gear causing deep wounds and intense suffering. No
reasonable consumer would believe the Products to be "sustainable"
if they knew of these fishing practices utilized in sourcing the
Products.
Reasonable consumers are not required to look beyond the label
representations to understand a company's label promises—here,
the prominent Sustainability Promise. One need look no further than
MSC's hollow promises of sustainability, which confirm a reasonable
consumer's basic expectations of sustainability in purchasing
allegedly "sustainable" products. It, therefore, shocks the
conscience to learn that Walmart uses the hollow certification
provided by MSC, an organization which Walmart knows or should know
blatantly violates its own standards and puts the very ecosystem
MSC feigns to protect in serious danger. Walmart's failure to
ensure that the Sustainability Promise was truthful is a violation
of the explicit promises that it made to consumers on each and
every Product label. Consumers reasonably expect that Walmart has
the proper, company-wide monitoring in place to verify the explicit
promise it made to consumers regarding the sustainability of the
fishing practices used to source the Products. Instead, Walmart
failed to ensure that the fisheries only sourced using sustainable
means, making its promises meaningless.
Due to Walmart's false and deceptive labeling, Plaintiff and
reasonable consumers purchased Products based upon their reliance
on Walmart's Sustainability Promise. Had Plaintiff and Class
Members been aware that Walmart's fishing techniques used to source
the Products are not sustainable, Plaintiff and Class Members would
not have purchased the Products or would not have paid more for the
Products. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class Members have been
injured by Walmart's deceptive business practices, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Walmart Great Value, frozen Pink Salmon,
frozen Pacific Cod, and Breaded Fish Sticks from a local Chicago,
Illinois Walmart store numerous times in 2022.
Walmart markets, distributes, and sells its Products at its
brick-and mortar stores and on its online marketplace.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 866.252.0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Rachel L. Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Email: rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
825 Lowcountry Boulevard, Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Email: hsegui@milberg.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Phone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
mpearson@pwfirm.com
- and -
Ari Kresch, Esq.
Wendy Kerner, Esq.
KRESCH LEGAL SERVICES PR, PLLC
1225 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 605
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (800) 529-3476
Email: akresch@1800lawfirm.com
wkerner@1800lawfirm.com
WATERMARK RETIREMENT: DeCarlo Sues Over Scheme to Defraud Seniors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DECARLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC; and
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01659-DSF-RAO (C.D. Cal.,
March 6, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for injunctive
relief and damages to stop the unlawful and fraudulent conduct of
the Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Watermark has engaged
in a scheme to defraud seniors, persons with disabilities, and
their family members at its assisted living facilities in
California by falsely representing to all residents in its
admission contracts that each resident will be provided the care
services, such as assistance with bathing or showering, assistance
with dressing and grooming, assistance with toileting, escorts to
meals and activities, night checks, assistance with meeting routine
medical and dental needs, additional housekeeping and personal
laundry, that the resident needs as determined by Watermark's
resident assessment system and in exchange for a fee, without
disclosing the material fact that its company-wide staffing
policies and practices are insufficient to meet those needs and
result in residents not receiving care services which Watermark
assessed them as needing and for which they paid, the Plaintiff
asserts.
Through its representations and nondisclosures, Watermark deceives
residents and family members and all putative class members into
paying significant amounts of money in the form of Membership Fees
to enter the facility in amounts that they otherwise would not pay,
says the suit.
WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC. operates as a nursing home.
The Company offers services such as memory care, technology, health
care, and social assistance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
Brian S. Umpierre, Esq.
STEBNER GERTLER GUADAGNI & KAWAMOTO
A Professional Law Corporation
870 Market Street, Suite 1285
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 362-9800
Facsimile: (415) 362-9801
- and -
Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
Jennifer U. Bybee, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
WATERTON RESIDENTIAL: Staples Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Chantel Staples, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. Waterton Residential, LLC d.b.a Waterton,
Pathway Employment Services LLC, and Pathway Management, LLC d.b.a
Pathway To Living, Case No. 1:23-cv-01433 (N.D. Ill, Mar. 8, 2023)
is a class and collective action claim for overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants did not factor all
incentives into the overtime rate and, therefore, substantially
underpaid its workforce when they worked overtime and earned these
incentives. Accordingly, the Defendants gave various incentive
compensation to its workers to show up to work at its assisted
living facilities to care for its residents. However, the
Defendants did not properly calculate employee overtime rates
because it did not capture all necessary compensation required. The
FLSA and IMWL require overtime wages of one and one-half times
employee's "regular rate" of pay, not the base rate, for all
overtime hours, the Plaintiff claims.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly employee for Defendants at a
skilled nursing facility in Bourbonnais, Illinois.
Waterton is a real estate investment and property management
company that focuses on U.S. multifamily, senior living and
hospitality properties and it operates and manages healthcare
facilities across Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLANOS, PC
200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 355-7590
Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
WELLS FARGO: Settles Ponzi Scheme Class Action for $3.75 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Wells Fargo agreed to pay $3.75
million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it facilitated
Equitybuild's Ponzi scheme that cost consumers millions.
The settlement benefits individuals who invested in the Equitybuild
scheme and lost money as a result of the investment.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim that Wells Fargo acted
as the depository bank in the Equitybuild investment scheme.
According to the plaintiffs, the bank is partially responsible for
the losses they sustained as a result of the Ponzi scheme.
The Equitybuild scheme aimed to buy and flip investment properties
in Chicago that would later generate rental income. In reality,
Equitybuild founders allegedly pocketed the money without
investing.
Wells Fargo hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.75
million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve allegations it
played a role in the Equitybuild scheme.
Under the terms of the settlement, investors can receive a
proportional cash payment based on the amount they lost by
investing in Equitybuild. Investors who lost a higher amount will
receive a larger share of the settlement fund. No payment estimates
are available on the settlement website.
Class members received a mailed notice which included a
pre-populated "Amount of Loss" that is lower than is accurate, they
can submit documentation with their claim form to reflect the
higher loss total.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 9, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July
13, 2023.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must file a valid
claim form and W-9 by June 8, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who invested in the Equitybuild scheme and lost money
as a result of the investment.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of losses, if claimants wish to contest their "Amount
of Loss"
Claim Form
CLICK https://www.uniteddentalsettlement.com/LogIn TO FILE A CLAIM
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
06/08/2023
Case Name
Chang, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 4:19-cv-01973-HSG,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Final Hearing
07/13/2023
Settlement Website
EquitybuildSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
EquityBuild Settlement
C/O Rust Consulting, Inc. - 7691
PO Box 2599
Faribault, MN 55021-9599
833-472-1991
Class Counsel
Alan L Rosca
Paul J Scarlato
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
Defense Counsel
David C Powell
Carolee Anne Hoover
K Issac deVyver
Nellie Hestin
MCGUIREWOODS LLP [GN]
WILLIAM JAMES: Zuniga Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Ignacio Luna Zuniga, and Milton Danilo Sanchez Guachun, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. William James
Bushell Corp., Daniel Yomtobian Corp., Nicholas Benhammou, Daniel
Yomtobian, and James Bushell (a/k/a William Bushell), Case No.
1:23-cv-01923 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023), is brought against the
Defendants' to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages,
unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and violations of the New
York State Labor Law ("NYLL") and their supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations.
The Plaintiffs were required to work in excess of 40 hours per
week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for those hours. No notification,
either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever
given to the Plaintiffs regarding wages are required under the FLSA
or NYLL. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiffs a statement
of wages, as required by NYLL.
The Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiffs of their rate
of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as
required by NYLL. The Defendant's failure to provide accurate wage
notices and accurate wage statements denied Plaintiffs their
statutory right to receive true and accurate information about the
nature of their employment and related compensation policies. The
Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs at the rate of one and one-half
times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty
per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed as instillation workers at the
Defendants' solar photovoltaic (i.e., solar panel) system
installation companies.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control a group of solar
photovoltaic system installation companies primarily doing business
as "Radiant Solar" and "Solar Program", located in Bronx, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, New York 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
WILLIAM K. MARSHALL: Stump Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against William K. Marshall,
III. The case is styled as Jedadiah Stump, Adonnis Shephard, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
William K. Marshall, III, individually and in his official capacity
as the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections
and Rehabilitation; R. S. Mutter, individually as the Former
Superintendent of Stevens Correctional Center and/or McDowell
County Corrections; Curtis Dixon, individually as the
Superintendent of Stevens Correctional Center and/or McDowell
County Corrections; Tanganika Martin, individually as the
Institutional Parole Officer at Stevens Correctional Center and/or
McDowell County Corrections; and The McDowell County Commission;
Case No. 1:23-cv-00184 (S.D.W. Va., March 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Prisoner
Civil Rights.
William K. Marshall III is the commissioner of the state Division
of Corrections and Rehabilitation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell A. Williams, Esq.
NEW TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES
430 Harper Park Drive
Beckley, WV 25801
Phone: (304) 250-6017
Fax: (304) 250-6012
Email: russell@newlawoffice.com
- and -
Stephen P. New, Esq.
P. O. Box 5516
Beckley, WV 25801
Phone: (304) 250-6017
Fax: (304) 250-6012
Email: steve@newlawoffice.com
WORKDAY INC: Faces Class Action Over AI Tool Hiring Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph C O'Keefe, Esq., Edward C. Young, Esq., and Hannah D.
Morris, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National
Law Review, report that as we have previously reported, there are
novel risks associated with employer use of AI tools in the
workplace. While such tools have caught the attention of the EEOC
and state and local legislatures, we have yet to see a
proliferation of litigation in this area. However, that may soon be
changing. On February 21, 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed
against Workday, Inc. ("Workday") in the Northern District Court of
California, alleging that the company engaged in illegal race, age,
and disability discrimination by offering its customers
applicant-screening tools that use biased AI algorithms.
The lead plaintiff, Derek Mobley, an African American male over 40
who suffers from anxiety and depression, applied for 80-100 jobs on
Workday since 2018 and was denied employment from each one, despite
holding a bachelor's and associate's degree. Mobley seeks to
represent a class of all current or former applicants since June 3,
2019, that are African American, over the age of 40, or disabled
and that have not been "referred and/or permanently hired" as a
result of Workday's alleged discriminatory AI practices.
According to the complaint, Workday provides screening tools to its
customers, which allows them to use "discriminatory and subjective
judgments" when evaluating applicants, and even allows for
"preselection" of applicants not within certain protected
categories. Mobley alleges that the administration and
dissemination of this screening tool constituted a "pattern or
practice" of discrimination and that this conduct amounted to
intentional and disparate impact discrimination.
The putative class seeks a declaratory judgment that the practices
are unlawful, a preliminary and permanent injunction against
Workday from engaging in the allegedly discriminatory policies and
practices, and an order that Workday implement "policies,
practices, and programs" that allow all minorities access to equal
employment opportunities. The class also seeks monetary damages,
including back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.
Takeaway
This case is groundbreaking as it is one of the first to allege
discrimination based on an employer's use of AI tools in hiring.
With the increasing use of AI in the employment sector, employers
must be aware of the legal implications of using such tools. The
EEOC and other governmental agencies are paying close attention to
the potential for discrimination. It is imperative that employers
stay updated on the developing law in this area. [GN]
WORKERS CREDIT: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due May 5
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Encarnacion v. Workers
Credit Union, Case No. 4:21-cv-40077 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
Denise J. Casper entered an order granting motion to amend
scheduling order as follows:
-- Motions for class certification to May 5, 2023
be filed by:
-- with opposition due: July 12, 2023
-- Fact discovery to be completed by: July 20, 2023
-- The Plaintiff's expert disclosures July 20, 2023
due by:
-- with depositions by: Aug. 31, 2023
-- The Defendant's expert disclosures Aug. 17, 2023
due by:
-- with depositions by: Sept. 28, 2023
-- Expert discovery to be completed by: Sept. 28, 2023
-- Motions for Summary Judgment to be Oct. 19, 2023
filed by:
-- with opposition due: Nov. 16, 2023
-- Hearing on motions for class Aug. 3, 2023
certification set for:
The nature of suit states contract -- diversity-contract dispute.
Workers Credit Union is a state-chartered credit union
headquartered in Littleton, Massachusetts.[CC]
YBJ INCORPORATED: Miranda Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Moises Gilberto Jimenez Miranda, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. YBJ INCORPORATED, YOSEF HECHTER,
ROBERT BERK and MIGUEL OVALLES, as individuals, Case No.
1:23-cv-01841 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages for Defendants' egregious
violations of the Federal and New York State labor.
Although the Plaintiff regularly worked 51 hours, or more hours per
week during the relevant statutory period, the Defendants did not
pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for all his hours
regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. 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. The
Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records as required by
both NYLL and the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an order taker,
packer and stocker while performing related miscellaneous duties
for the Defendants, from August 2015 until July 2021.
YBJ INCORPORATED, 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
ZILLOW GROUP: Interim Class Counsel Appointed in Software Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Zillow Group, Inc. Session Replay Software
Litigation. This Document Refers to: All Actions, Master File No.
2:22-cv-01282 (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robert of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
grants the Moving Plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class
counsel.
On Jan. 18, 2023, the Court entered an order granting the parties'
proposed stipulation to consolidate actions and set scheduling
deadlines, which included a process for submitting applications for
appointment of interim class counsel or other designated counsel
either individually or as part of a proposed leadership structure.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Natalie Perkins, Kenneth Hasson,
Ashley Popa, Mark Conlisk, Michael Dekhtyar, Jill Strelzin, Jill
Adams, Ryan Margulis' motion to appoint interim class counsel. No
party opposes the motion.
Judge Robert has considered the motion, the Moving Plantiffs'
submissions in support of the motion, the relevant portions of the
record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, he grants the
Moving Plaintiffs' motion.
Judge Robert appoints the following attorneys to serve as the
Interim Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g):
a. Co-Lead Counsel: Gary F. Lynch, Lynch Carpenter, LLP;
b. Co-Lead Counsel: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott+Scott Attorneys
at Law LLP; and
c. Liaison Counsel: Kim D. Stephens, Tousley Brain Stephens
PLLC
Mr. Lynch and Mr. Guglielmo will serve as the Interim Class Counsel
with responsibility for managing the distribution of work amongst
the Plaintiffs' counsel and overseeing compliance with the duties
and responsibilities set forth in the Order.
The Interim Class Counsel will confer with the counsel for the
Defendants an attempt to agree on appropriate preservation and
confidentiality orders. If agreement cannot be reached, each side
will present its own proposal for the Court's determination.
The Clerk has a detailed timekeeping protocol for monitoring and
documenting costs and computing of potential common benefit or
class action time including timekeeping, submission of records, and
other procedures applicable to attorneys' fees and expenses. All
the Plaintiffs' counsel will then comply with the terms of this
protocol.
Within 45 days of entry of the Order, the Interim Class Counsel
will file a Consolidated Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc6u9uab from Leagle.com.
[*] Attorney Discusses ChatGPT Class Action Implications
--------------------------------------------------------
Brandon L. Spurlock, Esq., of Duane Morris LLP, in an article for
Lexology, disclosed that daily news reports about ChatGPT are
ubiquitous. Can it replace legal tasks undertaken by humans (with
law degrees and state bar licenses)? Can lawyers use it to enhance
their legal work? Quite naturally, this raises the issue of whether
ChatGPT will make its way into class action litigation -- where the
stakes are enormous, and the workloads of lawyers involved in those
cases are enormous.
ChatGPT And The Legal Profession
Launched in November 2022, Open AI's ChatGPT has garnered much
attention across the globe for its human-like ability to engage in
conversations and generate content that is often indistinguishable
from what we would expect talented professionals such as
journalists, authors, professors (and even lawyers) to produce. But
how does this technology work and what does it mean for the legal
profession?
GPT stands for generative pre-trained transformer, which is a
language model trained on a large corpus of data. Through
supervised and machine learning, the model analyzes tons of words,
with each word having a score. It then chooses a word with a high
score and moves on to the next one. Every choice is determined by
complex math and huge amounts of data, which allows it to produce
text that is both coherent and accurate (most of the time). So not
only is it able to tap into vast amounts of vocabulary and
information, but also it understands words in context, which helps
mimic speech patterns while dispatching an encyclopedic knowledge.
How smart is ChatGPT? Well news articles report that it is smart
enough to pass an MBA exam from a top business school, a Google
coding interview, and several law school essay exams, albeit with
less than stellar scores.
What Does This Mean For Class Action Litigation?
For the millions who have experimented with ChatGPT, it is easy to
be mesmerized by its capabilities and wonder what it means for
those white collar professions that many believed were impervious
to displacement by AI, particularly lawyers. For instance, when you
type in a simple question such as "how do you certify a class
action lawsuit?" ChatGPT will respond:
In order for a class action lawsuit to be certified, the court must
determine that the class of plaintiffs is sufficiently numerous,
that there are common questions of law or fact among the class,
that the claims or defenses of the class are typical of the claims
or defenses of the individual class members, and that the
representative plaintiff(s) will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.
This is a far cry from a winning brief, but the possibilities are
instantly apparent. And if you talk to attorneys who have asked the
program to prepare work product like an insurance reservation of
rights letter, they will tell you that they got a surprisingly
workable template from which to start the editing process. The
technology is so promising that some service providers have rolled
out a generative AI tool built on a version of OpenAI's latest
models, which is enhanced for legal work. The tool allows access to
legal content with efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
What Are The Pitfalls?
Despite the obvious promise exhibited by ChatGPT's current
abilities, the technology is still in its infancy. In fact, certain
results obtained from ChatGPT are often riddled with errors and, in
some cases, outright falsehoods. In one instance, it referenced a
non-existent California ethics provision. In situations like these,
where generative AI appears to simply make things up, and do so
with complete and utter confidence, the tech industry has termed
this a "hallucination." With these risks in mind, professional
liability carries are issuing warnings to law firms on the
professional responsibility and risk management implications of the
technology.
What's Next?
Given the promise of ChatGPT, tempered by the associated risks,
corporate counsel are certain to ask themselves what comes next for
this technology. Right now, for things like contracts, policies,
and other legal documents that tend to be normative, generative
AI's capabilities in gathering and synthesizing information can do
a lot of heavy lifting. Therefore, the legal industry should be on
the lookout for emerging technologies, like ChatGPT, that can
tackle such low hanging fruit, with the immediate benefit being
potential cost savings for corporate clients.
As law firms and corporate legal departments contemplate the future
of using this tool, it is noteworthy that there is an intellectual
property class action pending in federal court in California -- J.
Doe 1, et al. v. Github, Inc., et al., No. 3:22-CV-06823 (N.D.
Cal.) -- alleging that OpenAI profits from the work of open-source
programmers by violating the conditions of their open-source
licenses. Some commentators believe that the future of AI may well
hinge on the outcome of this lawsuit, and it will no doubt be
monitored closely by those in the legal industry interested this
topic.
In the meantime, if attorneys are feeling uneasy about how AI
technology is impacting the profession, try asking ChatGPT "Is
being a lawyer a good profession?" and one can take solace in
ChatGPT's answer: "Yes, it can be a very rewarding profession.
Lawyers can have a big impact in society and can have a great deal
of job satisfaction." The industry will have to wait and see if
this answer holds over time. [GN]
[*] BIPA Class Action Privacy Lawsuits Continue to Rise in 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam B. Korn, Esq., Sebastian A. Navarro, Esq., and Todd Rosenbaum,
Esq., of Mintz, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), enacted in 2008,
was one of the first state laws to address commercial collection of
biometric data. Biometric data includes an iris scan, a
fingerprint, a voiceprint, or a scan of hand or face geometry.
Moreover, BIPA contains a comprehensive set of privacy protections,
including requiring informed consent prior to collection of
biometric data, a limited right to disclose biometric data, and
most significantly, a private right of action for individuals
aggrieved by BIPA violations. For such aggrieved individuals, BIPA
provides statutory damages up to $1,000 for each negligent
violation and up to $5,000 for each intentional or reckless
violation.
The private cause of action permitted by BIPA was largely
inconsequential for companies after the statute's enactment. But
that changed in 2019 when the Illinois Supreme Court in Rosenbach
v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. held that a plaintiff can be
considered an "aggrieved person" under BIPA and therefore entitled
to statutory damages without alleging an actual injury. In other
words, the Court held that a party does not need to have suffered a
tangible or monetary injury in order to recover under BIPA; damages
are presumed in the case of a BIPA violation. Unsurprisingly, this
led to a significant uptick in BIPA lawsuits, including a class
action lawsuit against Facebook in 2020 alleging the company
collected biometric data without users' consent, in connection with
which Facebook agreed to a $650 million settlement, one of the
largest consumer privacy settlements in U.S. history. Similarly, in
October 2022, the first-ever BIPA class action jury trial led to a
$228 million dollar verdict.
There is no sign that these massive BIPA verdicts and settlements
will slow down. In fact, in February 2023, the Illinois Supreme
Court in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. addressed the critical
question of how long the statute of limitations for BIPA claims
lasts. BIPA does not expressly provide a statute of limitations
period; the plaintiffs argued that a five-year catchall limitation
period provided in another Illinois statute should apply to all
claims, whereas the defendants argued that a one-year limitation
period for publication of private material should apply to all BIPA
claims. The court held that BIPA claims other than those relating
to publication are subject to a five-year statute of limitations in
part due to the legislature's intent to greater regulate privacy
consumer privacy. Moreover, the court held that a longer statutory
period also comports with public safety aims by allowing aggrieved
individuals sufficient time to discover a violation and file an
action.
In February 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court in Cothron v. White
Castle System, Inc. further expanded actionable claims under BIPA
by clarifying that BIPA claims accrue each time biometric data is
unlawfully collected and disclosed. This has the potential to
significantly increase damages due to BIPA's language permitting
liquidated damages for "each violation" of the statute, although
the Court noted that a trial court may exercise its discretion in
fashioning an award to prevent damages that would result in
"financial destruction of a business." See our Mintz Privacy blog
post discussing Cothron in detail here.
Although Illinois is the only state that currently has enacted
comprehensive biometric privacy laws, several other states,
including California, have statutory privacy protections in place.
The California Consumer Privacy Right Act (CCPA), enacted in 2018,
was the first step in California's ramp-up of its privacy statutes.
The CCPA created new protections for consumers, including the right
to know about personal information collected by businesses and the
right to opt out of such collection. In 2020, California voters
approved the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which expanded
upon the protections in the CCPA, including the right to limit the
use and disclosure of consumers' "personal information" collected
by businesses, including biometric information. As of January 1,
2023, the CCPA, as amended by the CPRA, permits consumers to
recover damages between $100 and $750 per incident involving a data
breach or disclosure of personal information due to a business's
failure to take reasonable measures to protect consumer data.
Also pursuant to the amended CCPA, California established a new
regulatory agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency, to
enforce California's privacy laws under the CCPA and CPRA. This is
the first government agency in the United States dedicated to
enforcing data privacy laws. Significantly, the agency is charged
with creating new regulations to require businesses "whose
processing of consumers' personal information presents significant
risk to consumers' privacy or security" to perform detailed annual
cybersecurity audits. Further, the CPRA grants the Agency the power
to assess administrative fines up to $7,500 for each violation of
the CPRA. While not as comprehensive as BIPA, California's privacy
statutes underscore the need for businesses to take privacy
considerations seriously.
Nine other states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland,
have recently introduced biometric legislation. Nearly all of these
states modeled their biometric legislation after BIPA, including
providing a private right of action and allowing plaintiffs to
recover of statutory damages. Several states have expanded upon the
protections included in BIPA. Massachusetts' legislation, for
example, provides larger damages awards in class actions by setting
damages at "no less than $5,000 per violation." Maryland's
legislation permits the state attorney general to impose civil
penalties of up to $10,000 per violation in addition to a including
a private right of action.
While it may take several more years for other states to adopt
comprehensive biometric privacy laws such as BIPA, public demand
for increased privacy regulations could make that day come sooner.
The evolving legal landscape around data privacy should encourage
data holders to regularly assess their practices concerning the use
of consumer data. [GN]
[*] High Court Approves Use of CPR 19.6 Representative Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The High Court has approved the use of the CPR 19.6 representative
action mechanism in an "opt-out" class action brought by Commission
Recovery (Commission Recovery Ltd v Marks & Clerk LLP and Long Acre
Renewals [2023] EWHC 398). This is an important judgment, as it is
the first examination of the CPR 19.6 mechanism since the Supreme
Court's ruling in Llovd v Google [2021] UKSC 50 and it indicates
that the courts are willing to take a flexible and pro-claimant
approach.
Summary
As explained in our Law-Now (available here), the Supreme Court
judgment in Lloyd v Google lowered the risk for data protection
class actions seeking damages for "loss of control" of data, but it
also increased the risk for other categories of class actions.
In a judgment dated 24 February 2023, the High Court arguably took
an even more permissive approach than the Supreme Court in
approving an opt-out representative class action.
Three key themes arise from the High Court's approach:
1. the "same interest" test has a low threshold, and rather than
examining commonality of interest, the court is in fact assessing
whether there are prejudicial conflicts between class members'
claims - if there is no prejudicial conflict, the "same interest"
test is met;
2. to the extent that the High Court identified areas where there
might be issues requiring individualised evidence from class
members, the court did not rule that the representative action
mechanism was inappropriate - rather it allowed the claim to
continue in order that solutions might be identified;
3. related to the first two themes, the court took a fairly
permissive, and therefore pro-claimant, approach.
Factual background
The decision arises from an application made by the defendants for
the claimant's claim to be struck out on the bases that the present
'lead' secret commission claim had been ineffectively assigned and
the pleadings were deficient, and an order pursuant to CPR 19.6(2)
that the claimant may not act as a representative pursuant to CPR
19.6(1). This Law-Now focusses on the latter issue.
The claimant, Commission Recovery Ltd, was incorporated for the
purposes of bringing the present claim. Its position is that it is
an assignee of both the property in secret commissions, or common
law bribes, and claims relating to them. One such secret commission
was assigned from a now liquidated company which had engaged the
first defendant to provide it with intellectual property rights
advice - work such as making first applications for novel patents.
The claimant alleges that when the renewal of clients' intellectual
property rights were due, the first defendant's practice was to
refer that work to a third party renewals service and that, prior
to 2018, it failed to disclose to its clients that the second
defendant received commission from the third party for doing so. It
is alleged that those secret commissions totalled "some tens of
millions of pounds".
The claimant seeks to bring a CPR 19.6, i.e., an "opt out",
representative action on behalf of a large cohort of the first
defendant's clients seeking repayment of the commissions.
Lloyd v Google - a recap
The High Court's decision is best understood in the context of two
of the key elements of the Supreme Court's judgment in Lloyd v
Google where:
* the court relaxed the "same interest" test requirement for the
representative action mechanism, which historically had been
applied stringently; and
* the court observed that what limits the scope of using the
representative action mechanism for claims seeking damages is that
calculating those damages would typically necessitate "an
individualised assessment which raises no common issues and [which]
cannot fairly or effectively be carried out without the
participation in the proceedings of the individuals concerned."
Following Lloyd v Google, it was clear that the representative
action mechanism could be used in two ways. First, to establish
liability or determine other common issues. This might facilitate a
"bifurcated approach" where claimant law firms could use the
representative action mechanism to establish liability and then run
a book building exercise to bring opt-in claims seeking damages.
However, a funder that supported that first stage of the litigation
had no clear ability to be paid for that investment, and the
finding of liability could create free riders, i.e., other funders
and claimant law firms running competing book builds in reliance on
the liability judgment. Second, to achieve a class-wide award of
damages. This second use is far more attractive for funders, but it
will only be available for limited types of cases where damages can
be "calculated on a basis that is common to all the members of the
class" and where no individualised evidence is required from class
members.
The High Court's judgment in Commission Recovery
The present claim was issued before Lloyd v Google was handed down
and seeks to address both liability and damage. That might explain
why the defendants deployed what the court described as a
"comprehensive attempt on the part of the Defendants to identify
issues facing clients of the First Defendant, including
differences, complexities and difficulties."
Turning to the three key themes in the judgment:
1. It is not so much "same interest", as it is lack of prejudice to
those interests
The defendants argued that the "same interest" test was not met in
a variety of respects. Some of the criticisms of the claimant's
approach developed in oral argument were:
* the need for an inquiry into the state of knowledge of each
individual client as to whether they were aware of the commission;
* whether as a matter of fact any given client instructed the
third party as a result of the first defendant's referral;
* the potential for conflicts of interest between class
members;
* temporal differences between each claim, and the possibility
that claims may straddle the date-limits that the claimant sought
to impose on the definition of the class;
* the possibility of claims falling within the class definition,
but also being time-barred;
the potential for conflict of interest between the claimant as
against other members of the class; and
* difficulties in applying a singular remedy to all class
members who may otherwise have opted for a different remedy.
The way that Knowles J addressed these was, consistent with paras.
69 and 72 of Lloyd v Google, to approach the "same interest" test
with a view to ascertaining whether the differences between
individual class members created a prejudicial conflict between
them, rather than ascertaining that they were all uniformly
aligned:
"what matters is whether the "same interest" requirement is met,
and in particular whether the points involve class members affected
by an issue prejudicing the position of others. None do."
Knowles J explained that there was no conflict between class
members including on two key points:
* The fact that one class member's claim may on evidence or
disclosure turn out to be out of scope or time-barred would not
prejudice the other class members.
* The claim was not formulated in a way that capped the
defendants' overall liability, and therefore the success or
recovery of one class member would not prejudice the interests of
another.
In light of the Supreme Court's ruling and the present ruling, the
"same interest" test might be better labelled the "absence of
prejudicial conflict" test.
2. Class-wide damages, or individualised evidence?
The defendants also argued that for some issues - in particular
limitation and knowledge - individualised evidence could be
required to make good the claims. For example, some class members
may have been informed of and consented to the commission
arrangement.
Knowles J did not see a need for the court to be completely
satisfied at an early stage of proceedings that common evidence
will be available, or that there would never be a requirement for
individualised evidence as a prerequisite for a party to be granted
permission to act as a representative pursuant to CPR 19.1(1).
Rather, and in circumstances where the allegations in issue were
serious and set against the risk that the claim would otherwise not
proceed, he preferred to allow the claim to continue to provide the
opportunity for solutions be identified and for careful case
management to assist in resolving difficult issues. A key
consideration was born out of an impression that the defendant
likely held information that may resolve certain of the concerns it
was relying upon at the hearing.
The defendants also contended that if allowed to progress, the
claim would result in proceedings that would not resolve all
possible secret commission claims against them (exposing them, they
said, to a form of abuse of process). On this point the Court held
that:
"it is not a requirement of the CPR 19.6 jurisdiction that these
proceedings will "necessarily resolve all possible claims". In the
present case the Claimant has sought to draw the definition as best
as it is able in the circumstances known to it."
Knowles J noted that ultimately, evidence might not become
available and "clients might be unresponsive" or that the
"litigation could break down". Consistent both with this
observation and with his approach in permitting the claim to
proceed even though solutions of common evidence had not been
identified for all issues, he stated: "If appropriate the
Defendants may ask the Court to look at the position under CPR
19.6(2) again." He also said that CPR 19.6 "is not a "once and for
all time" provision; it is dealing with a question that may be of
continuing relevant, and that question may be re-examined where
appropriate."
3. The High Court adopted a fairly permissive approach
Having determined that he had the jurisdiction to permit use of the
CPR 19.6 mechanism, Knowles J then had to exercise his discretion.
Noting the potential challenges with common proof on limitation and
knowledge yet permitting the claim to proceed itself indicates a
permissive approach, but perhaps most telling is Knowles J's
statement:
"If the choice is this or nothing, then better this." This
suggests a weighing exercise between permitting potentially
imperfect claims to proceed further as against leaving claimants
with no remedy whatsoever.
Implications
The representative action has been part of English procedural law
for hundreds of years, although it has rarely been used to seek
damages. Lloyd v Google represented a new approach to assessing the
suitability of the mechanism - including through relaxing the "same
interest" test.
The decision in Commission Recovery is the first deployment of the
new approach, and - this time, unlike in Lloyd v Google - the court
permitted the claim to proceed, at least for now.
This application of the new approach suggests that a degree of
latitude may be given to the practical challenges of common proof.
On this Knowles J provided some closing thoughts in an endnote to
his judgment:
"…we are still perhaps in the foothills of the modern, flexible
use of CPR 19.6, alongside the costs, costs risk and funding rules
and practice of today and still to come. In a complex world, the
demand for legal systems to offer means of collective redress will
increase not reduce."
A further important practical point is that, unlike the Collective
Proceedings Order mechanism available for competition damages
claims, CPR 19.6 does not have any overt mechanism to enable
funders to recover their costs. Knowles J suggested, obiter, that
the courts may use existing procedures and mechanisms to address
this issue:
"subject to fuller argument, in my view the situation is one that
the common law and equity can be expected to be able to resolve
where necessary…The Court might…allow reasonable costs of the
recovery achieved to be paid before disbursement to the members of
the class. Other approaches and techniques may fall for
consideration at the appropriate time."
For further information, please email the authors or your usual CMS
contact. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***