/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230317.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 17, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 56
Headlines
1-WORLD GLOBES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADASTRA LABS: Faces Class Suit Over Commercialized Cocaine
ADT PIZZA: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
ADVANCED MARKETING: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Harris Suit
ALASKA: Kamkoff Due Process Suit Removed to D. Alaska
ALLCASES, REEKSTIN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALPHABET INC: Court Strikes Bid to Certify Class
AMGEN INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
ANYTHING IN STAINED GLASS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: 90-Day Deadline for Filing Class Cert Adjourned in Scott
APRIO LLP: Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply
APRIO LLP: Lechter, et al., File Class Cert. Exhibits
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Ex-Players File $1B Concussion Class Action
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: To Spend $25-M on Concussion Study After Suit
BEE LINE STYLE: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BELLABU BEAR: Magruder Fraud Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
BENDER ROSENTHAL: Green Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Order on Bids for Class Certification Entered
BHP BILLITON: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Place Exhibits Under Seal
BLOOMINGDALE'S: Mikulsky Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
BLUE LABEL APPAREL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Dismissal of BMW i3 REx Class Suit Affirmed
BOGNER DIRECT US: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BOSTON MEDICAL: Nolan Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
BOTTOMS UP GENTLEMEN'S: Prasch Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
BOWL AMERICA: Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Before March 20
BOYLAND AUTO: Class Certification Deadline Extended to May 22
BUFFALO WILD: Faces Class Suit Over Boneless Wings' False Ads
BUFFALO, NY: April 1 Extension of Fact Discovery Sought
BUMBLE BEE: Nasser Sues Over Products' Sustainability Labels
CALIFORNIA: Second Settlement in LTC Suit Granted Prelim Approval
CANADA: Civilian Members May Be Eligible to Claim Compensation
CANTOR FITZGERALD: McLoughlin Sues Over Partnership Agreements
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
CHEMICAL GUYS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLUB 360: Bazarganfard, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
COLONIAL PENN: Kelley Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Conditional Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 31
CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT: Underpays Construction Managers, Collier Says
CREDIT BUREAU: Eighth Cir. Vacates Judgment in Bassett Class Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Calhoun Suit Over Drop in Share Price
CREDIT SUISSE: Suit Seeks to Certify Narrowed Trader Class
CRYSTAL BAY CASINO: Mendoza Files Suit in D. Nevada
DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Seek to Modify Class Cert. Scheduling Order
DON'S APPLIANCES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 10
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Seeks Decertification of Vasquez Class Claims
EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NC: Myrick Seeks Extension of Class Cert Filing
ELECTRIC SUPPLY: Directors Mismanage Retirement Fund, Cothran Says
ELECTROLUX HOME: Plummer Sues Over Misleading Representation
EXPRESS LIEN: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid in 30 Days
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Caston Sues Over Mefloquine-Based Medications
FAMILY FIRST: Arias Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
FASHION NOVA: Order on Class Certification Bids Entered in Shabtai
FCA U.S. LLC: Phillips Files Suit in D. Delaware
FEIN SUCH: White Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 2nd Circuit
FIFTH LABOR: Chavez Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
FOREVER SIGNS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Rodriguez Alleges
FORTRA LLC: Hubler Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of Data
FTX TRADING: Ex-NBA Shaquille O'Neal May Face Securities Suit
FULL SPECTRUM: FLSA Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
G11 SECURITY INC: Diaz Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
GENERAL MOTORS: Dismissal of Destination Charge Class Suit Affirmed
GLOBAL FINISHING: Ruling on Conditional Class Cert. Bid Delayed
GREATER CINCINNATI: Kleinhans, et al., Seek Approval of Settlement
HAIER US: Gas Stoves Produce Health-Harming Pollutants, Drake Says
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 30
HEALTH RECOVERY: Bids to File Documents Under Seal Partly Granted
HIGHMARK HEALTH: Hollandsworth Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
HOLIDAY INN: Parties in Lingard Must Confer Class Cert. Deadline
HONEY POT: McAuley Sues Over False Representation
HV GLOBAL: Bid to File Class Status Due August 18
IFIT INC: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Treinish Suit to 9th Cir.
IKEA US: Agrees to Settle FCTA Class Action for $24.25 Million
IMANI LOUNGE: Conditional Collective Status of Dancers Sought
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Suit Seeks to Certify Default Judgment Class
INSURANCE COMPANY: Rain Files Bid for Class Certification
JRN INC: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Spencer Class Suit
JUUL LABS: Plymouth School Board Okays Class Action Settlement
KEURIG GREEN: Class Action Settlement in Smith Gets Final Nod
KEVIN CARR: Bids for Class Certification Must be Filed by July 14
KODY KINSLEY: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Extended in Timothy
KOLD TRANS: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 23
L'OREAL USA: Burton Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
LAUNDRESS LLC: All Fact Discovery Must be Completed by Sept. 1
LEHIGH VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Patients' Info
LENSBABY INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LESSEREVIL LLC: Cogswell Sues Over Deceptive Food Product Ads
LG ALTAMONTE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Toxic Emissions in Gas Range Stoves
LG ELECTRONICS: Refrigerators Have Defective Ice Maker, Suit Says
LG ELECTRONICS: Sherzai Sues Over Pollutants in Gas Stoves
LIBERTY HOME: Larios Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
LIDIA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Mackic Suit Says
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Newman Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Practice
LIQUID FBA GOLD: Guevara Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Gabourel
MARTIAL ARTS WORLD: Latorre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MARYLAND: Fitch Seeks to File Third Bid to Certify Class
MATTRESS FIRM: Rodriguez Sues Over Secret Reporting of PII
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Glasper v. Blackbaud
MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
MENA HOSPITAL: Schoolfield Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Russell Sues Over Defective Rear Subframes
MILLER & MILONE: Baez Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
MISS BABS HAND-DYED: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MMM CONSUMER: Seeks Arbitration in Eppes Suit
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Quilez Sues Over Misleading Representation
NES GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Safety Advisors' OT Wages Under FLSA
NEW JERSEY: Palomo Seeks to Certify Class Action
NOOM INC: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communication
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Consolidation of 18 Derailment Class Suggested
NORTH STAR: Burns Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
O'REILLY AUTO: Vvanti Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
O2 LIVING LLC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PA HOTEL: Class Cert Opening Brief Extended to April 10
PACIFIC FUEL & AUTO: Simmons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PAPA INC: July 6 Extension of Class Cert Hearing Sought
PAXOS RESTAURANTS: Houtz Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Tips
PILLPACK LLC: Ct. Sets Class Cert Schedule, Trial Date in Williams
PISA GROUP: Court OKs William Amended Bid for Class Certification
PROUD MOMENTS: Malkin Must File Class Cert Bid by May 31
QUALTRICS INTERNATIONAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Silver Lake Merger
REVENETICS: Faces Class Action Over Cyberattack, Data Breach
REVENTICS LLC: Jones Files Suit in D. Colorado
RICH DOSS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Daynes Class Suit Alleges
RNK INNOVATIONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROBINS & MORTON: Mitchell Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
ROOFLINE INC: Jimenez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
S. FELDMAN HOUSEWARES: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SAFAVIEH INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SALZ GROUP: Garner Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAM ASH MUSIC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Hasson Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Morton Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
SANDESTIN BEACH: Gardner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SCHALLER MANUFACTURING: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SEA COAST REALTY: Faces Class Suit Over Realtors' Commissions
SEAGEN INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Proposed Sale to Pfizer
SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Green Files Suit in N.D. California
SERVICE KING: Class Cert Supplemental Filing Extended to March 17
SHERRY-LEHMANN INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: Remodeling Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
SIG SAUER: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Bid set for Nov. 14
SIGNET BUILDERS: Court Extends Briefing Deadlines in Vanegas
SKY CHEFS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 20, 2024
SMITH GAMBRELL: Faces Owens Class Suit Over Clients' Data Breach
SMITH GAMBRELL: Livingston Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
SOLARJUICE TECHNOLOGY: Leach Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due May 2
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: May 2 Deadline for Class Cert. Filing Sought
SQUID SOCKS: Qualilab Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
STAR NURSING: Class Action Settlement in Massey Gets Final OK
STATE FARM GENERAL: Pitkin Files Suit in N.D. California
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Bycko Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SUNTIGER INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SVB FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12
SVB FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
SYNEOS HEALTH: Order on Class Cert Bids Entered in Scurlock Suit
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Discovery Due Jan. 16, 2024
TARGET CORP: Kahn's False Price Ad Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT: McCree Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TESLA ENERGY: Dismissal of Fallah's Class Action Claims Reversed
TEXAS SWD COMPANY: Hickman Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
THEORY LLC: Bid to Stay Discovery Deadlines Tossed in Ezra
THEORY LLC: Class Cert Fact Discovery Must be Completed by June 23
TODD GREINER: Lopez, et al., Seek Leave to File Reply Brief
TORCH ELECTRONICS: Romano Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
TORY BURCH: Illegally Overcharges Tax Monies, James Suit Alleges
TOWN SHOP: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TR STRONG: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Carreno Suit Alleges
TRIDENT RESTORATION: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
TRUMBULL INS: Suit Seeks to file Certain Class Cert Exhibits
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Must Oppose Class Certification by May 18
UNILEVER UNITED: Court OK's Viscara Class Certification Bid
UNITED PARCEL: Thistlewaite Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNITED STATES: First Amended Class Suit Filed Against SSA
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND: Thomson Appeals Judgment to 1st Cir.
US TOY CO: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VANDERBILT HEALTH: Fagan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VERTEX ENERGY: Shareholder Class Action Case Dismissed
VPC IMPACT: ATG Fund Sues Over Self-Interested Misappropriation
WALGREEN CO: Bryant ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
WELLS FARGO BANK: Munoz Sues Over Unauthorized Transfers
WILLIS-KNIGHTON MEDICAL: Horton Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
WISCONSIN: Vargo, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
WYNN RESORTS: Judge Allows Shareholders' Class Action to Proceed
WYNN RESORTS: Schuster Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
XAVIER BECERRA: Bid for Enforcement of Initial Injunction Sought
XTO ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply Brief
YAZAM INC: Woodford Files Bid for Class Action Certification
[*] Class Action Defense Spending Up 8% to 3.46 Billion in 2022
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,598 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Corp.'s Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Faces A&E Exposure Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Has $248,000 Loss & LAE Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Hathaway Has $2.1BB Claim Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders FirstSource Faces Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $92MM Loss for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Pending PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Defends190 Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $233MM Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Defends 10,561 Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $11.9MM Net A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Faces Numerous Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp & Subsidiaries Defend PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Defends Asbestos Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kite Realty Confirms "ACBM" in Properties
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,483 Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has $320MM Asbestos Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Int'l. Has $121.3MM Gross Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair's Subsidiaries Had 689 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 86 Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer & Subsidiaries Still Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Subsidiary Faces PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Faces Multiple PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech Defends Asbestos-Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Defends Asbestos Actions in Canada
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 1,530 Exposure Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Tech Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 426 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Group Reports $1.9MM A&E Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Faces 232 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vector Group's Subsidiary Defends 16 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Berkley Records $20MM A&E Claims Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Tech. Faces 550 Exposure Lawsuits
*********
1-WORLD GLOBES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1-World Globes &
Maps, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. 1-World Globes & Maps, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01977 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
1-World Globes & Maps -- https://www.1worldglobes.com/ -- is an
online retailer and fabricator specializing in high-quality world
globes, stainless steel spheres, printed maps, and large-format map
murals for schools, homes, and businesses.[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
ADASTRA LABS: Faces Class Suit Over Commercialized Cocaine
----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Press of Kamloops Now reports that a Vancouver-based law
firm says it has filed a proposed securities class-action lawsuit
on behalf of anyone who acquired shares in a BC company that
recently announced plans to commercialize cocaine.
Adastra Labs CEO Michael Forbes released a statement on Feb. 22
saying the company would "evaluate how the commercialization of
(cocaine) fits" with the firm's business model.
The company revised the statement on March 3 after both Premier
David Eby and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed astonishment
about those plans, which stemmed from Adastra's mid-February
licence amendment to produce, sell and distribute cocaine.
Health Canada confirmed the amendment allows Adastra to produce no
more than 250 grams of cocaine in 2023, and none can be sold to the
general public.
The lawsuit, which contains allegations that have not been proven
in court, contends Adastra and Forbes violated the B.C. Securities
Act by making "inaccurate public representations" that artificially
boosted the company's stock price.
Adastra shares, valued at 75 cents on Feb. 22, peaked at $1.33 on
March 3 before tumbling to a low of 42 cents on March 8 and the
proposed class action is on behalf of those who acquired Adastra
common shares between Feb. 22 and March 3.
Saro Turner, a partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, the firm behind the
proposed class action, says investors deserve compensation.
"When companies make misrepresentations like this, it's usually the
investors who trusted them that get hurt the most," Turner says in
the statement.
On the same day Adastra retracted its commercialization statement,
Eby said he had spoken to the federal government and was "further
disturbed" to hear from Health Canada that Adastra may have
"significantly misrepresented the nature of the license" in an
irresponsible manner.
Health Canada said it had contacted the company to "reiterate the
very narrow parameters of their license," and warned it could take
action, including revoking the license, if strict federal
requirements were not followed. [GN]
ADT PIZZA: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Faiqa Mirzai and Fariha
Mirzai, On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
ADT Pizza, LLC; Adam Diamond; David Tetens; John Doe 1–10; Doe
Corporation 1–10, Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-RNC (D. Conn.), th e
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the case as an Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action;
2. authorizing them to send notice of the action to:
"the delivery drivers who have worked at Defendants' Pizza
Hut stores dating back three years prior to the filing of
the complaint;"
3. approving their proposed notices and methods of
disseminating notice;
4. directing the Defendants to provide name and contact
information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 14
days of the court's order; and
5. authorizing a 60-day opt-in period.
As the Plaintiffs understand it, Defendants have not yet corrected
the compensation and reimbursement policies challenged by this
lawsuit. Until the Defendants correct their policies, new employees
will be subject to the policy but will not have received notice of
this lawsuit.
Accordingly, to the extent that Defendants' policy remains in place
after the Court grants the present Motion, Plaintiffs may seek
permission at a later stage in the case to send notice to any
newly-hired employees who are subject to this policy, but did not
work for Defendants yet when the Court authorized the first round
of notice.
This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery
drivers who work at Defendants' Pizza Hut franchise stores. The
Plaintiffs Faiqa Mirzai and Fariha Mirzai allege that Defendants'
pizza delivery drivers are all employed according to the same
terms: they drive their own cars to deliver Defendants' pizzas and
they are not properly reimbursed for their delivery related
expenses.
To operate its business, Defendants need automobiles to deliver
their pizzas. Instead of maintaining a fleet of cars themselves,
Defendants require their minimum-wage delivery drivers to supply
safe, functioning, insured cars to use at work, the suit says.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 27,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZyyfkK
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
www.billerkimble.com
- and -
Robert B. Mitchell, Esq.
Jessica Slippen, Esq.
MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, PC
999 Oronoque Lane, Suite 203
Stratford, CT 06614
Telephone: (203) 873-0240
Facsimile: (203) 873-0235
E-mail: rbmitchell@mitchellandsheahan.com
ADVANCED MARKETING: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Harris Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIFFANY HARRIS, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED MARKETING &
PROCESSING, INC., d/b/a PROTECT MY CAR, Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-2651-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla.), Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, denies Advanced Marketing's Motion to Compel Arbitration
without prejudice.
Harris answered two phone calls on her cell phone with a
pre-recorded message set up by Advanced Marketing that she alleges
were unsolicited. Advanced Marketing claims that Harris consented
to receive such calls when she solicited an auto insurance quote
online and clicked that she agreed to the terms and conditions of
the website. The terms and conditions also included an arbitration
agreement. Advanced Marketing moves to compel arbitration based on
Harris's alleged agreement. But Harris claims she never visited the
auto insurance quote website.
Harris, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, sued
Advanced Marketing for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) after allegedly receiving unsolicited,
pre-recorded calls. She alleges that she received two unsolicited
calls on her cell phone between July and August 2022, using an
artificial or prerecorded voice.
In lieu of an answer, Advanced Marketing moves to compel
arbitration and argues that Harris waived her right to bring a
class action against it and agreed to arbitrate all disputes when
she clicked the "Get Quote" button on an insurance quote website
(1nsuranceRates.com). It contends that Harris entered her personal
information on the website, including her cell phone number, and
clicked the "Get Quotes" button, which included an acknowledgment
that by clicking 'get quotes', she represents that she is 18 plus
years of age and agrees to the privacy policy and terms and
conditions.
The text under the "Get Quotes" button also indicated that clicking
the button gave the user's consent to receiving phone calls, texts,
and emails using automatic dialing systems and pre-recorded
messages from 1nsuranceRates.com and "one or more of its marketing
partners." The hyperlink attached to the text "marketing partners"
reveals a list of companies including Advanced Marketing.
Harris asserts that she never visited the website and never
provided her information or agreed to receive calls or messages
from Advanced Marketing. Advanced Marketing replies, attaching
additional evidence that Harris is bound by the arbitration
agreement. Advanced Marketing also argues that if Harris presents a
genuine dispute of material fact, the Court should permit discovery
and proceed to trial on the limited question of whether Harris
agreed to arbitrate her disputes with Advanced Marketing.
Advanced Marketing attempts to prove the existence of an agreement
by offering several pieces of evidence. Among other things, it
submits the declaration of Michael Sabau, Vice President of
Advanced Marketing, and alleges that Harris agreed to arbitrate
claims against Advanced Marketing when she clicked the "Get Quote"
button on June 9, 2022. Advanced Marketing contends that the terms
and conditions hyperlinked under the Get Quotes button
"conspicuously identify the mandatory arbitration and class waiver
provisions at the outset in fully capitalized text." Harris
contends in a sworn declaration that she has never visited
1nsuranceRates.com and never provided her personal information to
Advanced Marketing or consented to receive calls or messages from
them.
Judge Mizelle concludes that a genuine dispute of material fact
exists -- namely, whether Harris signed the agreement requiring
arbitration. Advanced Marketing provides evidence that Harris
signed the agreement in the form of the call transcript and Harris'
information appearing on the 1nsuranceRates.com website associated
with the arbitration click-wrap agreement. But Harris provides
evidence in a sworn statement that the information
1nsuranceRates.com captured is not hers and that she never visited
that site or attempted to get a quote.
Although Advanced Marketing offers evidence of a phone call with an
Advanced Marketing representative, choosing one party's version of
events over the other would require credibility determinations,
which are inappropriate at this stage. The case must proceed to
trial.
Because Harris did not demand a jury trial by the deadline for her
response to the motion to compel arbitration, Judge Mizelle holds
that the case will proceed to a bench trial scheduled after the
parties have filed a Case Management Report. The trial will be
limited to determining whether Harris clicked the "Get Quotes"
button on 1nsuranceRates.com and thus agreed to arbitration.
Judge Mizelle concludes that the FAA construes liberally a party's
ability to compel arbitration. But Harris has provided sufficient
evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
she agreed to arbitrate her disputes with Advanced Marketing.
Accordingly, Judge Mizelle denies Advanced Marketing's Motion to
Compel Arbitration without prejudice. Advanced Marketing may renew
its motion if successful on proving that Harris entered into the
contract.
The Court will hold a bench trial under 9 U.S.C. Section 4 to
determine the existence of binding arbitration agreements.
The Parties are directed to file a Case Management Report,
identifying their requested dates for dispositive motions and the
bench trial.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/583nf6zd from Leagle.com.
ALASKA: Kamkoff Due Process Suit Removed to D. Alaska
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled Della Kamkoff, John Andrew, Kayla Birch, Rose
Carney, Tereresa Ferguson, Zoya Jenkins, Troy Fender, Rhonda
Conover, Autumn Ellanna, and Nataliia Moroz, on behalf of
themselves, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Heidi
Hedberg, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Alaska
Department of Health, Defendant, Case No. 3AN-23-04259CI, was
removed from the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District at Anchorage, to the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska on March 1, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Alaska assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-00044-SLG to the proceeding.
The complaint is styled as a class action and alleges various
violations of 7 U.S.C. Section 2020, and implementing regulations
at 7 C.F.R. Sections 273.1 et seq. It also alleges violation of the
Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution, arising from the same set of operative factual
allegations as the claim for violations of federal statute and
regulation. It also alleges violation of the Due Process clause of
Article I, Section 7 of the Alaska Constitution, arising from the
same set of operative factual allegations as the claim for
violations of federal statute and regulation.
Defendant Heidi Hedberg is sued in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Health.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Treg Taylor, Esq.
Lael A. Harrison, Esq.
Alex J. Hildebrand, Esq.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
Facsimile: (907) 465-3019
E-mail: lael.harrison@alaska.gov
alexander.hildebrand@alaska.gov
ALLCASES, REEKSTIN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allcases, Reekstin &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Allcases, Reekstin &
Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01979 (S.D.N.Y., March 8,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Allcases, Reekstin & Associates, Inc. -- https://www.allcases.com/
-- carry a huge selection of heavy-duty shipping cases, carrying
cases, and custom case foam.[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
ALPHABET INC: Court Strikes Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re ALPHABET, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-06245-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to supplement the complaint and striking
Plaintiff's motion to certify the class.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has met the liberal pleading
standard under Rule 15. The Court finds the factors used to
determine the propriety of a motion to supplement the complaint
weigh in favor of Plaintiff.
The Court finds there was no undue delay, bad faith, or significant
prejudice to Alphabet and the amendment is not futile. Accordingly,
the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to supplement the
complaint.
According to the allegations in the consolidated amended complaint,
in March 2018, Google learned that a software bug had allowed
third-party developers to access private user-profile data in the
Google+ social-networking platform.
The Plaintiff alleges that Google failed to detect the bug and
their belated discovery and investigation of the bug also revealed
other security vulnerabilities in the Google+ platform.
Despite the internal awareness of data vulnerabilities on the
Google+ platform, Plaintiffs allege that Alphabet chose to conceal
the issues by omitting any reference in the company's public
filings in the April 2018 and July 2018 Forms 10-Q.
Alphabet is an American multinational technology conglomerate
holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mEgIJj at no extra charge.[CC]
AMGEN INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Block, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that a pension
fund has filed a class action suit against Amgen (NASDAQ:AMGN)
accusing the biotech giant of owing more than $10B in back taxes
and interest -- and withholding this information from investors.
The suit accuses Amgen (AMGN) of violating securities laws by
making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose the tax liabilities.
It alleges that the company was told by the IRS in 2017 that it
owed $3.6B in back taxes covering 2010 to 2012. In 2020, the agency
said it owed another $5.1B for 2013 to 2015.
However, the suit alleges that the $5.1B tax hook wasn't disclosed
to investors until April 2022, and by that time, the IRS had
proposed a $2B penalty for nonpayment.
In August 2021, the $3.6B in back taxes, plus interest, was
divulged to Amgen (AMGN) investors, causing its stock price to fall
6% that day.
The case is Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund v. Amgen Inc., No.
23-cv-02138, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. [GN]
ANYTHING IN STAINED GLASS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anything in Stained
Glass, Inc. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Anything in Stained
Glass, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01952 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Anything in Stained Glass, Inc. --
https://www.anythinginstainedglass.com/ -- sell stained glass and
fusing supplies.[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
APPLE INC: 90-Day Deadline for Filing Class Cert Adjourned in Scott
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT v. APPLE INC., Case
No. 1:23-cv-00475 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss entered
an order on motion for briefing schedule as follows:
(1) Defendant shall file a motion to dismiss or other
responsive pleading on or before March 30, 2023;
(2) Plaintiff shall file an opposition to any such motion to
dismiss on or before May 1, 2023;
(3) Defendant shall file a reply, if any, in support of its
motion to dismiss on or before May 22, 2023;
(4) Plaintiff's 90-day deadline for filing a motion for class
certification is adjourned until a schedule is set after
the Court decides any motion to dismiss; and
(5) discovery in this matter is stayed until the Court
decides Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered
in Cupertino, California.[CC]
APRIO LLP: Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LECHTER, et al., v.
APRIO, LLP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting the Defendants'
motion for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to the the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs previously filed an Opposition to Defendants'
Sur-Reply Motion. However, shortly after the Court held a hearing
on Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification Plaintiffs
informed the Court in a Notice filed on the docket that they would
withdraw their Opposition to Defendants' Sur-Reply Motion in light
of the Court's comments during the hearing "and to avoid further
motions practice on this matter."
Aprio is an accounting firm headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FjRne7 at no extra charge.[CC]
APRIO LLP: Lechter, et al., File Class Cert. Exhibits
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LECHTER et al., v.
APRIO, LLP f/k/a HABIF, AROGETI & WYNNE, LLP, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs file exhibits (Exhibits
7-22) as a supplement to their motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court make the attached exhibits
part of the record for its consideration of the Motion for Class
Certification.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on August
23, 2022. The Court held a hearing on the Motion for Class
Certification on February 23, 2023. During that hearing, Plaintiffs
presented various exhibits that were not filed with the Motion for
Class Certification.
Two of these exhibits were not produced to Plaintiffs until after
they filed the Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs also referred to various legal authority and a
declaration filed in a relevant Tax Court proceeding. Subsequently,
in an email to counsel, the Court has requested that the parties
submit "signed and dated versions of the partnership tax returns
for the transactions included in the sample of in which the named
Plaintiffs personally invested."
The Plaintiffs have worked with the Aprio Defendants to locate
"signed and dated" version of these partnership tax returns, but
understand from their search and discussions with counsel for the
Aprio Defendants that such returns are not in Aprio's possession,
custody, or control. This may be due to the fact that some of these
tax returns were filed electronically or in paper form.
Aprio is a premier business advisory and certified public
accounting firm that advises clients and associates on how to
achieve what's next.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l2ORlF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David R. Deary, Esq.
W. Ralph Canada, Jr., Esq.
Jeven Sloan, Esq.
Wilson E. Wray, Jr., Esq.
John McKenzie, Esq.
Donna Lee, Esq.
Tyler M. Simpson, Esq.
DEARY RAY LLP
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (214) 572-1700
Facsimile: (214) 572-1717
E-mail: davidd@dearyray.com
ralphc@dearyray.com
jevens@dearyray.com
wilsonw@dearyray.com
johnm@dearyray.com
tylers@dearyray.com
donnal@dearyray.com
- and -
Edward J. Rappaport, Esq.
THE SAYLOR LAW FIRM LLP
1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 3220
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 892-4400
E-mail: erappaport@saylorlaw.com
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Ex-Players File $1B Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that former football players
are seeking up to $1bn in compensation in a landmark class action
lodged in Victoria against the AFL for the serious damage
concussion has allegedly caused them.
The action, lodged by Margalit Injury Lawyers in the supreme court
of Victoria, is on behalf of all professional AFL players who
sustained concussion-related injuries through head strikes while
playing or training between 1985 and 14 March this year.
The lead plaintiff is Jarad Maxwell Rooke, better known as Max
Rooke.
The dual premiership player was employed by the Geelong Football
Club between 2001 and October 2010, and played 135 games during
that time.
The class action alleges Rooke sustained permanent and
life-altering injuries as a result of concussion-related injuries
and because of the AFL's negligence.
More than 60 former players have come forward to join the class
action.
They are seeking compensation for pain and suffering, economic loss
and medical expenses, Margalit Injury Lawyers said.
"The injuries suffered by this group of former AFL players, as a
direct result of the concussions sustained while playing Aussie
rules, has had a devastating impact on their lives and the lives of
their loved ones,'' the managing principal Michel Margalit said.
"Some of the players who have joined this landmark class action
have never been able to hold down a job after leaving the AFL.
"Their personal lives have been shattered and they live with
constant physical and mental pain. It's heart-breaking and they
need to be adequately cared for."
Margalit said the firm was seeking about $2m a player plus medical
expenses - and more players could join.
"The whole class action could cost the AFL close to $1bn," she
said.
"But we must remember that this is not about bringing down the AFL,
this is about compensating these injured players, this compensation
will come through insurance."
The identities of the other players involved have not been made
public but Margalit said they included former premiership players,
well-known faces and lesser-known players.
"It's things like memory loss, irritability, depression," she
said.
"You have these otherwise strapping, fit-looking blokes who might
be crying in front of you within a few minutes of talking to them.
It's absolutely devastating."
The firm is open to negotiating with the league and has been
speaking with neurology experts in preparation for them to give
evidence in court.
The writ points to a history of medical knowledge about the impacts
of concussion and alleged it was reasonably foreseeable to the AFL
that players were vulnerable to concussion caused by head strikes
"at all relevant times".
"Since at least 1992, it has been known that brain injuries are one
of the most catastrophic athletic injuries and that once a player
has incurred a concussion there is a heightened risk of a second or
further concussion," the writ said.
It cited the AFL's alleged failure to make and enforce rules,
policies, procedures and protocols in line with medical knowledge
to reduce the incidence of concussion as evidence of its
"negligence".
The AFL also failed to adequately conduct risk assessments for head
strikes and concussions and to educate players about the risks of
long-term injury arising from concussion - particularly as they
related to an early return to play, the writ said.
The AFL said it had not yet received formal correspondence
regarding the class action.
"The AFL takes concussion and the protection of the brain health of
all those playing our game extremely seriously," a spokesperson
said on March 14.
"[Tues]day we launched updated concussion guidelines for the elite
game, where players that are diagnosed with concussion must pass
the 11-steps of the return to play protocol of over a minimum of 12
days in order to be medically cleared to return to play."
The AFL last year apologised to past players who were "let down" by
the league's concussion research project after an independent
review criticised the study.
It was underfunded and under-resourced, the review found, and some
AFL players still dumbed down their baseline concussion testing in
pre-season to reduce the chance of a concussion diagnosis on game
day. [GN]
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: To Spend $25-M on Concussion Study After Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox Sports reports that Hawthorn coach Sam Mitchell says the AFL's
decision to spend $25m on a long-term study into the effects of
concussion is an important step for player safety.
It comes as a class action against the AFL involving up to 60
former players was launched at the Supreme Court in Melbourne on
March 14.
Dual Geelong premiership player Max Rooke is the lead plaintiff in
the action lodged by Melbourne firm Margalit Injury Lawyers who
alleged that Rooke, 41, has suffered permanent, life altering
injuries as a result of concussion related injuries, and due to the
negligence of the AFL.
Just hours before the AFL released updated concussion guidelines
and a five-year strategic plan on March 14 as it emphasised the
need for players to carefully move through all 11 steps of the
return-to-play program.
The protocols, in which 12 days is the minimum timeframe for a
player to recover before returning to play, will also be extended
to all other levels of Australian football.
Mitchell said the $25m study investment would be important for
helping club doctors better understand how to identify concussion
symptoms in players.
"It's such an unknown situation. What I do know is the way we've
changed our attitude towards it is significant," he said.
"I think back when I played it wasn't a heavily respected injury,
it was something like a lot of things where you just sort of got by
or tried to play as quickly as you can and didn't have the respect
for it.
"Now our players are really honest with the doctors, and the
doctors are in a really difficult situation where they have to
really know the player to understand what symptoms might look like
. . . and I think the whole world, but the AFL in particular, is
taking it very seriously and try to go about it in the right way."
The AFL expressed a frustration with the branding of the
return-to-play guidelines as the "12-day concussion protocols" and
will push to ensure players are moved through all steps of the
program at a cautious pace in 2023.
Four full-time staff will be employed this season with a focus on
concussion management, while a hardship fund is set to be
established to provide ex-players one-off payments and ongoing care
worth millions of dollars.
Margalit Lawyers could also be seeking millions after launching the
class action on behalf of players employed by one or more AFL clubs
between 1985 and 14 March 2023 who either suffered concussion or
suffered damage from concussions.
Beyond Rooke is it unclear which other players are involved in the
action.
Margalit Injury Lawyers Managing Principal Michel Margalit said the
long-term injuries suffered by the former players include various
neurological impairments including dementia and many are also
experiencing devastating psychological consequences including
depression.
"The injuries suffered by this group of former AFL players, as a
direct result of the concussions sustained while playing Aussie
Rules, has had a devastating impact on their lives and the lives of
their loved ones,'' Ms Margalit said.
"Some of the players who have joined this landmark class action
have never been able to hold down a job after leaving the AFL.
Their personal lives have been shattered and they live with
constant physical and mental pain. It's heart-breaking and they
need to be adequately cared for." [GN]
BEE LINE STYLE: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bee Line Style
Corporation. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Bee Line Style
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01763 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bee Line Style Corporation doing business as Bunny Williams Home --
https://www.bunnywilliamshome.com/ -- is a collection of side
tables, lamps, chairs, case pieces, upholstery, mirrors, coffee and
drinks tables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BELLABU BEAR: Magruder Fraud Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HEATHER MAGRUDER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLABU BEAR LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
2023-CA-000585, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Ninth
Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March
1, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:23-cv-00382-WWB-EJK to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to: (i) the Textile Fiber
Products Identification Act (ii) Federal Trade Commission Act, and
(iii) violations under corresponding regulative authority for
alleged misbranding of textiles, and subsequent advertisement,
sale, and distribution of those textiles throughout interstate
commerce. The remaining and related state law claims of fraud in
the inducement (Count II) and negligent misrepresentation (Count
III).
Bellabu Bear LLC is a baby clothing company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Wesley J. Martinez, Esq.
Kevin A. Reck, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
301 E Pine St., Suite 1200
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 236-5871
Facsimile: (407) 678-1743
E-mail: wmartinez@foley.com
kreck@foley.com
BENDER ROSENTHAL: Green Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bender Rosenthal,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jo-Nathan Green, on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. Bender
Rosenthal, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00335755-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 7, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Bender Rosenthal, Inc. -- https://benderrosenthal.com/ -- is an
industry leader in providing experienced right of way and real
estate services throughout the Western United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Order on Bids for Class Certification Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAMS JASMINE , et al.
v. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08698-FMO-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order
regarding motions for class certification.
A deadline for motion for class certification has been set in the
above-captioned case. Any motion(s) for class certification shall
comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules,
as well as this Order. Please be advised that this Order contains
requirements more specific than the Local Rules and Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
1. Joint Brief:
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully integrated joint brief covering each party's
position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a
party is immediately followed by the opposing
party's/parties' response.
3. Unnecessary Sections:
The parties need not include a "procedural history"
section, since the court will be familiar with the
procedural history.
4. Evidentiary Appendix:
The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate,
tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence
(including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts,
etc.).
5. Evidentiary Objections:
All necessary evidentiary objections shall be made in the
relevant section(s) of the joint brief.
6. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief:
The briefing schedule for the joint brief shall be as
follows:
A. Meet and Confer:
In order for a motion for class certification to
be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must
take place no later than 35 days before the deadline
for class certification motions set forth in the
Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order.
B. No later than seven days after the meet and confer, the
moving party shall personally deliver or e-mail to the
opposing party an electronic copy of the moving party's
portion of the joint brief, together with the moving
party's portion of the evidentiary appendix.
C. No later than 14 days after receiving the
moving party's papers, the opposing party shall
personally deliver or e-mail to the moving party an
electronic copy of the integrated motion, which shall
include the opposing party's portion of the joint
brief, together with the opposing party's
portion of the evidentiary appendix.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mIyGua at no extra charge.[CC]
BHP BILLITON: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Place Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN LARRY PENNINGTON, et
al, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Others Similarly
Situated V. BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM (FAYETTEVILLE) LLC, AND MMGJ
ARKANSAS UPSTREAM, LLC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00178-LPR (E.D. Ark.),
the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to place under seal Exhibits 32, 34, 39, and 40 of their
reply brief in support of their motion for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ynPUzt at no extra charge.[CC]
BLOOMINGDALE'S: Mikulsky Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------
Erica Mikulsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLOOMINGDALE'S, LLC and BLOOMINGDALES.COM, LLC, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00425-H-DEB (S.D. Cal., March 8, 2023), is brought
against the Defendants' for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors to Bloomingdale's website,
www.bloomingdales.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.
Bloomingdale's procures third-party vendors, such as FullStory, to
embed snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code")
on Bloomingdale'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
Bloomingdale'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 Bloomingdale's
request.
After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications,
Bloomingdale's and the Session Replay Providers use those Website
Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.bloomingdales.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video
replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to
Bloomingdale's for analysis. Bloomingdale'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 Bloomingdale's 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 Bloomingdale's procurement and use of
Session Replay Code embedded on the webpages of
www.bloomingdales.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.bloomingdales.com on her computer,
while in California.
Bloomingdale's operates the website www.bloomingdales.com which is
an online and brick-and-mortar fashion retailer, offering men's and
women's apparel, accessories, shoes, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven M. Nathan Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10034
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Stephen B. Murray, Esq.
Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
Thomas M. Beh, Esq.
THE MURRAY LAW FIRM
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250
New Orleans, LA 70139
Phone: (504) 525-8100
Email: Tbeh@Murray-lawfirm.com
BLUE LABEL APPAREL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Label Apparel,
LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Blue Label Apparel, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01984 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blue Label Apparel -- https://www.bluelabelclothing.com/ -- is a
men's clothing store in San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago.[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
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Dismissal of BMW i3 REx Class Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a BMW i3 REx (range
extender) class action lawsuit is over after an appeals court
agreed with the conclusions reached by a lower district court.
The BMW i3 REx lawsuit was filed in 2016 regarding 2014-2016 cars
advertised with range extenders which are small gas tanks that take
over when the batteries drop below 6.5%.
According to the plaintiffs who sued, defects cause the BMW cars to
lose power and speed when the range extender is activated.
The class action alleges the BMW i3 REx fuel extender takes the
range from 81 miles to 150 miles per battery charge.
The i3 REx lawsuit alleges customers overpaid for the cars because
the range extenders cause problems with power and speed under
certain conditions.
According to BMW, with the range extender engaged and the battery
charge falls below two percent, a warning alerts a driver of an
upcoming reduction in drive power.
The power is reduced to help avoid a "complete discharge of the
high-voltage battery."
According to the BMW class action lawsuit, all named plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' expert experienced deceleration below two percent
battery charge when "(1) driving at highway speeds, (2) in extreme
temperatures, or (3) when driving on steep uphill gradients."
After several court actions, the class action lawsuit had been
reduced to California owners only. But the district court
subsequently granted summary judgment to BMW on all claims.
After the case was dismissed, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The appeals court found the plaintiff's expert didn't offer an
opinion on if the deceleration issue rendered the design of the i3
REx defective.
According to both parties, the existence of a design defect is an
essential element of all claims.
The plaintiffs argue expert testimony is not required to survive
summary judgment because state law permits a jury to find a design
defect where "the product failed to perform as safely as an
ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or
reasonably foreseeable manner."
The appeals court says the test is known as the
"consumer-expectations" test and does not require (or even permit)
expert testimony.
" [E]xpert witnesses may not be used to demonstrate what an
ordinary consumer would or should expect."
But the court found the consumer-expectations test cannot apply
because it "is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience
of the product's users permits a conclusion that the product's
design violated minimum safety assumptions."
"[T]he ordinary consumer of an automobile simply has no idea how it
should perform in all foreseeable situations, or how safe it should
be made against all foreseeable hazards."
According to the Ninth Circuit:
"Plaintiffs have offered no other applicable theory of recovery
that would allow them to survive summary judgment without an expert
opining as to a design defect. As noted above, plaintiffs' expert
explicitly declined (several times) to offer an opinion as to
whether the i3 with the REx was defective."
The expert simply confirmed what BMW already admits, which is when
the battery drops below two percent, the i3 REx is designed to
limit power and speed under certain driving conditions to extend
the range.
"Thus, plaintiffs failed to satisfy their evidentiary burden to
establish the existence of a defective design, which is fatal to
all claims. The district court properly awarded summary judgment to
BMW." -- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The BMW i3 REx class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California: Braverman, et al., v.
BMW of North America, LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, MLG Automotive Law, and the Margarian Law
Firm. [GN]
BOGNER DIRECT US: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bogner Direct US,
LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Bogner Direct US, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01762 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bogner -- https://www.bogner.com/en-int/ -- offers exclusive
fashion, shoes, and accessories for women, men, and kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BOSTON MEDICAL: Nolan Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Nolan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOSTON MEDICAL GROUP TELEMEDICINE INC., Case No.
8:23-cv-00412 (C.D. Cal., March 8, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
To promote its services, the Defendant engages in aggressive
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who is a resident of Juneau,
Alaska.
The Defendant is a men's sexual health and enhancement company that
sells a variety of products to consumers including but not limited
to erectile dysfunction medication, testosterone therapy and human
grown hormone.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
BOTTOMS UP GENTLEMEN'S: Prasch Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Prasch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOTTOMS UP GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, LLC and CHEZ JOEY, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00634-LKG (D. Md., March 8, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended,
("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland
Wage Payment Collection Law ("MWPCL") for the purpose of obtaining
relief under Maryland law for unpaid minimum wages, recovery of
unlawfully assigned or withheld earned wages, tips, and gratuities,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or any such other
relief the Court may deem appropriate.
The Defendants has had uniform policies and practices
misclassifying Plaintiff and the other members of their exotic
dancer workforce at Defendants' Chez Joey and/or Bottoms Up Clubs
as a non-employee contractors and, arising from this
misclassification, failing to pay Plaintiff and the proposed class
members minimum wage compensation and subjecting Plaintiff and the
proposed class members to unlawful kickbacks and/or wage
deductions, excessive credit card processing fees, and taking and
assigning Plaintiff and the proposed class members' earned tips and
gratuities in violation of the FLSA, the MWHL, and the MWPCL. The
Defendants, on a common and class-wide basis, unlawfully denied
Plaintiff and the proposed class members full and timely payment of
minimum wage compensation and retention of all earned wages, tips,
and gratuities in violation of the FLSA, MWHL, and MWPCL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked or performed as exotic dancers for the
Defendants.
The Defendants owned and operated Bottoms Up and Chez Joey as strip
clubs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301-587-9373
Fax: 240-839-9142
Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
BOWL AMERICA: Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Before March 20
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITA G. ZUCKER, TRUSTEE
OF THE ANITA G. ZUCKER TRUST DATED APRIL 4, 2007, AS SUBSEQUENTLY
AMENDED OR RESTATED, et ano, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. BOWL AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-01967-SAG (D. Md.), the parties stipulate and agree,
subject to the court's approval, as follows:
1. The Defendants will file their response to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification on or before March 20, 2023;
and
2. The Plaintiffs will file any reply brief in support of
their Motion for Class Certification on or before April 18,
2023.
On February 1, 2023, the Court approved a prior stipulation among
the Parties and ordered that, if the Parties were unable to reach
agreement regarding class certification, the Plaintiffs would file
their motion for class certification on February 17, 2023.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
February 17, 2023 in accordance with the Court's February 1, 2023
order.
The Parties have met and conferred regarding an appropriate
briefing schedule for Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in light of the current scheduling order.
Bowl America provides recreation service. The Company offers food
and beverages, game rooms, bowling, rental lockers, and playroom
facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JaDK1U at no extra charge.[CC]
BOYLAND AUTO: Class Certification Deadline Extended to May 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sabet v. Boyland Auto
Orlando, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-02009 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Roy B. Dalton, Jr. entered an order that the class certification
deadline outlined in the case management scheduling order is
extended to May 22, 2023.
Boyland Auto was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.[CC]
BUFFALO WILD: Faces Class Suit Over Boneless Wings' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Drey, writing for Daily Wire, reports that Buffalo Wild
Wings has been named in a class-action lawsuit by a Chicago
resident who accused the restaurant chain of using false and
deceptive advertising on its boneless wings, which he believes are
only chicken nuggets.
Court documents obtained by WGN-TV show plaintiff Aimen Halim filed
the complaint on Friday in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the restaurant chain and its
parent-company Inspire Brands, which the complaint alleges "is
responsible for the composition, preparation, advertising,
marketing and sale of ‘Buffalo Wild Wings' product."
"This class action seeks to challenge the false and deceptive
marketing and advertising of Buffalo Wild Wings' Boneless Wings,"
the filings read. "Specifically, the name and description of the
Products (i.e., as "Boneless Wings") leads reasonable consumers to
believe the Products are actually chicken wings. "
In other words, Halim claims people were led to believe that the
defendants simply deboned the chicken wings, which would then have
been comprised entirely of chicken wing meat.
A Buffalo Wild Wings spokesperson directed The Daily Wire to a
tweet from the restaurant's official account when asked for comment
on the lawsuit.
"It's true," the tweet reads. "Our boneless wings are all white
meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our buffalo wings are
0% buffalo."
Halim purchased boneless wings from a location in Mount Prospect,
Illinois, in January when he made his claim about one of the
restaurant's most popular food items.
Had the plaintiff and other consumers known the truth about the
wings, the lawsuit reads, they would have either paid less for the
food or not purchased the poultry at all.
"As a result, Mr. Halim suffered a financial injury as a result of
Defendants' false and deceptive conduct," the lawsuit reads.
Halim compared Buffalo Wild Wings to other food chains like Papa
John's and Domino's in the complaint, saying that both restaurants
sell boneless wings but disclose the products are made from white
chicken breast meat.
Halim also referred to a New York Times article from 2009 in the
complaint that reported the practice of selling boneless "wings"
that are not actually wings derived from the high-flying costs of
real chicken wings and the decrease in chicken breast prices.
Mike Bell, the logistics and purchasing manager for Buffalo Wild
Wings, said that "basically a whole bunch of [poultry processors]
are throwing their hands in the air and saying, ‘I don't know
what's going on. We've never seen it this way.'"
Prices for a pound of chicken breasts -- boneless and skinless --
dropped nearly a full dollar compared to the rise of bone-in wings
in 2020, a USDA National Retail Report showed observed by WGN-TV.
However, in the last year, prices of regular boneless, skinless
chicken breasts fell from $3.99 to $3.53 a pound, while whole wings
have dropped from $4.29 to $2.30 per pound.
Halim seeks to represent a nationwide class and an Illinois class
lawsuit on behalf of himself and other consumers, and is seeking
damages, injunctive relief, restitution, declaratory relief, and
all other remedies the Court deems appropriate. [GN]
BUFFALO, NY: April 1 Extension of Fact Discovery Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. as
Trustee of AMERICAN HOMEOWNER PRESERVATION TRUST SERIES 2015A+, v.
CITY OF BUFFALO, NEW YORK, and BUFFALO SEWER AUTHORITY, Case No.
1:22-cv-00249-JLS-JJM (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline to file motion for class
certification fact discovery.
The Plaintiff requests that the current deadline be extended to
April 1, 2023. The additional time is required as lead counsel,
Andrew Engle, needs to seek medical treatment for an optic tear,
and is unable to see, the Plaintiff contends.
The requested extension will not disrupt any other dates in the
case's current schedule. Counsel has consulted with David Lee,
counsel for the Defendants, who has indicated he has no objection
to the requested extension and consents to the relief requested.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the deadline filing
its motion for class certification until April 1, 2023.
Buffalo City is the second-largest city in the U.S. state of New
York (after New York City) and the seat of Erie County.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IKxiyo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
ADVOCATE ATTORNEYS, LLP
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: mdann@advocateattorneys.com
BUMBLE BEE: Nasser Sues Over Products' Sustainability Labels
------------------------------------------------------------
ABDALLAH NASSER, JOHN BOHEN, and MARISSA SANCHEZ, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUMBLE
BEE FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01558 (C.D. Cal., March
2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged
deceptive business practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California
False Advertising Law, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act of
1977, and State Consumer Protection Statutes.
According to the complaint, the Defendant charges a premium for its
canned or pouched Wild Caught Pink Salmon and Sockeye Salmon,
pouched Wild Caught Applewood Smoke Tuna, pouched Wild Selections
Pink Salmon, and canned or pouched Wild Selections Solid White
Albacore Tuna products that uniformly promise to be "certified
sustainable seafood" supported by a prominent certification from
the Marine Stewardship Council in the form of a blue stamp on the
product labels, hereinafter, the "Sustainability Promise."
The prominent Sustainability Promise found on each and every
product label allegedly deceives and misleads reasonable consumers
into believing the products are sourced from sustainable fishing
practices. The Defendant turns a blind eye to the unsustainable
fishing practices used in sourcing its products and boldly uses the
Sustainability Promise with the blue stamp as proof of sustainable
fishing methods. However, as Bumble Bee knew or should have known,
the Council hands out this certification to those who use
industrial fishing methods that injure marine life as well as ocean
habitats with destructive fishing. The Council also allows its
members to obtain their certification with a paid membership,
creating a potential conflict of interest, says the suit.
Due to Bumble Bee's false and deceptive labeling, Plaintiffs and
reasonable consumers purchased products based upon their reliance
on Bumble Bee's compliance with its Sustainability Promise. Had
Plaintiffs and Class Members been aware that Bumble Bee's fishing
techniques used to source its products were not sustainable,
Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased the Products
or would not have paid more for the products, the suit contends.
Bumble Bee Foods is a company that produces canned tuna, salmon,
other seafoods, and chicken.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
mpearson@pwfirm.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
CALIFORNIA: Second Settlement in LTC Suit Granted Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mondo Visione reports that CalPERS and attorneys representing
plaintiffs March 10, 2023 announced that a judge has granted
preliminary approval to a new, second settlement of the class
action lawsuit involving the CalPERS Long-Term Care (LTC) Program,
known as Wedding, et al. v. CalPERS.
This second settlement offers the nearly 80,000 policyholder class
members the opportunity to keep in place their existing long-term
care policy and receive a cash payment and a moratorium on premium
increases through the end of October 2024, or to receive a premium
refund of 80% of all premiums paid (less benefits received) in
exchange for surrendering their LTC policy.
Each settlement class member's recovery will be based on the status
of their policy, whether they used policy benefits, and how they
responded to the 85% premium increase. Money to fund the settlement
will come from the CalPERS' Long-Term Care Fund.
Ensuring the future viability of the Long-Term Care insurance
program was an important goal of both CalPERS and the plaintiff
class. No part of the settlement will be paid by the CalPERS
Pension Fund.
"We are pleased the settlement allows class members who want to
leave the LTC program to obtain substantial refunds that would
otherwise be unavailable," said Stuart C. Talley, of Kershaw Talley
Barlow PC, one of the attorneys representing the class. "And for
those class members who want to keep their LTC policies, the
settlement provides cash payments and a moratorium on premium
increases while ensuring that the program remains viable going
forward."
"The new settlement reflects the parties' work to provide
policyholders who are counting on their policies to provide
critical care with a choice to keep their policies," said Matthew
Jacobs, General Counsel for CalPERS. "We believe this new
settlement resolves what are very complex issues in a fair and
equitable manner."
The settlement was reviewed and granted preliminary approval on
Friday, March 10, by Judge William Highberger in Los Angeles County
Superior Court.
The settlement was reached after a bench trial in which some of the
major issues in the case were decided, and with the remaining
issues set to be decided in a jury trial that was scheduled for
June.
It's expected that a formal notice explaining the settlement, why
it's in the best interests of the class, and class members'
options, will go out to class members beginning April 7. That will
begin a 60-day notice period, with a hearing for final approval set
for July 26.
The notice packets will explain in detail all the terms of the new
settlement and class members' options under the settlement.
Additionally, there will be a website with a list of Frequently
Asked Questions to help answer any questions they may have about
the new settlement. However, if class members have questions
regarding the settlement that can't wait until after they receive
their notice packets, they can call 1 (866) 217-8056. [GN]
CANADA: Civilian Members May Be Eligible to Claim Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Union of Safety and Justice Employees obtains outside legal
opinion to confirm potential eligibility for its members.
Dealing with Personal Harassment is a continuous challenge for
members of the Federal Public Service, as there are limited avenues
available to address these issues, and few options to obtain a
remedy for them, particularly since personal harassment is not
within the jurisdiction of the Federal Public Sector Labour
Relations and Employment Board, which adjudicates Public Service
grievances.
The Greenwood-Gray Class action, which has been certified by the
Federal Court (the certificate was later amended by the Federal
Court of Appeal to limit the definition of the eligible class),
relates to personal harassment and bullying of RCMP employees.
When this class action was brought to the attention of USJE, we
immediately began researching whether this was something that could
assist our members in addressing this long-standing, deeply
entrenched issue within RCMP culture. Our Labour Relations team
rendered an initial opinion, but to ensure we had the most accurate
and comprehensive analysis, USJE engaged Raven Law to provide their
opinion on the eligibility of USJE members to participate in the
Greenwood-Gray action.
The Raven Law opinion agreed with USJE Labour Relations' initial
assessment of the file, notably, that the class definition excludes
employees who have the ability to file a grievance or complaint
under a Collective Agreement through the Federal Public Sector
Labour Relations Act or the RCMP Act.
The class is defined as
"All current or former RCMP members (Regular, Civilian, and Special
Constable) and Reservists who worked for the RCMP between January
1, 1995, and the date a collective agreement becomes or became
applicable to a bargaining unit to which they belong."
Anyone who received compensation under the Merlo, Ross, or Delisle
class actions is ineligible to make a claim in this action.
What this class definition means is that RCMP Public Service
Employees, who have had a Collective Agreement throughout the
relevant period, are NOT eligible under the Greenwood-Gray action,
should it succeed. Civilian Members who have been designated to be
joining USJE/PSAC as part of the preparation in anticipation of
deeming exercise, however, should be eligible until at least
November 26, 2020, which represents the date that the FPSLREB
rendered its decision on their placement in PSAC bargaining units.
If eligible Civilian Members have further questions, they can
review the information on Class Counsel's website:
https://complexlaw.ca/index.html#FL-RCMP_General_Harrassment or the
Class Action page https://www.greenwoodrcmpclassaction.ca/
As the opt-out period has now passed, all eligible members will
automatically be INCLUDED in the class action, and will potentially
be eligible to claim compensation if the case is successful in
litigation or a settlement is reached.
USJE will continue to monitor developments in this litigation, and
inform Civilian Members now represented by USJE of any important
steps they need to take, or how to apply for compensation if a
settlement or favourable decision is reached.[GN]
CANTOR FITZGERALD: McLoughlin Sues Over Partnership Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN MCLOUGHLIN, ROBERT MILLER, ANGELO SOFOCLEUS, ANDREW LEWIS,
CHEYNE BUNNETT, TOM ROBERTSHAW, and OLIVIA SCOTT (as the personal
representative of the ESTATE OF RUSSELL SCOTT), v. CANTOR
FITZGERALD, L.P. (CFLP), BGC HOLDINGS, L.P., and NEWMARK HOLDINGS,
L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-00256-UNA (D. Del., Mar. 9, 2023) is a class
action complaint involving a fifteen year-long scheme stripping the
Plaintiffs and hundreds of other Defendants' employees of millions
of dollars that are owed in connection with their employment.
The Plaintiffs and putative class members are all former limited
partners of the Defendants. Each of them worked at various offices
across the globe until they either voluntarily left or were
terminated from their employment. They all bought or were granted
partnership interests in Defendants in connection with their
employment.
At the core of this case is the 2008 CFLP Partnership Agreement,
the 2017 BGC partnership agreement, and the 2017 Newmark
Partnership Agreement. The Partnership Agreements contain several
interlocking provisions designed to restrict former limited
partners from competing, soliciting clients or employees, or using
any of the Defendants' confidential information for four years
after a limited partner leaves. In both form and substance, the
Partnership Agreements and the interrelated entities that are
parties to the agreements allow Cantor CEO Howard Lutnick the sole
authority to decide when to deny a former partner the compensation
they've earned in connection with their employment.
Mr. Lutnick has used his effective control across each of these
entities to effectuate a scheme designed to enrich himself at the
cost of employees who are duped into believing they've earned
significant compensation while contributing their efforts and labor
to the growth of the Defendants' enterprise, says the suit.
Earlier this year, the Delaware Chancery Court found the
restrictive provisions in CFLP's partnership agreement
unenforceable as a matter of Delaware law. Since this became
public, many former limited partners came to learn that the
Defendants -- led by Lutnick -- have exercised the
Forfeiture-for-Competition Provisions (FCPs) at issue in each of
these agreements in bad faith.
Indeed, the Defendants have allegedly used the FCPs to deny
payments to:
(1) those who have agreed to sit out for a period of time
before
returning to the workforce;
(2) those who are told -- at the time they are leaving --
that they are "good leavers" and will receive their
partnership payments notwithstanding their subsequent
employment; and
(3) a widow of a former partner who passed away shortly after
leaving Defendants' employment.
The incredulous exercise of the FCPs without any justifiable reason
demonstrates the true purpose of these provisions: they operate to
effectuate a scheme by those in control of the Defendant
partnerships to enrich themselves at the expense of their former
employees, the suit contends.
The Defendants' enforcement of the Non-Compete Provisions and FCPs
is both a breach of their respective partnership agreements and
unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs bring
this action to recover their damages, trebled, as well as
injunctive and other appropriate relief on behalf of all others
similarly situated.
Plaintiff Shawn Mcloughlin, a former limited partner of BGC, is a
United States citizen currently residing in Florida. Mcloughlin was
employed as the CEO of BGC Financial – Americas Region since
September 2017 until he was terminated in May 2020.
CFLP is an American financial services firm that specializes in
institutional equity, fixed income sales and trading, and serving
the middle market with investment banking services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH & TAYLOR P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
- and -
Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
KYLE ROCHE P.A.
260 Madison Avenue, 8th Fl. New
York, NY 10016
E-mail: kyle@kyleroche.law
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA CONNOLLY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01304 (N.J. Sup., Monmouth Cty.,
March 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and the Class's
personal health information and personally identifiable
information.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that CentraState failed to
implement and maintain reasonable and appropriate data privacy and
security measures to protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII
and PHI from cyber-attacks that CentraState should have anticipated
and guarded against.
As a result of CentraState's inadequate security and breach of its
duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's
and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed, says the
suit.
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. is an acute-care medical
center. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 899-1760
Facsimile: (332) 206-2073
Email: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
Riley W. Prince, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
rprince@barnowlaw.com
CHEMICAL GUYS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chemical Guys, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Chemical Guys, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01969 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chemical Guys, LLC -- https://www.chemicalguys.com/ -- offers high
quality car detailing supplies including car wax, polish and full
auto detailing kits.[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
CLUB 360: Bazarganfard, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BAZARGANFARD and
BARAK GOLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CLUB 360 LLC; ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; JEHANGIR
MEHER; VALLEY GYM CORP.; NORTH HOLLYWOOD FITNESS LLC; VAN NUYS
FITNESS CENTER LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Case No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class
certification against the Defendants.
In particular, Plaintiff Golan seeks class certification under Rule
23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the following class (the "EFTA
Class") against the Defendants ABC and Meher for
violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"):
"All persons in the United States whose bank accounts
were debited on a reoccurring basis by Meher or ABC
without obtaining a written authorization signed or
similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund
transfers in March 14, 2020 to September 2020 for fees
at any of the USA Fitness gyms."
The Plaintiff Golan also seeks to certify a subclass (the "EFTA
Club360 Subclass") against the Defendants Club 360, Meher, and ABC
consisting of:
"All persons in the United States whose bank accounts
were debited on a reoccurring basis by Club 360, Meher,
or ABC without obtaining a written authorization signed
or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic
fund transfers in March 14, 2020 to September 2020 for
fees at Club 360's gyms."
The Plaintiff Golan also seeks to certify a subclass (the "EFTA USA
Fitness Subclass") against all Defendants consisting of:
"All persons in the United States whose bank accounts
were debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendants
without obtaining a written authorization signed or
similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund
transfers after June 15, 2020 to September 2020 for fees
at any of the USA Fitness gyms."
Additionally, the Plaintiff Bazarganfard seeks class certification
under Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the following class (the
"UCL Class") against Gym Defendants for an unfair violation of the
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"):
"All persons in California who were charged or caused to
be charged by USA Fitness for fees at any of the USA
Fitness gyms during the closures in March 2020 to June
2020 or July 2020 to September 2020."
The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for injunctive relief.
The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and for appointment of
Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l4eTou at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
COLONIAL PENN: Kelley Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THURMA J. KELLEY,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation,, Case No.
2:20-cv-03348-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Kelley moves the
Court for leave to file under seal unredacted versions of exhibits
to the Declaration of Craig Nicholas in support of Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification, which contain information
designated as confidential by Defendant Colonial Penn pursuant to
the Protective Order.
Accompanying the application is the redacted versions of the
Documents Proposed to be Filed Under Seal, the Plaintiff is also
contemporaneously filing and lodging a proposed order with the
Court. The "Unredacted Versions of Documents Proposed to be Filed
Under Seal" will follow under a separate docket entry.
The Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal the following exhibits
to the Declaration of Craig Nicholas in support of Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification:
-- Exhibits 7 and 8 -- Defendant's sortable electronic Excel
spreadsheets BATES labeled "CP 02552.XLSX" and "CP
02553.XLSX" wherein Defendant identified 7,500 policies
issued or delivered in California before January 1, 2013,
that lapsed on after January 1, 2013.
Colonial Penn contends that the information contained in the
above-listed documents, is non-public, sensitive, confidential,
proprietary, and/or contains third party private information and
therefore needs to be treated as confidential under the Protective
Order. Plaintiff understands that, under Local Rules, Colonial Penn
will be required to further justify why these documents should be
sealed in a separate filing.
Colonial Penn is an American life insurance company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EU9g35 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
sball@einsurelaw.com
CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Conditional Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DAVIS, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated, v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00105-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order extending the time file a motion for conditional
certification on or before March 31, 2023.
On October 12, 2022, the Court Ordered a Scheduling and Discovery
Plan having the parties deadline to file non-dispositive motions by
February 20, 2023. After an extension the deadline to file
non-dispositive motions is now set on February 28, 2022.
The parties have been conferring regarding the class definition,
but have not reached an agreement.
ConocoPhillips is an independent exploration and production (E&P)
company
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ytqHDM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Ian L. Justice, Esq.
JOSEPHSON D UNLAP 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
ijustice@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT: Underpays Construction Managers, Collier Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM COLLIER, individually and for others similarly situated, v.
CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT RESOURCES, INC. d/b/a BARTECH, Case No.
2:23-cv-10500-MFL-KGA (E.D. Mich., March 1, 2023) seeks to recover
Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Connecticut Wage and Hour Laws, the Massachusetts Wage & Hour Law,
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New York Labor Law
against the Defendant.
Mr. Collier worked for Bartech as a construction manager in
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York from April
2019 until May 2022.
Corporate Employment Resources, Inc., d/b/a Bartech, provides
staffing solutions to companies across the United States, including
in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Olivia R. Beale, Esq.
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
- 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
CREDIT BUREAU: Eighth Cir. Vacates Judgment in Bassett Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, Kelly Bassett, individually and as heir of James M.
Bassett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc.; C.J. Tighe,
Defendants-Appellants, Kelly Bassett, individually and as heir of
James M. Bassett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc.; C.J.
Tighe Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 21-2864, 22-1206 (8th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacates the
district court's order granting judgment as a matter of law to
Bassett and the Plaintiff class.
Bassett sued Credit Bureau Services, Inc. and C.J. Tighe
(collectively, the "collectors") for unfair debt-collection
practices. The collectors sent Bassett (and her deceased husband) a
letter demanding payment for medical bills. The letter listed
amounts owed without distinguishing interest from principal. The
amounts included interest on Bassett's debts for which assessing
interest was disputed and legally uncertain. Tighe drafted the
template for the letter (which the collectors used at least 9,796
times).
Bassett brought a class action against the collectors, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692 ("FDCPA"), and the Nebraska Consumer Practices Act,
Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 59-1601 ("NCPA").
The collectors moved for summary judgment, alleging Bassett lacked
Article III standing. The district court denied the motion. A jury
returned a verdict for the collectors on all counts except the NCPA
claim, which was not tried before a jury. After trial, the district
court ruled it had provided inaccurate instructions to the jury
and, sua sponte, entered judgment as a matter of law for Bassett on
the NCPA and FDCPA claims. The district court specifically ruled
that the NCPA does not authorize collection of prejudgment interest
without a judgment.
The collectors appeal, alleging (i) Bassett does not have Article
III standing, (ii) the district court erred in allowing her to
introduce an issue at trial without notice, (iii) the district
court erred in determining that the NCPA requires a judgment before
collecting prejudgment interest, (iv) the district court abused its
discretion in finding Bassett an adequate class representative, (v)
the district court abused its discretion in certifying the FDCPA
class, (vi) the district court erred in denying the collectors a
jury trial for the NCPA claim, (vii) the district court abused its
discretion in certifying the NCPA class, (viii) the district court
erred in holding Tighe individually liable for the collectors'
conduct, and (ix) the district court abused its discretion in
awarding Bassett attorneys' fees, costs, and an incentive award.
The collectors allege that Bassett lacks standing because the
debt-collection letter did not cause Bassett concrete harm.
The Eighth Circuit holds that Bassett has not shown any harm that
bears a "close relationship" to the type of injury that results
from reliance on a misrepresentation or wrongful interference with
property rights. Bassett is also not seeking to remedy any harm to
herself but instead is merely seeking to ensure a defendant's
compliance with regulatory law (and, of course, to obtain some
money via the statutory damages). Because Bassett did not suffer a
concrete injury in fact as a result of the alleged statutory
violations, she lacks Article III standing.
For these reasons, the Eighth Circuit vacates the judgment and
remands the case for further proceedings consistent with its
Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/my96vndh from Leagle.com.
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Calhoun Suit Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK CALHOUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; AXEL P. LEHMANN;
ULRICH KORNER; and DIXIT JOSHI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01297
(D.N.J., March 8, 2023) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Suisse
securities between December 1, 2022 and February 17, 2023, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) contrary to
Defendant Lehmann's representations in December 2022, the sharp
increase in customer outflows Credit Suisse began experiencing in
October 2022 remained ongoing; (ii) 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; (iii) as a result, Credit Suisse
had overstated the Company's financial position and prospects; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Credit Suisse's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $0.10
per ADS, or 3.31%, to close at $2.92 per ADS on February 21, 2023.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit asserts.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG operates as a wealth management firm. The
Company specializes in investment banking and offers wealth
management activities aiming to capitalize on both the large pool
of wealth within mature markets, as well as the significant growth
in wealth in Asia Pacific and other emerging markets. Credit Suisse
Group serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Suit Seeks to Certify Narrowed Trader Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FTC Capital GMBH et al v.
Credit Suisse Group AG, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs seek leave to file a motion to certify a
narrowly defined class of traders who executed "efficient enforcer"
transactions.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek leave to file a motion to certify
an antitrust-only class on behalf of the following Eurodollar
Futures investors:
"All Eligible Persons who sold prior to August 7, 2007 and
held until the final expiration of the Eurodollar futures
contract after August 7, 2007 and before August 31, 2009.
Eligible Persons that sold a Eurodollar futures contract, or
bought a put option or sold a call option on Eurodollar
futures before August 7, 2007 and purchased all or part of
this short position back at the final expiration formula
price of a Eurodollar futures contract expiring after August
7, 2007 and before August 31, 2009."
The Plaintiffs submit the revised "efficient enforcer" class
definition would satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and address
the Court's prior concerns with other class certification motions.
As a threshold matter, the Plaintiff Atlantic Trading and members
of the proposed class transacted in Eurodollar Futures contracts,
which are standardized contracts, subject to the same rules in that
same centralized CME marketplace.
Atlantic Trading, which the Court previously found typical and
adequate, executed qualifying "efficient enforcer" transactions.
Specifically, in LIBOR VI, the Court found that Exchange-Based
plaintiffs "who, before the suppression period started, shorted
contracts that were held to settlement during the suppression
period," could be "efficient enforcers" with standing to assert
antitrust claims.
Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm founded and based in Switzerland.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L9Wbqk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN
JACOBSON LLP
500 5th Avenue, Suite 2440
New York, NY 10110
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
- and -
David E. Kovel, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
CRYSTAL BAY CASINO: Mendoza Files Suit in D. Nevada
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crystal Bay Casino
LLC. The case is styled as Fernando Mendoza, Sophia Mendoza,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Crystal Bay Casino LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00099-LRH-CSD (D. Nev.,
March 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for the Federal Trade
Commission Act.
The Crystal Bay Casino -- https://www.crystalbaycasino.com/ --
presents world class entertainment, gambling, and dining.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolin Shining, Esq.
Jennifer Leinbach, Esq.
Jesenia Martinez, Esq.
Jesse Chen, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA
- and -
Seth Aaron Bayles, Esq.
BAYLES LAW GROUP PLLC
10175 W Twain Ave., Suite 130
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Phone: (202) 679-9997
Email: bayleslawgroup@gmail.com
DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Seek to Modify Class Cert. Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVONNE HOOKS,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
DIGNITY HEALTH, Case No. 2:22-cv-07699-DSF-PD (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff Travonne Hooks move the Court to modify the Scheduling
Order to continue the class certification briefing schedule by 60
days in order to obtain discovery needed by him to move for class
certification.
Dignity Health was a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit
corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities
in three states.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LaBzye at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian. Esq.
Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
jason@kazlg.com
DON'S APPLIANCES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAD RICH, KEVIN MURPHY,
GREYE BROOKS, and ERIC ATWOOD, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. DON'S APPLIANCES, LTD, Case No.
2:22-cv-01455-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville
entered a case management order as follows:
1. The parties shall move to amend the pleadings or add new
parties by March 15, 2023.
2. The parties shall complete class certification discovery
by September 29, 2023.
3. The parties do not anticipate the necessity of expert
discovery for the class certification portion of
discovery.
4. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected
by May 1, 2023.
5. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class
Certification by November 10, 2023.
6. The Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification by December 18, 2023.
7. The Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by January 2, 2024.
Don's is a local home appliance store..
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yu6ihV at no extra charge.[CC]
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Seeks Decertification of Vasquez Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE VASQUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. DRAPER AND KRAMER
MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Defendant move the Court for an order granting its motion for
decertification:
(1) the Court must deny certification of Plaintiff Jose
Vasquez's class claims because the variance in testimony
across the FLSA collective shows that not all of them are
similarly situated for resolving whether the FLSA's
outside salesperson exemption apply to all of the
Plaintiffs in this Action; and
(2) the Court must deny certification of Vasquez's class
claims because several mini-trials are necessary for not
only resolving the application of the FLSA's outside
salesperson exemption but also resolving how many hours
each of the Plaintiffs worked.
The Court finds that there is no feasible means to resolve the
claims of all members in a single lawsuit.
Draper and Kramer operates as a full-service property and financial
services firms.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TfqKNd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher A. Braham, Esq.
Brian Casillas, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Telephone: (310) 277-4110
Facsimile: (310) 277 4730
E-mail: cbraham@mwe.com
bcasillas@mwe.com
EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NC: Myrick Seeks Extension of Class Cert Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEROAM MYRICK, as an
Individual and as Representative on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CLEVELAND ATKINSON, JR., as Sheriff of Edgecombe
County; COUNTY OF EDGECOMBE; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00139-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order partially modifying the Amended Case Management
Order by extending the time in which the Plaintiff is required to
file his Motion for Class / Collective Action Certification for 60
days, from March 1, 2023 to May 1, 2023.
The Court in its Order acknowledged that modification could be
granted for good cause. Thus, the Plaintiff has brought this motion
to demonstrate good cause and to partially modify the Case
Management Order.
The Court's Amended Order was filed November 17, 2022. The
Plaintiff intended to timely file his Motion for Class
Certification within the time set by the court, completing the
motion and supporting documents after the holidays.
In mid-January, 2023, the Plaintiffs' Attorney Alvin Pittman became
ill with Covid for the fourth time. Mr. Pittman is susceptible to
severe Covid complications because of a serious underlying asthma
condition. Although Mr. Pittman sought treatment, he has not
recovered despite ongoing treatment. He is now suffering residual
effects including severe headaches, dizziness, lung congestion,
coughing with consequent difficulty talking, fatigue and inability
to focus, including inability to focus on a computer screen.
Phase one discovery is complete pursuant to the case management
order and the parties previous pursuit of discovery. The parties
have voluntarily entered into a protective order and agreements
regarding electronic discovery.
On February 22, 2023, Christie Webb on behalf of Plaintiff's
counsel communicated the need for this extension by email to
defendants' attorney Mary Craven Adams.
The Plaintiff is mindful of the Court's desire to prevent
unnecessary delays in litigation and does not make this motion
either in bad faith or for purposes of delay. The continuance
requested will not prejudice Defendant. It will allow Plaintiff's
attorney of record, Alvin Pittman, to recover from Covid,
thoroughly prepare and file the motion.
The Plaintiff's current due date for filing the motion for
certification is March 1, 2023. The Plaintiff requests the date be
continued for approximately 60 days to May 1, 2023.
The Plaintiff brings this motion to extend time as soon as possible
under the circumstances, and do not anticipate that any other dates
scheduled will be affected by the extension requested.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 27,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ymZd2X
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alvin L. Pittman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALVIN L. PITTMAN
5777 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 1685
Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 337-3077
Facsimile: (310) 337-3080
E-mail: office@apittman-law.com
ELECTRIC SUPPLY: Directors Mismanage Retirement Fund, Cothran Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT COTHRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and for Electric Supply Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(the "ESOP"), Plaintiff v. GEORGE M. ADAMS JR.; SANDRA BROCK;
SHAKER BROCK; KELLY A. POUND; and HAROLD IRWIN, Defendants, Case
No. 8:23-cv-00518 (M.D. Fla., March 8, 2023) alleges Defendants'
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants illegally liquidated
employees' retirement benefits (shares of Electric Supply of Tampa,
Inc. ("ESI") stock) held in the ESOP trust, redeeming the ESOP's
shares for less than fair market value a week before a private
equity transaction in which the equivalent ownership was valued
significantly higher.
The Plaintiff and other ESOP participants paid the price. The
Plaintiff received a smaller distribution from the ESOP due to the
Defendants' actions and omissions. The Plaintiff brings this action
on behalf of the ESOP, and ESOP participants as a class, to recover
lost benefits and remedy Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the
suit.
ELECTRIC SUPPLY OF TAMPA INC. offers a large selection of
electrical products. The Company provides contractor and industrial
team linecards, voice data linecards, utility team linecards,
complimentary wire cutting, utility metering specialists, emergency
services, and more. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
- and -
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 337-7992
(813) 379-2565
(813) 379-2560
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
- and -
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE MCDONOUGH
THOMPSON & THOMSON LLC
729 N Washington Ave, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
Email: cengstrom@engstromlee.com
mthomson@engstromlee.com
ELECTROLUX HOME: Plummer Sues Over Misleading Representation
------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Plummer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00307-AWT (D. Conn., March 8, 2023), is brought seeking
damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and
misleading representation of its induction ranges and cooktops,
such as the Gallery 30'' Freestanding Induction Range with Air Fry
(Model GCRI3058AF), under the Frigidaire brand ("Product").
The Defendant markets its induction ranges and cooktops with the
representation that they feature "Auto Sizing Pan Detection." The
description of the Product tells consumers the Product will
function reliably and automatically detect the size of the pan
being used, so as to adjust the burner size and send enough heat as
needed.
Consumers purchase induction ranges and cooktops for their wide
range of functionality, ease of use, and convenience. Companies,
like Defendant, make it a point to highlight the key features of
their products, such as the Product's Auto Sizing Pan Detection.
Despite the marketing of the Product as capable of functioning
reliably and automatically detecting the size of the pan being
used, so as to adjust the burner size and send enough heat as
needed, it did not function reliably or automatically detect the
size of the pan being used, so as to adjust the burner size and
send enough heat as needed. The auto sizing pan detection feature
of the Product is defective, in that it does not properly adjust
the burner size to account for pan size. Instead, the burner only
sends heat to the inner few inches of the cookware. This defect
affects the function of the cooktop and results in uneven heating,
causing food at the outer edges of the pan to undercook, while that
in the center overcooks and/or burns.
The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. As a result
of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at
a premium price, approximately no less than $1649.00, excluding tax
and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells
induction ranges and cooktops.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd Ste 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Phone: (718) 762-1324
Email: troylaw@troypllc.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
EXPRESS LIEN: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid in 30 Days
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRACE L. WILLIAMS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EXPRESS
LIEN, INC. dba Levelset, Case No. 1:21-cv-04611-TWT-LTW (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Linda T. Walker entered an order granting unopposed
consent motion for additional time as follows:
-- The Plaintiff shall file her Motion for Class Certification
or other appropriate motion (including a motion to remand
to the State Court of Cobb County) within 30 days of this
Order.
Express Lien is a New Orleans-based construction payment and
document management software platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mCn3oy at no extra charge.[CC]
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Caston Sues Over Mefloquine-Based Medications
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea M. Caston, Richard Githens, Patrick Eugene Wagher, and
Kendrick Allen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.; ROCHE LABORATORIES, INC.;
GENENTECH, INC.; GENENTECH USA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00928 (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2023) seeks relief to
remedy the harms caused by Defendants' unlawful design, testing,
manufacture, marketing, packaging, labeling, handling, distribution
and/or sale of prescription mefloquine-containing medications,
including those sold under the brand name Lariam and any generic
equivalents.
This action arises from Defendants' egregious failure to warn U.S.
military and its service members of the substantial and
irreversible dangers of its antimalarial drug mefloquine, which
includes the brand-name Lariam and any generic equivalents of the
drug. Mefloquine is now recognized as one of the most dangerous
malaria prevention drugs on the market, and Mefloquine toxicity is
believed to be the modern-day version of Agent Orange in scope and
scale. Mefloquine has left at least tens of thousands of our
nation's veterans severely and permanently sick, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are veterans of the U.S. military, who took
Mefloquine while deployed abroad. Upon taking the drug, all
Plaintiffs began suffering neurological and psychiatric side
effects, which have only worsened over time and persist to this
day. Due to Defendants' reckless and dangerous conduct in marketing
and selling Mefloquine to the U.S. military, Plaintiffs had no
knowledge that the side effects they were experiencing could be due
in any way to Mefloquine, the suit alleges.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, commonly known as Roche, is a Swiss
multinational healthcare company that operates worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erica W. Rutner, Esq.
David J. Todd, Esq.
MOORE & LEE, LLP
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1980
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (703) 506-2050
Facsimile: (703) 506-2051
E-mail: e.rutner@mooreandlee.com
d.todd@mooreandlee.com
- and -
Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 372-1800
Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
E-mail: gam@kttlaw.com
FAMILY FIRST: Arias Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
FRANSISCA ARIAS, CHERIE LYN COWELL, PATRICIA KOSTAK, CRISTINA
LINDNER, JOHANA PENA, and RAVEN VENTURA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FAMILY FIRST
FUNDING, LLC, GABRIEL GILLEN, an Individual, NEUSA GILLEN, an
Individual, and SCOTT WEIKEL, an Individual, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01226 (D.N.J., March 2, 2023) is a class action brought
pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law for Defendants' alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs
all minimum and overtime wages due.
The Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendants working as
processors and processor assistants.
Family First Funding, LLC is a New Jersey-based direct mortgage
lender with in-house mortgage processing and underwriting.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell Schley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
197 Route 18 South
South Tower, Suite 3000
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
Telephone: (732) 325-0318
E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com
FASHION NOVA: Order on Class Certification Bids Entered in Shabtai
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SHABTAI v. FASHION
NOVA LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08025-FMO-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions for
class certification as follows:
1. Joint Brief:
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully integrated joint brief covering each party's
position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a
party is immediately followed by the opposing
party's/parties' response.
2. Citation to Evidence:
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be
directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the
evidentiary appendix.
3. Unnecessary Sections: The parties need not include a
"procedural history" section, since the court will be
familiar with the procedural history.
4. Evidentiary Appendix: The joint brief shall be accompanied
by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and
written evidence (including documents, photographs,
deposition excerpts, etc.).
5. Evidentiary Objections:
All necessary evidentiary objections shall be made
in the relevant section(s) of the joint brief.
6. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief:
The briefing schedule for the joint brief shall be as
follows:
A. Meet and Confer: In order for a motion for class
certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet
and confer must take place no later than 35 days before
the deadline for class certification motions
set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling
Order.
B. No later than seven days after the meet and confer, the
moving party shall personally deliver or e-mail to the
opposing party an electronic copy of the moving party's
portion of the joint brief, together with the moving
party's portion of the evidentiary appendix.
C. No later than 14 days after receiving the moving
party's papers, the opposing party shall personally
deliver or e-mail to the moving party an electronic
copy of the integrated motion, which shall include the
opposing party's portion of the joint brief, together
with the opposing party's portion of the evidentiary
appendix.
D. No later than two days after receiving the integrated
version of the motion and related papers, the moving
party shall finalize it for filing.
Fashion Nova is an American fast fashion retail company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F9nfC1 at no extra charge.[CC]
FCA U.S. LLC: Phillips Files Suit in D. Delaware
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA U.S. LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Stacy Phillips, Lawrence Willis, Eli Negron,
III, Christian Papana, Jason Van Genderen, Mark Hollingsworth,
Jeffrey G. Heintz, Sr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. FCA U.S. LLC, Stellantis, N.V., Case No.
1:23-cv-00251-UNA (D. Del., March 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 274-2180
Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
FEIN SUCH: White Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WHITE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Christopher White, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fein, Such and Crane,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00438, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York.
The Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against the
Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practice Act ("FDCPA") and New York General Business Law Section
349 arising from attorneys' fees charged by the Defendant for legal
services pertaining to foreclosure actions against the Plaintiffs.
On October 26, 2015, the Hon. John T. Curtin denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint, and the Plaintiffs amended their
complaint about a year later.
On July 31, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Lawrence J. Vilardo on Feb. 3, 2023. The Court determined that the
Plaintiffs were not injured by paying improper fees and costs as
part of their negotiated voluntary settlements with Fein Such or if
they were, it was the result of their attorneys' inadequate
negotiations. The Plaintiffs do not claim actual damages, nor have
they offered evidence of any. The Court ruled that the Defendant is
entitled to summary judgment. The Plaintiffs' motion for additional
discovery under Rule 56(d) was denied.
The appellate case is captioned White v. Fein, Such and Crane, LLP,
Case No. 23-314, in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on March 7, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER WHITE, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq.
BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
352 Rutland Road, #1
Brooklyn, NY 11225
Telephone: (212) 248-7906
- and -
Charles Marshall Delbaum, Esq.
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
7 Winthrop Square
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 542-8010
Defendant-Appellee FEIN, SUCH AND CRANE, LLP is represented by:
Dennis R. McCoy, Esq.
100 Lakewood Parkway
Amherst, NY 14226
Telephone: (716) 432-1843
FIFTH LABOR: Chavez Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUANITA PAULINA CHAVEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE
FIFTH LABOR, LLC, a New York limited liability company, and ANTHONY
RHODES, an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-07781-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) authorizing this matter to proceed as a collective
action;
(2) authorizing mailing and emailing of the proposed notice
to all potential Collective Action Members;
(3) authorizing posting at Defendants' place of business; and
(4) requiring the Defendants to produce a list containing the
names and last-known addresses (and email
address/telephone numbers) so that notice may be
implemented.
This is a wage-and-hour case brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") as a putative collective action. Juanita Paulina
Chavez, the named Plaintiff in this matter, makes collective action
allegations relating to employees "similarly situated" to herself.
Specifically, she alleges that Defendants consistently failed to
pay Plaintiff and the collective action members overtime premium
wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, as required by the
FLSA.
Through this motion, the Plaintiff seeks authorization to proceed
with this case as a collective action under Section 216(b) of the
FLSA on behalf of current and former employees employed by the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff does not know the exact number of similar employees
who may be implicated over the applicable three-year period
governed by the FLSA, but she has already identified several others
who were victims of the same conduct and is aware of others who
worked with her during her course of employment.
Fifth Labor is a 5-star rated Cleaning Contractor.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LgjH58 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklgal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph W. Carbonaro, Esq.
CARBONARO LAW, PC
757 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 888-5200
Facsimile: (212)898-0394
E-mail: joe@jcarbonarolaw.com
FOREVER SIGNS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Rodriguez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIKEL RODRIGUEZ, and other similarly situated individuals v.
FOREVER SIGNS, INC., a Florida corporation and ROBIN PEREZ an
individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-20933-BB (Fla. Cir., Mar. 9, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiff worked 108.5 compensable weeks under the Act, or
108.5 compensable weeks if counted 3 years back from the filing of
the instant action. The Corporate Defendant paid Plaintiff on
average approximately $550.00 per week. However, the Corporate
Defendant did not properly compensate Plaintiff for hours that the
Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week, the lawsuit says.
At all times material hereto, the Corporate Defendant failed to
comply with Title 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219 and 29 C.F.R. Section
516.2 and § 516.4 et seq. in that the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated performed services and worked in excess of the
maximum hours provided by the Act but no provision was made by the
Corporate Defendant to properly pay them at the rate of time and
one half for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek as
provided in the Act, added the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant from 2013 through
March 2022.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30 th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: julisse@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
FORTRA LLC: Hubler Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Hubler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORTRA, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-00545-NEB-ECW (D. Minn.,
March 8, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent targeted
cyberattack and data breach in January 2023 ("Data Breach") on the
Defendant's GoAnywhere network that resulted in unauthorized access
to customer, i.e. Hatch Bank, highly sensitive personal
information, which resulted to the Plaintiff and approximately
139,493 Class Members to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of
the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
information--which was entrusted to Defendant and its officials and
agents--was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data
Breach. Information compromised in the Data Breach includes
Defendant's customers' and (current and former) employees' name and
Social Security number (collectively, "Private Information"). The
Defendant's inadequate cybersecurity measures enabled an
unauthorized third party to gain access to Defendant's network and
obtain Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information,
including and Social Security Number.
On February 28, 2023, the Plaintiff received a Notice of Security
Incident Letter ("Notice of Data Breach"), which informed him of
that on January 29, 2023, Fortra experienced a cyber incident when
it learned of a vulnerability in its software. On February 3, 2023,
Hatch Bank was notified by Fortra of this incident by Defendant and
learned the scope of the files subject to the cyber incident.
According to the Data Breach Notice Letter received by the
Plaintiff on March 3, 2023, the Plaintiff's name and Social
Security Number were impacted by the breach.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless and
negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was
maintained on the Defendant's computer system and network in a
condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The mechanism of the
cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk
to the Defendant, and thus the Defendant was on notice that failing
to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from
those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The
Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because
of the Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information
that the Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of
data thieves, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Hatch Ban.
The Defendant provides information technology management software
and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Phone: (952) 746-2124
Email: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
aregan@hjlawfirm.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
FTX TRADING: Ex-NBA Shaquille O'Neal May Face Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Barber of My San Antonio reports that Shaquille O'Neal is
reportedly hiding in his home to avoid being served in a class
action lawsuit against the former basketball star and other
celebrity endorsers of FTX, a multibillion-dollar Texas-based
crypto exchange that went bankrupt last year, according to emails
obtained by Forbes.
The class action lawsuit was filed in Florida in November by
Oklahoma resident and FTX retail investor Edwin Garrison, and names
O'Neal, Tom Brady, Stephen Curry, Larry David, Giselle Bündchen,
and Kevin O'Leary among defendants in the case. FTX-founder Sam
Bankman-Fried, who was extradited from the Bahamas in December to
face a number of separate federal fraud charges, is also named in
the suit, which argues that celebrities should be held accountable
for being used as a prop to score billions in investments. The
lawsuit also alleges the celebrities violated SEC endorsement laws
by failing to disclose "the nature, scope, and amount" of
compensation they received from the crypto exchange.
Garrison's lawyers David Boies and Adam Moskowitz sent an email to
defendants on March 7, which was with Forbes, that explicitly names
O'Neal as the only defendant in the case to be "actively evading
service," by refusing to answer "his home door" when process
servers went to his home. It is not immediately clear which
residence the service processors are attempting to contact O'Neal,
as the famous athlete and entrepreneur has a number of residences,
including a home in Texas, California, Florida and Atlanta.
Moskowitz described O'Neal's evasive attempts to Forbes as
"astonishing," noting his involvement with the crypto exchange is
"probably the worst against any of the FTX Brand Ambassadors." The
email says that the other parties have been served, noting that
"many . . . have been cooperative," while "others have been more
difficult." Forbes reports that an email from lawyer David E. Fink,
representing Naomi Osaka, that says the tennis star was unaware of
efforts to serve her over a reported deal to wear the FTX logo
during tournaments.
O'Neal was vocal in his endorsement for FTX, which had an estimated
value of $32 billion at its peak, holding public events in support
of the crypto exchange, including a massive carnival in February
2022 titled "Shaq's Fun House Los Angeles Presented by FTX," that
included performances by Lil Wayne and Diplo. He debuted in June
2022 as an official FTX Brand Ambassador and his promotions
included a commercial for the exchange.
Moskowitz told Forbes that Shaq "admitted that his friend Steph
Curry called him, told him he could make millions of dollars, if he
just served as a FTX Brand Ambassador and lied in a television
commercial, that he was 'all in' with FTX, when he admitted that
personally, he would not go near cryptocurrency."
O'Neal spoke publicly with CNBC back in September 2021 on his
hesitation over investing in cryptocurrencies because of his lack
of knowledge on the subject, noting that the overnight success
stories of crypto companies seemed "too good to be true." He spoke
with CNBC again in December 2022 after investigations into FTX
began, saying he was "just a spokesperson" for the commercial where
he claimed he was "all in."
The FTX crypto scandal and subsequent investigations are continuing
to unfold, as Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang and Nishad Singh --
Bankman-Fried's close colleagues at FTX and Alameda Research --
have pled guilty and are cooperating in the probes. FTX is accused
of using customer funds to prop up Alameda Research, and the Wall
Street reported on March 2 that $8.9 billion in customer funds that
cannot be accounted for.
In addition to the class action lawsuit and other federal
investigations, the state of Texas State Securities Board confirmed
to the Texas Tribune in November that the company and its celebrity
endorsers, including O'Neal, were under investigation for violating
state security laws. [GN]
FULL SPECTRUM: FLSA Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adam Hershman; Sumit
Singh; et al., v. Full Spectrum Laser LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02245-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Cristina D. Silva
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for collective
action.
The plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action is granted subject to the
conditions as follows:
-- The Defendant Full Spectrum Laser must provide plaintiffs'
counsel with the names, e-mail addresses, and last-known
addresses of all salespersons who worked for the defendant
from 20 December 25, 2018, through the present date.
-- It must do so within 30 days of this order's filing. The
Plaintiffs must revise the notice form in accordance with
the instruction from section V of the order.
-- The Plaintiffs must file a proposed revised notice form in
this case's electronic docket 23 by March 9, 2023, for the
court's approval.
-- Within 30 days of my approval, the plaintiffs must serve
the notice and consent-to-sue forms to each potential
member of the collective.
-- Potential members will have 90 days from the date that the
notice and consent-to-sue forms are mailed to submit their
opt-in forms.
-- The statute of limitations for plaintiffs' FLSA claims is
tolled from December 25, 2021, until Full Spectrum provides
the requisite contact information to plaintiffs' counsel.
The Plaintiffs Adam Hershman and Sumit Singh move for conditional
class certification on behalf of a putative class of current and
former salespeople who worked for defendant Full Spectrum Laser
LLC.
The Plaintiffs allege that Full Spectrum underpays its in-house
sales team by refusing to pay overtime wages and firing employees
before paying out commissions owed, thus violating the FLSA.
Between September and December of 2021, plaintiffs were employed by
Full Spectrum to sell its laser engraving products. They were
partially compensated on commission, earning additional pay based
on certain sales they made.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L4fVLY at no extra charge.[CC]
G11 SECURITY INC: Diaz Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Uriel Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. G11 SECURITY, INC., and LISA TRIPPLET, Jointly and
Severally, Case No. 1:23-cv-01002-VMC (N.D. Ga., March 8, 2023), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime premium pay, owed to them
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and supporting
regulations.
The Plaintiff typically worked 60 hours a week each week, but has
worked as much as 70 hours a week at times. The Plaintiff typically
worked six days each week, and had sporadic off days that were not
on a certain day. The Plaintiff was paid straight-time for all
hours worked for the Defendants. This failure to pay overtime
premium wages to the Plaintiff overtime premium pay, at a rate of
time-and-a-half his regular rate, can only be considered a willful
violation of the FLSA. The Defendants have failed to pay overtime
wages to Plaintiff for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, at the correct regular rate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a security guard for the Defendants.
The Defendants operate a security company, that provides security
for various commercial businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
Atlanta, GA 30328
Phone: (678) 330-2909
Fax: (678) 638-6201
Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Dismissal of Destination Charge Class Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a General Motors
destination charge class action lawsuit is over after the
plaintiffs failed to convince an appeals court to reinstate their
claims against GM.
According to the destination charge lawsuit, customers are ripped
off when buying a new GM vehicle because the automaker includes a
destination charge as a fee to deliver new vehicles to
dealerships.
Every destination charge is included on the Monroney label, or
window sticker, found on a new vehicle. The class action alleges
customers would be shocked to learn GM makes a profit from the
destination fee.
One owner who filed the GM destination charge class action lawsuit
asserts he was charged a $1,195 destination fee when he purchased a
new 2021 Chevrolet Equinox. The other owner who sued says he was
hit with a $995 destination charge when he bought his 2019 Cadillac
Escalade.
Both plaintiffs contend they didn't know GM made a profit from the
destination charge, a practice that was and still is allegedly
deceptive.
The district court where the class action was filed dismissed the
entire lawsuit by ruling there was nothing deceptive about GM's
destination charge.
Judge William Q. Hayes found "reasonable or average consumers would
not be surprised to learn that the price of goods often includes
profit for the seller. The term 'Destination Charge' does not
reasonably imply an absence of profit."
The judge also ruled GM had fully disclosed the existence and
amount of the destination charges and the total sticker prices of
the GM vehicles.
In other words, the plaintiffs received the GM vehicles they were
promised at the prices they agreed upon.
And according to the judge, GM's conduct cannot be considered
"unjust" because the class action lawsuit fails to adequately
allege facts to support an inference that GM's conduct is
deceptive.
According to Judge Hayes, allegedly leaving out additional
information about the destination charge is not material.
The two plaintiffs who filed the class action lawsuit were granted
an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which
ruled the dismissal was appropriate.
The appeals court found the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege
deception by GM.
The GM destination charge is a fee charged to a dealer and paid by
dealers to General Motors. This is regardless of the plaintiff's
"speculative reasoning" concerning what is responsible for the
makeup of such fees, said the Ninth Circuit.
"There is no allegation that GM charged the dealers a lesser amount
than is represented to consumers, enabling the dealer to earn a
secret profit from consumers. We hold that a reasonable or average
consumer would not be deceived by the destination charge underlying
each of Plaintiffs' claims. Because there is no deception, the
complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief." -- U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The GM destination charge class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California:
Romoff, et al., v. General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kaliel Gold PLLC, and Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert. [GN]
GLOBAL FINISHING: Ruling on Conditional Class Cert. Bid Delayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parente, Salvatore, et
al., v. Global Finishing Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00159
(W.D. Wisc., Filed March 23, 2022), the Hon. Judge William M.
Conley entered an order granting in part the parties' stipulation
as follows:
-- The court shall delay decision on the motion for
conditional class certification for an additional 30 days,
until March 27, 2023.
-- The parties shall file a status update with the court on or
before that date regarding their settlement discussions.
Global Finishing produces product finishing equipment.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Job Discrimination.[CC]
GREATER CINCINNATI: Kleinhans, et al., Seek Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN KLEINHANS and TESSA
BRADLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GREATER CINCINNATI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, Case No.
1:21-cv-00070-MRB-KLL (S.D. Ohio), the Parties file a joint motion
for approval of settlement and stipulation of dismissal with
prejudice.
The litigation costs sought to be reimbursed are also proper and
reasonable. Plaintiffs' Counsel has incurred expenses in the amount
of $9,747.19, which includes $402.00 incurred for the filing fee;
$575.00 for a public records search; $995.19 for administration of
the Notice to Potential Class Members; $7,275.00 for Plaintiffs'
share of the mediator's fees; and $500.00 for miscellaneous
litigation expenses. All expenses were incurred during the course
of the litigation of this Action.
The proposed settlement will resolve bona fide disputes involving
overtime compensation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as corresponding state wage-and-hour statutes.
The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing
to pay them and other similarly situated employees for all hours
worked, including overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked
over 40 each workweek.
The Defendant has consistently denied, and still denies, any
liability or wrongdoing and states that all Plaintiffs were
properly classified as exempt from overtime requirements under
applicable law.
The Plaintiffs contend that If approved by the Court, the
Settlement will provide for the issuance of settlement payments to
Plaintiffs within 45 days.
On January 31, 2021, Mr. Kleinhans initiated this action against
the Defendant as a "collective action" as a result of Defendant's
alleged practices and policies of misclassifying him and other
similarly situated employees as "exempt" and allegedly failing to
pay them for all hours worked, including overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the
FLSA.
In their Motion, as well as Complaint and Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs defined the proposed FLSA collective class as follows:
"All current and former individuals in positions, job titles,
job codes, job classifications, or job descriptions of "Case
Manager" and all other similar nomenclature performing
substantially identical functions employed by Greater
Cincinnati Behavioral Health Services between January 31,
2018 and the present."
Greater Cincinnati offers services to people with mental health
and/or substance use disorders.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mCfSwP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan M. Martin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
201 E. Fifth Street, 26th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 898-0050
Facsimile: (513) 898-0051
E-mail: ryan.martin@jacksonlewis.com
HAIER US: Gas Stoves Produce Health-Harming Pollutants, Drake Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00939-RMI (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for alleged unlawful conduct
in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act and State Consumer Protection Statutes.
The Plaintiff brings this case for himself and for other consumers
who purchased Defendant's gas stoves, ovens, and range products. He
purchased Defendant's product on the assumption that using the
product would not expose him to a significant air pollutant risk.
The Plaintiff asserts that he would not have purchased Defendant's
product had he known that it emitted harmful pollutants like
nitrogen oxide.
As a result, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when he: (a) spent
money to purchase a product he would not otherwise have purchased
absent Defendant's misconduct; (b) overpaid for the product due to
Defendant's misconduct; and (c) paid for a defective product that,
in truth, is worth less than he paid for it, says the suit.
Haier US Appliance Solutions provides home equipment. The Company
offers refrigerators, ranges, cooktops, wall ovens, microwaves,
vent hoods, dishwashers, ductless systems, and laundry equipment.
Haier US Appliance Solutions serves customers in the United
States.[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
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REJOICE! COFFEE COMPANY,
LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated,. v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; SENTINEL INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., a Connecticut corporation; Case No.
3:20-cv-06789-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen
entered an order amending class certification motion deadlines as
follows:
1. The class certification motion June 30, 2023
deadline is:
2. The class certification opposition July 28, 2023
deadline is:
3. The class certification reply August 11, 2023
deadline is:
4. The class certification hearing August 31, 2023
date is:
Hartford is a United States-based investment and insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J5YXtS at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Rottinghaus, Esq.
Fredrick A. Hagen, Esq.
BERDING & WEIL LLP
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 838-2090
Facsimile: (925) 820-5592
E-mail: drottinghaus@berdingweil.com
fhagen@berdingweil.com
- and -
David M. Birka-White, Esq.
Robert S. Robinson, Esq.
BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
178 E. Prospect Avenue
Danville, CA 94526
Telephone: (925) 362-9999
Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com
rob@robrobinsonlaw.com
HEALTH RECOVERY: Bids to File Documents Under Seal Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIANA FRECHETTE, et al.,
v. HEALTH RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motions to
file documents under seal
-- The Defendant is ordered to file the redacted and sealed
exhibits consistent with this Opinion and Order within
seven days.
-- The Defendant represents that it has made redactions to the
deposition of Jane Doe to protect her children's medical
information. But, as with Exhibits B and C to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification, the discussion merely
establishes the existence and completion of intake forms
which set forth some of Defendant's policies and
procedures.
Frechette and Jane Doe, guardian and mother of J.F., a minor, and
C.F., a minor, on behalf of a purported class, have brought suit
against Health Recovery, a mental health and alcohol and drug
addiction services provider, for numerous claims allegedly arising
from Defendant's early 2019 data breach.
The Plaintiffs previously moved to seal Exhibits B–G supporting
their Motion for Class Certification, because those exhibits had
been marked as confidential by Defendant during the exchange of
discovery.
The Court granted temporary sealing and asked Defendant to
articulate a basis for permanent sealing.
Health Recovery Services offers medication assisted treatment to
those who need help with alcohol and drug addiction.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41ZBELa at no extra charge.[CC]
HIGHMARK HEALTH: Hollandsworth Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highmark Health. The
case is styled as Angela Hollandsworth, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Highmark Health, Case No.
2:23-cv-00376-NR (W.D. Pa., March 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Highmark Inc. -- https://www.highmarkhealth.org/ -- is a health and
wellness organization located in Pittsburgh and operates health
insurance plans in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and West Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
1575 McFarland Road, Ste. 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Phone: (412) 391-5164
Email: yateslaw@aol.com
HOLIDAY INN: Parties in Lingard Must Confer Class Cert. Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lingard, et al., v.
Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00323
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order
directing the Parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a
motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable
deadlines in their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for:
(1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff
and defendant;
(2) discovery -- class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.
Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated | Corporate Site
Holiday Inn is a resort, real estate and travel company.[CC]
HONEY POT: McAuley Sues Over False Representation
-------------------------------------------------
Nicole McAuley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE HONEY POT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01986
(S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023), is brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Defendant's false representation of their "feminine care
foaming washes" (the "Products") in the United States, in violation
of New York General Business Law ("GBL"), breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and
fraud.
The Products include vulvar washes, wipes, sprays, and deodorant
powders; tampons, underwear liners, and menstrual cups; and,
"vaginal health supplement" pills. The Defendant sells these
Products throughout the United States, including New York. One of
Defendant's product lines is "feminine care foaming washes," which
are meant to "boost moisture and soothe while gently cleansing [a
woman's] most delicate parts." The Products are foam soaps that are
intended for use on the vulva, and the Products come in a variety
of scents and/or special properties. The Products at issue include:
Normal Wash, Sensitive Wash, Cucumber Aloe Wash, and Bergamot Rose
Foaming Wash.
On the Products' label, Defendant represents that the Products are
suitable for vulvar use: the label describes the Products as "plant
derived feminine care foaming wash" and direct women to "use daily
to refresh" their "intimate parts." Thus, reasonable consumers
reviewing the Products' label would believe the Products are
suitable for vulvar cleansing.
However, the Defendant's representation that women should use these
Products on their vulva is false: the medical community is adamant
that women should only use water to clean their vulvas and that
feminine care washes are harmful to women's health. Accordingly,
the claim that these Products are suitable for vulvar use is false
and misleading because the Products are not safe for vulvar use,
let alone on a daily basis, and consumers would not have purchased
the Products, or paid substantially less for them, had they known
the claim was not true, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a purchaser of the Product.
The Defendant manufactures and sells a variety of products for the
vulva and vagina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: mrobert@bursor.com
- and -
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Emily A. Horne, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: bscott@bursor.com
ehorne@bursor.com
HV GLOBAL: Bid to File Class Status Due August 18
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON RAMIREZ, v. HV
GLOBAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-09955-BLF
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order
granting in part the plaintiff's motion to continue class
certification deadlines.
Item Current Plaintiff's Court's
deadline Proposal Order
Motion for class Apr. 7, 2023 Sep. 15, 2023 Aug. 18, 2023
certification
Opposition Jul. 6, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023
Reply Sep. 12, 2023 Jan. 19, 2024 Jan. 19, 2024
Mediation Apr. 28, 2023 Oct. 27, 2023 Sep. 1, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J8FWHo at no extra charge.[CC]
IFIT INC: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Treinish Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IFIT INC., doing business as Nordictrack, Inc., et al. are taking
an appeal from a court order denying their motion to dismiss in the
lawsuit entitled Matthew Treinish, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. iFit Inc. dba
Nordictrack, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04687-DMG-SK, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the Defendants
for violation of Unfair Competition Law and for breach of warranty
and breach of implied warranty in violation of Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
On Nov. 7, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Dolly M. Gee on
Feb. 2, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Matthew Treinish v. iFit Inc., et
al., Case No. 23-55207, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 7, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant iFit Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on March
14, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on May 2, 2023;
-- Appellant iFit Inc. opening brief is due on June 12, 2023;
-- Appellee Matthew Treinish answering brief is due on July 11,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MATTHEW TREINISH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Defendants-Appellants IFIT INC., DBA Nordictrack, Inc., et al. are
represented by:
Aaron S. Case, Esq.
YOKA & SMITH, LLP
445 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 427-2300
IKEA US: Agrees to Settle FCTA Class Action for $24.25 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that IKEA agreed to pay $24.25 million to
resolve claims it printed receipts with too many payment card
digits, a violation of privacy.
The settlement benefits consumers who used a debit or credit card
at any IKEA retail store between Oct. 18, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2019,
who received an electronically printed receipt displaying the first
six and last four digits of the payment card number.
According to the class action lawsuit, IKEA violated the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing more than the
last five digits of payment card numbers on electronically printed
receipts. The retailer allegedly printed the first six and last
four digits of card numbers - far more than what is allowed by
FACTA.
IKEA is a global home furnishing brand with locations around the
United States.
IKEA hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $24.25 million
class action settlement to resolve the FACTA allegations.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an
equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payments will vary
depending on the number of participating claimants. According to
the settlement website, each claimant is anticipated to receive
between $30 and $60, based on a 10% to 5% claim rate.
No settlement funds will return to IKEA after payments are
distributed. Any residual funds will be donated to the Chicago Bar
Foundation, a non-profit that supports legal aid organizations in
Illinois.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 4, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July
28, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by May 4, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who used a debit or credit card at any IKEA retail store
between Oct. 18, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2019, who received an
electronically printed receipt displaying the first six and last
four digits of the payment card number.
Potential Award
$30 to $60 (estimated)
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
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
05/04/2023
Case Name
Richardson, et al. v. IKEA North America Services LLC, et al., Case
No. 19STCV37280, in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles
County
Final Hearing
07/28/2023
Settlement Website
IKEAUSFACTAClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
Richardson v. IKEA Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 6175
Novato, CA 94948-6175
admin@IKEAUSFactaClassAction.com
855-958-6213
Class Counsel
Scott D Owens
SCOTT D OWENS PA
John R Habashy
LEXICON LAW PC
Keith J Keogh
Michael Hilicki
KEOGH LAW LTD
Defense Counsel
Claudia D McCarron
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN]
IMANI LOUNGE: Conditional Collective Status of Dancers Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IMAN ANDERSON and SELETA
STANTON, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. IMANI LOUNGE, LLC, and MICHAEL CONWAY, Case No.
1:22-cv-00652-RAH-KFP (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. conditionally certify the following collective:
"All Dancers since November 8, 2019;"
2. Granting approval to the form and content of Exhibits 1-4
for use in providing notice to the potential collective
members via the methods described in this Motion;
3. Directing the Defendants to produce the names and last
known mailing addresses and email addresses of each
potential opt-in Plaintiff in an electronically importable
and malleable electronic format, such as Excel, within
seven days after this Court's Order is entered;
4. Allowing for an opt-in period of ninety days, to begin
seven days after the day that the Defendants produce the
names and contact information for the putative collective
members, in which putative collective members may submit
their Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs;
5. Granting Plaintiffs leave to send a follow-up reminder via
email and U.S. Mail, beginning thirty days after the opt-
in period begins, to potential plaintiffs who have not
responded to the Notice; and
6. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's and grant all
other relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled,
whether specifically prayed for or not.
The Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally certify this lawsuit
as a collective action for the purpose of providing notice of the
action to members of the collective.
The Plaintiffs and the members of the collective are sufficiently
similarly situated that conditional certification of the proposed
collective is appropriate, as explained in the
Brief filed.
The Plaintiffs request that this Court permit them to distribute
the attached Notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs via U.S. mail
and email, and that this Court permit the Plaintiffs to distribute
a reminder email and postcard thirty days after the date of
mailing.
The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of certain former and
current employees of the Defendants to recover unpaid wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZYp3pD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Hughes, Esq.
HARDIN & HUGHES LLP
2121 14th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Telephone: (205) 523-0463
Facsimile: (205) 756-4463
E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com
Laura Edmondson, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: laura@sanfordlawfirm.com
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Suit Seeks to Certify Default Judgment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE DELUCA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
INSTADOSE PHARMA CORP. f/k/a MIKROCOZE, INC. and TERRY WILSHIRE,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00675-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. certify a default judgment class for purposes of obtaining
a default judgment against defendants Instadose Pharma
Corp. f/k/a Mikrocoze, Inc. and Terry Wilshire;
2. approving a default judgment against Defendants; and
3. appointing Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. as class counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YElmV1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com
- and -
Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
Marion C. Passmore, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com
passmore@bespc.com
INSURANCE COMPANY: Rain Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN RAIN, AS DULY
APPOINTED PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELINOR G.
CRANDALL, DECEASED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, TOWERS ADMINISTRATORS, INC.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-30115-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
-- Certifying the proposed class pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule
23(b)(3);
-- Appointing her as class representative; and
-- Appointing Sean K. Collins, Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Ex Kano
S. Sams II, and Jonathan M. Feigenbaum as class counsel.
Insurance Company provides property and casualty, life, health, and
accident insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yvAn0x at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jean K. Collins, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (855-693-9256
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8297
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 357-9700
Facsimile: 617-227-2843
E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com
- and -
Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com
JRN INC: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Spencer Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN SPENCER, v. JRN,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00024-GFVT (E.D. Ky.), the Hon.
Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove entered an order denying JRN's
motion to dismiss.
JRN alleges that Mr. Spencer lacks standing to bring class claims
and that the complaint insufficiently pleads commonality. However,
taken as true, the complaint alleges a common design or policy and
that there are questions of law or fact common to the potential
class.
The complaint primarily alleges common sloping violations at JRN
locations. These allegations sufficiently plead that there are
questions of law or fact common to the class. The Court will defer
a more searching inquiry until Mr. Spencer presents a motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiff Brian Spencer alleges that JRN is operating at least
160 Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Yet Mr. Spencer himself has only
visited one of JRN's restaurants.
Mr. Spencer has a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair. The
complaint alleges that Mr. Spencer visited a KFC restaurant in
Lexington, where he experienced difficulty entering and exiting his
car and navigating the restaurant because of excessive slopes in
the parking areas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l62lwV at no extra charge.[CC]
JUUL LABS: Plymouth School Board Okays Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Bottorff, writing for am1050, reports that Plymouth Community
School Superintendent Mitch Mawhorter told members of the School
Board that over the course of this school year, the corporation has
been involved in class-action litigation against Juul Labs, Inc.
That litigation has resulted in a settlement between Juul Labs and
schools across the United States.
The superintendent said in the agreement, PCSC will receive $58,426
for damages minus the fee for the attorneys. The total class-action
lawsuit settlement is $255 million. He said there is a potential to
also receive a small bonus from Juul.
During the meeting, Mawhorter thanked school attorney Jeff Houin
for his efforts in directing the corporation through the legal
process.
The Plymouth School Board members voted 4-0 with one member absent
to approve the signing of all the settlement agreements. [GN]
KEURIG GREEN: Class Action Settlement in Smith Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN SMITH, v. KEURIG
GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06690-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the
motion for final approval of class action settlement and granting
the motion for attorneys' fees and service award.
-- The Court awards attorneys' fees in the amount of
$3,000,000; costs in the amount of $568,180; and service
award to Plaintiffs Smith and Downing in the amount of
$6,000.
The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
this Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with
the terms of the settlement agreement.
The parties are further directed to file a short stipulated final
judgment of two pages or less within 21 days from the date of this
order. The judgment need not, and should not, repeat the analysis
in this order.
Considering all the circumstances, the Court finds that the $5,000
award for Plaintiff Smith and $1,000 award for Plaintiff Downing
are reasonable to compensate them for their efforts. The Court
grants the request for an incentive award for a total amount of
$6,000.
The Plaintiff Smith brings this consumer class action against
Defendant Keurig Green Mountain, alleging that the Defendant's
"recyclable" labeling on its plastic single-serve coffee 20 pods
(the "Products") is false and misleading.
The Plaintiff alleges that despite the fact that "Defendant
advertises, markets and sells the Products as recyclable,"
municipal recycling facilities are not properly equipped to handle
the pods, which are small and "inevitably contaminated with foil
and food waste."
The Plaintiff contends that if she had known that the Products were
not recyclable, she would not have purchased them, or would have
paid less for them.
The Settlement Class is defined as
"all Persons in the United States who purchased Keurig's
Pods for personal, family or household purposes within the
Class Period."
The Class Period is from June 8, 2016 to the date Class
notice was first published.
Specifically excluded from the Class are (a) Defendant, (b)
the Defendant's Affiliates, (c) the officers, directors, or
employees of Defendant and its Affiliates and their
immediate family members, (d) any legal representative,
heir, or assign of Defendant, (e) all federal court judges
who have presided over this Action and their immediate
family members; (f) the Hon. Morton Denlow (Ret.) and his
immediate family members; (g) all persons who submit a
valid and timely Request for Exclusion from the Class; and
(h) those who purchased the Challenged Products for the
purpose of resale.
Keurig operates as a beverage company. The Company produces and
sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, beverages, and other related
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F9uav9 at no extra charge.[CC]
KEVIN CARR: Bids for Class Certification Must be Filed by July 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN BRAAM, et. al.,
v. KEVIN CARR, Case No. 2:19-cv-00396-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an scheduling order as follows:
1. The parties' initial disclosures as March 3, 2023
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)
must be provided on or before:
2. All fact discovery must be completed Sept. 1, 2023
no later than:
3. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Oct. 16, 2023
primary expert witness disclosures
are due on or before:
4. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures Nov. 17, 2023
are due on or before:
5. All expert discovery must be Dec. 15, 2023
completed no later than:
6. Motions for class certification July 14, 2023
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 must be
filed no later than:
7. Motions for summary judgment must Jan. 15, 2024.
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and
Civil L. R. 7 and shall be served and
filed on or before:
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZE7kUD at no extra charge.[CC]
KODY KINSLEY: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Extended in Timothy
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY B., by and through
his Guardian ad Litem Robert War, for themselves and for those
similarly situated, TIMOTHY B., by and through his Guardian ad
Litem Robert War, for themselves and for those similarly situated,
ISABELLA A., by and through her Guardian ad Litem Jeffrey C.
Holden, for themselves and for those similarly situated, STEPH C.
by and through his Guardian ad Litem Jeffrey C. Holden, for
themselves and for those similarly situated, DISABILITY RIGHTS
NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP, v. KODY
KINSLEY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DHHS, Case No.
1:22-cv-01046-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge William L. Osteen
Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension
of time:
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification is extended until such time that the parties
have conducted a Rule 26(f) conference and the Court
establishes relevant discovery and dispositive motions
deadlines, including the deadline for Plaintiffs to move
for class approval.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F9QmVM at no extra charge.[CC]
KOLD TRANS: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 23
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated persons, and the general
public, v. KOLD TRANS, LLC; KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona
Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT REFRIGERATED, LLC; and KNIGHT
PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order that:
(1) Killion as a proposed class representative along with
Plaintiff, attached to the parties' stipulation.
(2) Defendants Knight Transportation, Inc. and Knight Port
Services, LLC shall file a responsive pleading to the
amended complaint within 30 days of the filing.
(3) The Defendants Kold trans, LLC and knight refrigerated,
LLC are dismissed with prejudice as to the Plaintiff's
individual claims and without prejudice as to
Plaintiff's putative class claims and non-individual
Private Attorneys General Act claims, with each side to
bear its own fees and costs;
(4) The Plaintiff's first and second claims for relief for
Violation of Rest Break Laws and Improper Meal Periods,
and all claims for relief based on or derivative of
allegations that Defendants violated California's meal
and rest period laws, including such claims arising
under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, are
dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff's individual
claims and without prejudice as to Plaintiff's putative
class claims and non-individual Private Attorneys
General Act claims, with each side to bear its own fees
and costs.
(5) Proposed plaintiff Anthony Killion will not assert any
of the claims dismissed by Plaintiff by th stipulation
against any of the Defendants.
(6) The Defendants' pending motion for partial summary
judgment is withdrawn.
(7) The Class Certification briefing schedule and hearing
date shall be modified as follows:
-- Class Certification Motion June 23, 2023
(filing deadline):
-- Opposition to Class September 4, 2023
Certification (filing
deadline):
-- Reply (filing deadline): October 4, 2023
-- Hearing on Class October 26, 2023
Certification Motion:
(8) The Defendants will not introduce a declaration from
Brad Hart, Mike Lui, or John Stitsinger to oppose class
certification.
(9) If Brad Hart, Mike Lui, or John Stitsinger provide
testimony in this case post-class certification and/or
are placed on Defendants' trial witness list, Defendant
will make them available for deposition.
(10) If Plaintiff and/or proposed plaintiff Anthony Killion
believe the conditions to depose Brad Hart, Mike Lui,
and/or John Stitsinger are met, Defendants do not waive
any objections they may have to the depositions,
including objections based on the apex doctrine.
(11) By stipulating to the filing of a Third Amended
Complaint, Defendants do not concede the sufficiency of
the allegations or waive any defenses, including the
statute of limitations, and Defendants do not concede
the applicability of the relation-back doctrine.
Kold Trans is a refrigerated trucking company offering truckload
and logistics
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kUQe5Z at no extra charge.[CC]
L'OREAL USA: Burton Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGELA BURTON; NATASHA M. CASBY; BRIDGETTE QUINN;
and SONDRA LOGGINS; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. L'OREAL USA, INC.; L'OREAL USA
PRODUCTS, INC.; and SOFTSHEEN-CARSON, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-12784, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 2,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01057 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated consumers who purchased
chemical hair straightening and/or hair relaxers 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hannah Rodgers Pfeifler, Esq.
Jennifer M. Hoekstra, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: hpfeifler@awkolaw.com
jhoekstra@awkolaw.com
- and -
James White, Esq.
2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340
Okemos, MI 48864
Telephone: (517) 316-1195
E-mail: jameswhite@whitelawpllc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John T. Eads, III, Esq.
Juliana B. Sabatini Plastiras, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
37000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (313) 426-9815
E-mail: johneads@grsm.com
jsabatini@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
LAUNDRESS LLC: All Fact Discovery Must be Completed by Sept. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meaghan Skillman, Sandra
Forbus and Lori Ostenfeld, individually and on behalf of all
others, v. The Laundress, LLC, and CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER
HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Case No. 1:22-cv-10008-JMF (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered a civil case management plan
and scheduling order as follows:
-- Absent exceptional circumstances, March 31, 2023
a date not more than:
-- disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. March 16, 2023
Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be
completed no later than:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed Sept. 1, 2023
no later than:
-- Initial requests for production of April 15, 2023
documents shall be served by:
-- The next pretrial conference is Sept. 7, 2023
scheduled for:
Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products
that preserve clothing and deep clean every room.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kZVFAy at no extra charge.[CC]
LEHIGH VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Patients' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leif Greiss, writing for The Morning Call, reports that a
Philadelphia law firm has filed a class action suit against Lehigh
Valley Health Network alleging the hospital has prioritized money
over patient privacy after photos of cancer patients were posted on
the internet in a ransomware hack.
The suit filed by Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky focuses on photos
that were published by hackers with the ransomware collective
BlackCat over the last couple of weeks of cancer patients who
received treatment through the network. The suit does not name a
financial amount being sought for damages, instead requesting that
the amount be determined by trial or the court.
The hackers acquired the photos through a ransomware attack on a
physician's practice owned by LVHN. The attack occurred in February
and caused a leak of 132 gigabytes of patient data and photos. LVHN
leaders have stated they refuse to pay the ransom, a tactic often
touted by law enforcement and some cybersecurity experts, but in
response, the hackers posted some of the photos online and have
threatened to release more sensitive information if their demands
are not met.
The suit filing states not only was the leak of these photos
regrettable but that LVHN engaged in the "knowing, reckless, and
willful, decision to let the hackers post the nude images" of Doe
and others to the internet. And it accuses LVHN of "publicly
patting itself on the back for standing up to the hackers" but
"consciously and intentionally ignoring the real victims."
The lead plaintiff, a woman from Lackawanna County referred to as
Jane Doe, was informed by the network March 6 that photos of her
receiving breast cancer treatment, which showed her exposed chest
and face, had been posted by the hackers. In the suit, it is stated
that Doe did not even know that the photos were taken or stored by
the network.
She was also told other information was likely stolen, including
her address, email address, date of birth, Social Security number,
health insurance provider, medical diagnosis and treatment
information, medications, and lab results, the suit states. Doe is
the only person named or described in the suit.
However, in a news release, Patrick Howard, an attorney with the
firm, said the exact number of affected patients would be
determined through pre-trial discovery process. The lawsuit also
acknowledges that Doe does not have the money to pay for legal
services nor would the damages as a result of an individual suit
likely be substantial for her or anyone else, thus they are
pursuing the case as a class action.
The suit also states that the hack itself was easily preventable
and that by failing to do more to protect sensitive patient
information it violated the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
An LVHN spokesperson said that the network cannot comment on active
legal matters. [GN]
LENSBABY INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lensbaby, Inc. The
case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Lensbaby, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01954
(S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lensbaby -- https://lensbaby.com/ -- is an independent camera lens
manufacturer that makes creative-effects camera lenses.[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
LESSEREVIL LLC: Cogswell Sues Over Deceptive Food Product Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twyla Cogswell, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LESSEREVIL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-at-00203 (E.D. Cal., March 1, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices with respect to its
marketing and sale of its food product in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and State Consumer Protection Statutes.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes packaged snacks using a marketing and advertising
campaign focused on claims that appeal to health-conscious
consumers. The Defendant engages in a deceptive marketing campaign
to convince consumers that the products are nutritious and
healthful to consume, and are more healthful than similar products.
However, the campaign is false, misleading, and deceptive because
Defendant's products contain high amounts of unsafe fats which
increase the risk of severe health issues, says the suit.
Reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, purchased the products
believing, among other things, that they were accurately
represented. Specifically, reasonable consumers believed that the
products contained accurate label information and representations.
Reasonable consumers would not have purchased the products if they
had known about the misrepresentations and omissions, or would have
purchased them on different terms, the suit alleges.
LesserEvil LLC produces, markets, and distributes its consumer food
products in retail stores throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4663
E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com
- and -
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
LG ALTAMONTE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LG ALTAMONTE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
SIGRUD BETRICE, individually, Case No. 23-001040-CI (Fla. 6th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., March 6, 2023), is brought
arising under the Fair Labor Standard Act to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wage compensation, as well as an additional
amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's
fees.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, he routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. Specifically, the Plaintiff worked an
average of 66 hours per week, 40 regular hours, and 26 overtime
hours. The Plaintiff was entitled to overtime under the FLSA at a
rate of one and one-half her regular rate for all hours worked over
40 hours. Notwithstanding, Defendants failed/refused to pay to
Plaintiff her proper overtime wages as required by the FLSA of time
and one half of her regular wage. The Defendants knew or should
have known of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and
willfully/intentionally/recklessly failed to investigate whether
their payroll practices were in accordance of the FLSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed with the Defendants from March 2019
until July 2022.
ALTAMONTE operated a business under the Fictitious Name of Little
Greek Fresh Grill, LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Henry Hernandez, Esq.
GARCIA HERNANDEZ, P.A.
2655 Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Primary: Henry@HHLAWFLORIDA.com
Secondary: legal@hhlawflorida.com
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Toxic Emissions in Gas Range Stoves
-------------------------------------------------------------------
According to John Locke Foundation's Mitch Kokai, John Chase Smith
writes for the Epoch Times about the latest attack on gas stoves.
A class action suit filed in California alleges LG Electronics USA,
Inc. sold gas range stoves in the United States without properly
notifying customers of toxic emissions prior to their purchases.
The suit comes as the industry faces attacks and efficiency
proposals by the Biden administration that would remove up to half
the current gas range ovens on the U.S. market.
A California woman who purchased an LG gas stove from Costco in
October 2022 claims in the suit that she was unaware of the "risks"
associated with the product before purchasing.
"Ms. Sherzai relied on the representations on the marketing
materials disclosing risks," read the lawsuit. "The marketing
materials did not disclose or warn that the product emitted harmful
pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides. Thus, at the time of purchase,
Plaintiff was unaware that the product emitted harmful pollutants
such as nitrogen oxide."
According to the latest court docket, LG has not yet responded to
the claims in the suit.
John Taylor, senior vice president of LG Electronics USA, Inc. said
in an email to The Epoch Times, "as a matter of policy, LG
Electronics USA doesn't generally comment on pending legal matters
such as this."
The California woman in the suit alleges LG committed several
crimes including violating California's Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, along with
breach of implied warranty, violation of state consumer protection
statutes, breach of implied warranties on behalf of plaintiff and
the nationwide class, fraudulent omission, and unjust enrichment.
She claims the suit on behalf of other customers who purchased
qualifying LG ranges while living in the United States during the
applicable time frame.
"There are tens or hundreds of thousands of class members,"
attorneys wrote in the suit. "The precise number of class members
is unknown to Plaintiff at this time." Attorneys say members of the
proposed suit "can be identified through public notice." [GN]
LG ELECTRONICS: Refrigerators Have Defective Ice Maker, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF HENENFENT individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00354-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal., Mar. 9, 2023) is a class action
arising from LG's knowing sale of LG-brand refrigerators equipped
with defective ice machines that produce so called "Craft Ice,"
large balls of slow-melting ice intended for use in beverages.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, brings this Action to redress LG's violations of state
consumer protection laws, and also to seek recovery for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty and unjust
enrichment.
The Class Refrigerators include all LG-brand models equipped with
the Craft Ice Maker feature, which LG brought to market in 2019.
Each Refrigerator suffers from an identical, latent, and pervasive
defect in materials, workmanship, and design that ultimately
renders the Craft Ice Maker equipped in Class Refrigerators
inoperable well in advance of the refrigerators' service lives, the
Plaintiff contends.
Accordingly, LG has been aware of the Defect since at least
November 2020, long before the Plaintiff or most Class members
purchased their Class Refrigerators, when it began receiving
complaints from consumers concerning the Defect. Although LG has
known, or should have known, that Class Refrigerators are Defective
and unfit for their ordinary and intended purpose, and are
incapable of performing as warranted, LG failed to disclose this
material fact to Plaintiff and the Class. In fact, the Defendant
continued to affirmatively hold out the Class Refrigerators as
effective, fit for their ordinary and intended purpose, and free
from defects including the Defect, the Plaintiff claims.
In September 2021, the Plaintiff purchased an LG model LRSOS2706S
Class Refrigerator from Home Depot for $1,838.00. This model is a
27 cubic foot Side-by-Side InstaView WiFi enabled refrigerator
equipped with a Craft Ice Maker. Within two months of delivery, the
Defect manifested in Plaintiff's refrigerator. Specifically, Craft
Ice obstructed the Craft Ice Maker, the Craft Ice Maker started
making a very loud grinding noise, and the component leaked water
into the freezer compartment, which then froze into a sheet of
ice.
Due to the Craft Ice Maker's repeated failures and LG's clear
repudiation of its warranty obligations, the Plaintiff had no
choice but to purchase the extended warranty. The Plaintiff
immediately purchased an extended warranty over the phone for
$392.00. LG's unlawful conduct placed Plaintiff and the Class in an
impossible situation, says the suit.
As a result of LG's alleged refusal to cure the Defect, the
Plaintiff has been deprived of the benefit of the parties' bargain.
Had LG disclosed the Defect prior to purchase, the Plaintiff would
not 8 have purchased a Class Refrigerator or would have paid less
for it.
LG manufactures and sells mobile devices, home entertainment
devices, and home appliances, including the Class
Refrigerators.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
Zoe Aaron, Esq.
Gary Klinger, Esq.
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
401 West Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (212) 946-8389
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
zaaron@milberg.com
gklinger@milberg.com
nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle Street, 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-7785
E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
LG ELECTRONICS: Sherzai Sues Over Pollutants in Gas Stoves
----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
alleges LG gas stoves can damage the air quality inside a home and
circulate pollutants that might increase the risk of childhood
asthma and other health conditions in the case-captioned Sherzai v.
LG Electronics USA, Inc., Sections 2:23-CV-00429.
LG Electronics faces a proposed class action in the wake of a
Harvard Medical School report warning that gas stoves can damage
the air quality inside a home and circulate pollutants that might
increase the risk of childhood asthma and other health conditions.
According to the 25-page lawsuit, the asthma risk posed by LG's gas
stoves is "avoidable" given that the manufacturer can reasonably
design the products to cut down on the risk of pollutant emission.
At the same time, the filing says, manufacturers such as LG can and
should disclose the risk of pollutants to consumers, who may weigh
the information when deciding whether to buy a gas or electric
stove.
"Plaintiff believed that the product was free from defects, and she
did not know that gas cooking has significant pollutant risks," the
complaint says, claiming neither the Vallejo, California resident
nor other consumers would have bought an LG gas stove, or would
have paid as much for it, had they known the product emitted
nitrogen oxides.
Per the case, nitrogen oxides are gases that can exacerbate asthma
and other lung conditions. Consumer Reports states that, outdoors,
nitrogen oxides come primarily from cars and power plants and cause
the haze associated with smog.
According to the case, roughly 40 percent of homes in the United
States use a natural gas stove. The lawsuit shares that recent
studies have confirmed that gas stoves emit not only nitrogen oxide
but "carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter" at levels
considered unsafe by the Environmental Protection Agency and World
Health Organization.
The suit says that recent EPA research has linked long-term
exposure to nitrogen oxides with "cardiovascular effects, diabetes,
poorer birth outcomes, premature mortality and cancer," as well as
"reduced cognitive performance, especially in children."
According to the lawsuit, homes with gas stoves have approximately
50-percent higher levels of nitrogen oxides than homes with
electric stoves.
"Concentrations of NO2 emissions from gas stoves can exceed US
outdoor pollution standards several times over when conducting
common cooking tasks like boiling water, baking a cake, roasting
meat, and frying bacon with a gas stove," the complaint relays,
claiming a child living in a house with a gas stove is "42% more
likely to have asthma," a level "similar to the childhood asthma
burden attributed to secondhand smoke exposure."
The case accuses LG of being aware that its gas stoves emit harmful
pollutants given that the company, like other gas stove makers,
"monitors and keeps track of the research on the health effects of
its products." The suit attests that harm to consumers and their
families "could have been avoided through safe, reasonably
alternative designs" of the products.
"While Defendant is aware of the harmful health effects of gas
cooking, everyday consumers are unaware of these risks," the filing
explains, noting that LG's product packaging includes no disclaimer
warning that gas stoves emit pollutants. "Consumers shopping for a
new oven, range or stove have very little information about the
health risks of gas appliances."
Overall, LG had a duty to warn the public of the risks associated
with its gas stoves yet instead "actively concealed" the
"unreasonable safety hazard," the lawsuit says. However, had LG
disclosed the gas stove dangers, the price of the products would
fall substantially, the case claims.
The suit looks to cover all consumers who bought an LG Electronics
gas stove while living in the United States during the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]
LIBERTY HOME: Larios Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Home Guard,
LLC. The case is styled as Bradley Larios, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty Home Guard, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01798 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for the Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Liberty Home Guard -- https://www.libertyhomeguard.com/ -- oversees
the process of repairing home equipment from start to finish.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (404) 797-9696
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
LIDIA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Mackic Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SADAT MACKIC, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. LIDIA MANAGEMENT CORP., PISTILLI MANAGEMENT LLC and
ANTHONY PISTILLI, Case No. 1:23-cv-01830 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 9, 2023)
sues the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage rate and timely
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked seven
days per workweek, 25-30 hours per week. The Defendants failed to
pay him based on an hourly rate of pay based on the actual number
of hours that he worked each week. The Defendants instead paid the
him a fixed amount of $600.00 per month, regardless of the actual
number of hours that the he worked each week, a rate which fell
below the federal and state statutory minimum wage, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record
keeping requirements of the FLSA and NYLL by failing to track or
maintain records of hours worked by the Plaintiff and failing to
pay him in accordance with his hours worked in order to
intentionally deprive Plaintiff of compensation. Throughout his
employment, the Plaintiff regularly performed manual tasks during
the majority of his hours worked and spent more than twenty-five
percent of his hours worked each week performing such manual tasks,
added the suit.
Lidia Management Corp. is a property management company in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Newman Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Newman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lindt & Sprungli (North America) Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01988 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023), is brought seeking to
remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the
Defendant with respect to the marketing and sale of the Defendant's
Lindt Excellence dark chocolate products throughout the state of
New York and throughout the country.
The Defendant's products include the following: Lindt Excellence
Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa; and Lindt Excellence Dark Chocolate 70%
Cocoa (hereinafter the "Products"). The Defendant fails to disclose
on the Products' packaging that the Products contain lead and
cadmium. Lead is a dangerous and harmful chemical when consumed,
especially by pregnant women and children. Scientists agree that
there is no level of lead that is safe. According to the Mayo
Clinic, "lead poisoning occurs when lead builds up in the body,
often over months or years. Even small amounts of lead can cause
serious health problems. Children younger than 6 years are
especially vulnerable to lead poisoning, which can severely affect
mental and physical development. At very high levels, lead
poisoning can be fatal."
The Defendant's marketing and advertising campaign includes the one
place that every consumer looks when purchasing a product – the
packaging and labels themselves. The Defendant's advertising and
marketing campaign for the Products is false, deceptive, and
misleading because it does not disclose the high levels of lead and
cadmium in the Products. High levels of lead and cadmium in food
products is material to reasonable consumers, because these
chemicals pose serious health risk, even in small dosages.
Additionally, the lead and cadmium levels in the Products could not
be known before purchasing them, and may not be determined without
extensive and expensive scientific testing. Accordingly, consumers
rely on Defendant to be truthful regarding the ingredients,
including the existence of lead and cadmium, in the Products.
On the other hand, the Defendant knew and could not be unaware of
the existence of lead and cadmium in the Products. The Defendant
sources the ingredients and manufactures the Products, and has
exclusive knowledge of the quality control testing on the Products
and the ingredients contained therein. The Plaintiff relied on
Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions that the Products
contained only dark chocolate ingredients when purchasing the
Products. The Plaintiff paid a premium for the Products based upon
the Defendant's marketing and advertising campaign. Given that the
Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based
on the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff
and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium
paid, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products in New York.
Lindt & Sprungli (North America) Inc. is a conglomerate with a line
of chocolate products, including the Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (847) 208-4585
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
401 West C St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (308) 870-7804
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: 215-592-1500
Email: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
1 Old Country Rd., Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
LIQUID FBA GOLD: Guevara Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Guevara, Araceli Mendoza, Cristela Milagro Monrroy Miranda,
David Gonzalez, Juana Gonzalez, Martha Rodriguez, and Rafael Ariza,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Liquid FBA
Gold LLC, El Salada Trading LLC, Simon Roffe, Jack Falack and Laura
Borenstein, Case No. 1:23-cv-01674 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2023), is
brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, failure to
pay timely 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 regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours a week but never received an overtime premium of one- and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours. The
Plaintiffs' wages did not vary regardless of how many additional
hours they worked in a week. The Plaintiffs were not required to
keep track their time, nor to their knowledge, did the Defendants
utilize any time tracking device, such as sign in sheets or punch
cards, that accurately reflected their actual hours worked. 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 Defendant did not provide Plaintiffs a
statement of wages, as required by NYLL. The Defendant's failure to
provide accurate wage notices and accurate wage statements denied
the Plaintiffs their statutory right to receive true and accurate
information about the nature of their employment and related
compensation policies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed as packers at the Defendants'
wholesale and shipping company.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control a wholesale and shipping
company known as "Liquid FBA Gold."[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
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Gabourel
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. filed an appeal from the District Court's
January 27, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled PASSION
GABOUREL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS; LUXOTTICA
RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The lawsuit was initially filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, before it was moved to the
Central District of California on January 21, 2022.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to maintain required records, failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in
discharge of duties, and unfair and unlawful business practices.
On August 30, 2022, Defendant Luxottica of America filed a motion
to compel arbitration which the Court denied through an order
entered by Judge Fred W. Slaughter on January 27, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned as Passion Gabourel v. Luxottica of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55185, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 1, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Luxottica of America Inc. Mediation Questionnaire
was due on March 8, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by March 29, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on April 28, 2023;
-- Appellant Luxottica of America Inc. opening brief is due on
June 7, 2023;
-- Appellee Passion Gabourel answering brief is due on July 7,
2023;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Defendants-Appellants LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., an Ohio
corporation, DBA Lenscrafters, et al., are represented by:
Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq.
Noah J. Woods, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
501 W Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101-3577
Telephone: (619) 515-1867
Plaintiff-Appellee PASSION GABOUREL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Launa Adolph, Esq.
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
MARTIAL ARTS WORLD: Latorre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Latorre and Karen Wycoff, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. MARTIAL ARTS WORLD AMERICA, INC,
MARTIAL ARTS WORLD OF ORLANDO INC, YOUNG K. KIM, and KIRK PELT,
Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla., March 6, 2023), is
brought under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the (hereinafter "FLSA").
The Plaintiffs were working overtime without proper compensation.
The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA by
failing to compensate the Plaintiffs at a rate not less than one
and one-half times the regular rate at which they were employed for
workweeks longer than 40 hours. Specifically, the Plaintiffs worked
numerous weeks in excess of 40 hours a week, yet was not
compensated for all work in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were
employed, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Instructors.
Martial Arts World America, Inc. is a martial arts business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Adams, Esq.
N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
2300 East Concord Street
Orlando, Florida 32803
Phone: (407) 835-8968
Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
Email: sadams@labaradams.com
rlabar@labaradams.com
MARYLAND: Fitch Seeks to File Third Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH FITCH, et al., v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02817-PJM (D. Md.), the
Fitch Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order allowing them to
file a third motion to certify class or in the alternative move
under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend the
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs have filed twice to certify a class action. Each
filing was dismissed as moot because of the necessity to include
additional parties as pursuant to Court instruction. Now that
discovery is complete, this Court's December 30, 2021 Order
defining the class of this litigation has been entered and the
thousands of Medicare-eligible State Retirees who have benefited
from the injunction are identified, the Fitch Plaintiffs move for
the Third Time for Class Certification.
In the alternative, Rule 15 of the Fed R. Civ. P. provides that "a
party may amend its pleading [with] the court's leave" and that
[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Allowing the Plaintiffs to file the Amended
Complaint would serve justice and promote efficiency. Further there
would be no substantial or undue prejudice, bad faith, undue delay,
or futility.
The Defendant's Counsel did not consent to Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class.
A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yxldbv at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Deborah A. Holloway Hill, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. HOLLOWAY HILL &
ASSOCIATES, LLC
Cockeysville, MD 21030
Telephone: (410) 428-7278
Facsimile: (866) 499-696
E-mail: dahhlaw@outlook.com
MATTRESS FIRM: Rodriguez Sues Over Secret Reporting of PII
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC., a Delaware corporation
d/b/a/ www.mattressfirm.com; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 23STCV04679 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 3, 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 www.mattressfirm.com (the
"Website"), Defendants secretly report all the details to Meta: the
visitor's PII, the titles watched, and more. They do this so that
the consumer can then be bombarded with more targeting advertising
on Meta platforms such as Facebook. When Plaintiff watched videos
on the Website, Defendants disclosed information that allowed Meta
(and any ordinary person) to readily identify Plaintiff's
video-watching behavior. The Defendants did so knowingly and for
the purpose of retargeting Plaintiff in connection with Facebook's
advertising campaigns. The Defendants did not obtain the informed,
written consent of Plaintiff to disclose PII concerning Plaintiff
to third parties. Visitors would be shocked and appalled to know
that 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 has downloaded Defendant's app for use onto a smart
phone.
Mattress Firm Inc. is an American mattress store chain founded
headquartered in Houston,
Texas.[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
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Glasper v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasper v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04393 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 18, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023
certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023
the Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023
opposition to Blackbaud's
Daubert motions on:
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023
experts Blackbaud's reply in
support of its Daubert motion
on Plaintiffs' class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023
of their motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023
on Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023
opposition to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions on Blackbaud's
rebuttal class certification
experts:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023
of their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Glasper Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions
allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach
include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and
nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their
personal information to those entities have suffered damages,
including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard
and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients
affected by the data breach.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZbjjZ5 at no extra charge.[CC]
MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
Meadowbrook Financial Mortgage Bankers Corp. failed to convince a
federal trial court in Pennsylvania to strike a request for a
proposed class in a suit alleging the company made unsolicited
telemarketing calls.
The request came too early in the proceedings, Chief Judge Matthew
W. Brann of the US District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania said March 10.
Gerard Jackson, whose name is on the national do not call registry,
sued Meadowbrook under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act after
allegedly receiving multiple telemarketing calls selling its
reverse mortgage services. [GN]
MENA HOSPITAL: Schoolfield Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carl Schoolfield, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mena Hospital Commission doing
business as: Mena Regional Health System, Case No. 57CV-23-00024
was removed from the Polk County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on March 8,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02031-PKH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Mena Hospital Commission -- https://menaregional.com/ -- is a
Medical Group that has 3 practice medical offices located in Mena,
Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
Joseph Dean Gates, Esq.
GATES LAW FIRM, PLLC
2725 Cantrell Road, Suite 105
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: (501) 779-8091
Email: gates@gateslawpllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick McDaniel, Esq.
PATRICK MCDANIEL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PA
311 DeQueen Street
Mena, AR 71953
Phone: (479) 394-3091
Email: patrick@arklawyer.com
- and -
Timothy J. Lowe, I, Esq.
MCDONALD HOPKINS
39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 318
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Phone: (248) 646-5070
Fax: (248) 646-5075
Email: tlowe@mcdonaldhopkins.com
MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Russell Sues Over Defective Rear Subframes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Russell, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Mercedes-Benz Group AG; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01025-SEG (N.D. Ga., Mar. 9, 2023) is a class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or leased certain Mercedes-Benz
vehicles equipped with uniform and uniformly defective rear
subframes.
According to the complaint, Mercedes-Benz installed the defective
subframes in many of its vehicles, including:
a. 2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz C-Class,
b. 2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz E-Class,
c. 2010-2015 Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class,
d. 2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class,
e. 2010-2020 Mercedes-Benz SLK/SLC-Class,
f. 2016-2022 Mercedes-Benz GLC-Class, and
g. 2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class.
The Plaintiff contends that the Class Vehicles' rear subframes
presents a dangerous safety defect that causes the rear subframes,
attached components, and nearby parts to prematurely rust or
corrode. This defect:
(a) adversely affects the drivability of the Class Vehicles;
(b) causes corrosion of other components on the underside of
the Class Vehicles, including the brake lines, suspension
springs, exhaust system, gas lines, and rear axle; and
(c) can cause the rear subframes to fail while the Class
Vehicles are in motion, resulting in a sudden, unexpected
loss of control for the driver.
The flawed design or manufacturing of the rear subframes can cause
the Class Vehicles to prematurely experience severe corrosion,
especially near the attachment points for the suspension
components, including the control arms, the Plaintiff claims.
The subframe corrosion in the Class Vehicles happens "from the
inside out," making it very difficult for even a professional
mechanic, much less a layperson, to diagnose the issue during a
routine inspection. This means the subframe can be severely
corroded and near the point of failure before the issue is
discovered. Underbody shields also block portions of the subframe
from view and therefore create another barrier to corrosion
detection, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual damages, in
that they (a) were deprived of the benefit of their bargain at
point-of-sale by paying for a vehicle without a Subframe Defect and
receiving a defective vehicle; and/or (b) incurred, and will
continue to incur, out-of-pocket unreimbursed costs and expenses
relating to the Subframe Defect; and/or (c) were or will be forced
to stop or limit using their vehicles prematurely or sell them at
sharp discounts. Mercedes-Benz's recently-announced Extended
Warranty does not adequately reimburse Plaintiff and Class Members
for their economic damages.
Mr. Russell owns a 2013 Mercedes Benz C300 4Matic, which he leased
in 2012 from Mercedes-Benz of West Chester. He later purchased his
vehicle in 2015 from Mercedes-Benz of Fort Washington.
Mercedes-Benz is engaged in the business of marketing, warranting,
distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles,
including the Class Vehicles, throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ketan A. Patel, Esq.
CORPUS LAW PATEL, LLC
Atlanta, GA 31139
Telephone: (678) 597-8020
E-mail: kp@corpus-law.com
- and -
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG , LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com
zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
- and -
Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
LLLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6487
E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com
MILLER & MILONE: Baez Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
YASMINA BAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILLER & MILONE P.C.; MILLER & MILONE LLC;
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 705019/2023 (N.Y., Sup.,
Queens Cty., March 7, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
MILLER & MILONE P.C. is a law firm engaged as a collection agency.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
bwolf@legaljones.com
MISS BABS HAND-DYED: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miss Babs Hand-Dyed
Yarns & Fibers, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Miss Babs Hand-Dyed
Yarns & Fibers, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01985 (S.D.N.Y., March 8,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Miss Babs Hand-Dyed Yarns & Fibers, Inc. --
https://www.missbabs.com/ -- offers hand-dyed yarns & fibers for
knitters, crocheters, weavers, and other fiber artists.[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
MMM CONSUMER: Seeks Arbitration in Eppes Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE EPPES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MMM
CONSUMER BRANDS INC. d/b/a MARLEY SPOON, Case No. 1:22-cv-06341-KPF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
compelling arbitration of all claims alleged in the Plaintiff
Eppes' First Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis
or, alternatively, to deny class certification and strike the class
allegations in Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jhvyhy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Grohs, Esq.
SAIBER LLC
132 West 31st Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (332) 240-1350
E- mail: mgrohs@saiber.com
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Quilez Sues Over Misleading Representation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christie Quilez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mondelez Global LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01889 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 6, 2023), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to
stop the Defendant's false and misleading representation of its
"Sugar Free Gum With Xylitol" under the Trident brand for at least
the past ten years (the "Product").
Though the front label describes the Product as a "Sugar Free Gum
With Xylitol," its predominant sweetener is sorbitol, the first
ingredient, in order of predominance by weight. Based on
assessments of the composition of ingredients in formulations for
sugar free chewing gum, considering the typical amount of gum base,
primary and secondary polyols, glycerin and other ingredients, the
relative amount of xylitol is half as much as the sorbitol used.
When the amount of sorbitol is twice as much as xylitol, its
superior relative benefits to oral health are practically
extinguished. The Product lacks enough absolute and relative
amounts of xylitol to deliver the oral health benefits this polyol
is known for. Competitor sugar free chewing gums products do not
even promote xylitol like Defendant does, yet they contain this
polyol as their primary sweetening ingredient.
The Defendant promotes its use of xylitol because it correctly
expects "calling out" this ingredient will make consumers think
xylitol is highly valued for various reasons and the sweetening
component will be predominantly or exclusively xylitol, or at the
very least, that it will be present in a relatively significant
amount. However, Defendant uses sorbitol because it is less
expensive with a higher profit margin than xylitol, which is more
costly.
The Plaintiff read and relied on the statement that the Product was
a "Sugar Free Gum With Xylitol" to expect that the gum's sweetening
component was predominantly or exclusively xylitol, or at the very
least, that it was present in a relatively significant amount. The
Plaintiff expected that xylitol was a valued ingredient because it
was highlighted on the front label. The Plaintiff was unaware of
other gum products besides Defendant which highlighted its use of
xylitol, so reasonably expected it not only had a significant
absolute and relative amount of xylitol but that it had more
xylitol compared to other chewing gums. As a result of the false
and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a price
premium, approximately no less than $1.99 for 14 sticks in one
pack, excluding tax and sales, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff bought the Product from various stores.
The Defendant is a leader in chewing gum products across a variety
of brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
NES GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Safety Advisors' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA RIVAS, individually and for others similarly situated v. NES
GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00885 (S.D. Tex., Mar. 9, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from NES under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Rivas and the Day Rate Workers regularly worked for NES in
excess of 40 hours each week. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, NES misclassified Ms. Rivas and the Day Rate
Workers as exempt from overtime and paid them a flat amount for
each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime compensation, the
lawsuit contends.
NES allegedly never paid Rivas or the Day Rate Workers on a "salary
basis." Specifically, during her employment, NES paid Ms. Rivas a
day rate of $600 for each day she actually worked, regardless of
the number of hours she worked that day (or that workweek) and
failed to pay her overtime compensation, alleges the lawsuit.
Ms. Rivas worked for NES as a Safety Advisor assigned to provide
services to NES's client, Borealis Compounds, LLC, from December
2021 until June 2022.
NES is a staffing company that provides recruitment services to the
oil and gas, construction, and energy industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
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
- 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
NEW JERSEY: Palomo Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO PALOMO, MICHAEL
CAMMARATA, CHRISTOPHER BARRY, DONALD GRAS, MARCO INGCO, JOHN
LUDLOW, JOHN, JOHN BYTHEWAY, GERARDO PENA, LEONARDO GONZALEZ,
TREMAYNE PARKER, ELIJAH WILLIAMS, JOSE SOTO, DANIEL ARIAS ESTRADA,
GREGORIO HERNANDEZ-GARCIA, RUBEN CEI, JUAN CASTILLO-PONCE, JOSEPH
GORSKI, VICTOR MEJIA-SALINAS, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, CIRILO CHOLULA, JUAN
COELLO, CARLOS APARICIO-MATEO, FRANCISCO ALEJO-SANCHEZ, WILLIAM
KOONEY, JOSEPH GERMAIN, CARLOS APARICIO, MASON MALLON, D.P. AND
JOHN DOES 1-20, v. GOVERNOR PHIL MURPHY, an individual acting under
the color of law, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE
UNIVERSITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE/ a New Jersey
Educational/medical Corporation, JOHN DOE 1~5/ State agents acting
under the color of law, Case No. 2:23-cv-01036-JXN-ESK (D.N.J.),
the Plaintiff Mario Palomo ask the Court to enter an order
determining that the action may be maintained as a class action on
behalf of the following class:
"All persons who are currently state prisoners at the
Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center/ located in Avenel/
New Jersey who are currently receiving treatment for a
mental condition the state labels as "compulsive and
repetitive; all persons who were in the past housed at
the same center and are currently on parole in the State
of New Jersey; all of whom were diagnosed by a state
agent as suffering from a mental condition labeled by the
state as compulsive and repetitive and who are currently
receiving, or did in the past/treatment for such condition."
The Defendants have allegedly engaged in systemic discrimination by
intentionally selecting mostly members of minority groups --
Blacks/Hispanics, foreigners/members of the LGBTQ+ community and
those with intellectual and mental disabilities -- as sufferers of
this alleged mental condition the state labels as compulsive and
repetitive."
The Defendants have used the alleged "diagnosis" of "compulsive and
repetitive" to discriminate against the class members -- past and
present -- by denying them the same rights and protections afforded
to all. other inmates in the state prison system.
The class includes around 400 prisoners currently housed at the
Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center and an undetermined number of
past residents. Therefore the class members are so numerous that
joinder of all is impracticable.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 27,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZQrFWC
at no extra charge.[CC]
NOOM INC: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communication
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NOOM, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00641-JRR (D.
Md., March 8, 2023), is brought against Noom for wiretapping the
electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.noom.com,
in violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Act and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights
of website visitors.
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
("Website Communications"). These third-party vendors
(collectively, "Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the
Session Replay Code at Noom's request.
After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Noom
and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications
to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.noom.com. The
Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's
behavior on the website and provide it to Noom for analysis. Noom's
procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the
Session Replay Code results is the electronic equivalent of
"looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to Noom's website for
the entire duration of their website interaction.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all Maryland 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
but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has visited www.noom.com and certain of its subpages
on her computer while in Maryland.
Noom operates the website www.noom.com, as well as all of its
subpages which is a digital health and wellness platform for
individuals to lose weight and lead healthier lives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10034
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
111 W. Washington, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Email: katrina@lcllp.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: 610.234.6486
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Consolidation of 18 Derailment Class Suggested
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Runyan of Salem News reports that U.S. District Court Judge
Benita Y. Pearson has asked the attorneys for 18 lawsuits filed
against Norfolk Southern Co. in the Feb. 3 East Palestine
derailment to file a joint motion regarding possible consolidation
of the 18 cases.
The order, filed Wednesday, asks that the parties propose by March
15 a "class counsel organizational structure" for the litigation
and for the parties to provide the "views of all counsel" in a
single document.
Two attorneys, Seth A. Katz and M. Elizabeth Graham, were assigned
to coordinate the final version of the motion, and a third
attorney, Jayne Conroy, was appointed to file the motion, according
to Pearson's order.
The attorneys for the 18 lawsuits also are required to file a
"joint status report" setting forth their views and the views of
attorneys for Norfolk Southern "regarding the potential
consolidation of the 18 cases."
It would involve the filing of a "master consolidated amended
complaint," the order states.
It's unclear how the three attorneys were selected for their roles
in filing the motion, but Conroy, who will file the motion, is part
of legal team that filed the first lawsuit over the derailment.
That suit was filed four days after the derailment and one day
after officials intentionally released vinyl chloride from tanker
rail cars into the atmosphere to prevent a possible explosion.
The suit sought to be a class action and was filed by three East
Palestine residents — Harold R. Feezle of state Route 14 and
David J. and Susan E. Scheufele of East Clark Street "on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated."
The suit alleged the derailment and Feb. 3 "chemical spill" "was
proximately caused by the negligence of" Norfolk Southern Railway
Co. and / or Norfolk Southern Corp. It stated that Feezle and the
Scheufeles and other possible class-action members "were faced to
evacuate and be involuntarily displaced from their homes and
businesses."
The matter can qualify as a class action because the "controversy
exceeds the sum of $5 million," the suit alleged.
Feezle owns a business at 50263 state Route 14, the suit states.
That address is associated with Rollerena Auto Sales. It is part of
the area that was evacuated. "Mr. Feezle was forced to close his
business during the time of the forced evacuation and suffered
damages therefrom," the suit states.
The Scheufeles had to evacuate their home on East Clark Street and
"suffered damages therefrom" and also "suffered injuries as a
direct and proximate result of his exposure to the toxic chemicals
and fumes emanating from the accident site," the suit alleges. [GN]
NORTH STAR: Burns Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO BURNS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH STAR PAINTING CO., INC, a domestic
for-profit corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00123-DRC
(S.D. Ohio, March 2, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt
painter/painter helper on an hourly basis from May 2021 until
October 2021.
North Star Painting Co., Inc. engages in commercial and residential
interior and exterior painting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
333 W. Vine St. Suite 1200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 286-8368
Facsimile: (859) 286-8384
E-mail: casay@forthepeople.com
O'REILLY AUTO: Vvanti Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA VVANTI on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY AUTO
ENTERPRISES, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-02407-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
1. Determining that a class action is proper as to the Second
Cause of Action contained in the First Amended Class
Action Complaint (Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Breaks
or Pay One Hour at the Regular Rate of Compensation);
2. Determining that a class action is proper as to the Fifth
Cause of Action contained in the First Amended Class
Action Complaint;
3. Determining that a class action is proper as to the Sixth
Cause of Action contained in the First Amended Class
Action Complaint (Knowing and Intentional Failure to
Comply with Itemized Wage Statement Provisions);
4. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); and
5. Certifying the following Classes:
-- Class 1 Meal Break Class
"All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of
Defendant in the state of California who worked an
O'Reilly Auto Parts retail store at any time from
January 4, 2015, through the present who received at
least one meal break premium during the time period,
January 4, 2015, through April 6, 2018.
-- Class 2 Direct Violation of Wage Statement Class
"All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of
Defendant in the state of California who worked in an
O'Reilly Auto Parts retail store and who at any time
from January 4, 2018, through the present, received at
least one wage statement."
-- Class 3 Derivative Violation of Wage Statement Class
"All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of
Defendant in the state of California who worked in an
O'Reilly Auto Parts retail store and who at any time
from January 4, 2018, through April 6, 2018, received
at least one wage statement containing a meal break
premium."
-- Class 4 Waiting Time Class
"All former non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant in
the state of California who worked in an O'Reilly Auto
Parts retail store at any time from January 4, 2016,
through the present who received meal premiums during
the time period January 4, 2016, through April 6,
2018."
6. Finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative and
certifying him as the class representative.
7. Finding Plaintiff's counsel and their firm, namely James
R. Hawkins, Isandra Fernandez, and Lance Dacre of James
Hawkins APLC, as adequate class counsel and certifying
them as class counsel.
O'Reilly owns and operates retail auto parts stores. The Company
provides private-label and generic automotive products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LcmlbN at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
Lance Dacre, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com
lance@jameshawkinsaplc.com
O2 LIVING LLC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O2 Living, LLC. The
case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. O2 Living, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01870
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
O2 Living, LLC doing business as Living Juice --
https://www.drinklivingjuice.com/ -- is an organic, cold-pressed
juice with NO added water or sugar.[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
PA HOTEL: Class Cert Opening Brief Extended to April 10
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PA HOTEL
HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a NOBU CERTIFICATION BRIEFING SCHEDULE HOTEL PALO
ALTO, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00911-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William B. Shubb entered an order granting joint stipulation
to extend discovery deadline and class schedule as follows:
1. The discovery deadline is extended April 24, 2023
to:
2. The opening brief for class April 10, 2023
certification is extended to:
3. The opposition brief is extended April 24, 2023
to:
4. The reply brief is extended to: May 8, 2023
5. The hearing on class certification May 30, 2023
is continued to:
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KYGAtF at no extra charge.[CC]
PACIFIC FUEL & AUTO: Simmons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Fuel & Auto
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Rene Simmons, on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Pacific Fuel & Auto
Services, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2023-00335761-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 7, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Pacific Fuel & Auto Services, Inc. is an auto repair shop in South
San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100
Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824
Phone: 818-703-8985
Fax: 818-703-8984
Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
PAPA INC: July 6 Extension of Class Cert Hearing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Pardo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Papa, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-06326-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
agree and stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, that the
class certification hearing currently scheduled for April 6, 2023,
be continued by about three months to July 6, 2023, or another date
as determined by the Court in its discretion.
On August 17, 2021, the initial class action complaint in this
matter was filed, alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and several provisions of the California
Labor Code.
On October 18, 2021, the initial complaint was amended for the
first time to add an eleventh cause of action for enforcement of
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code.
On March 4, 2022, a Second Amended Complaint was filed substituting
the Plaintiff Pardo as the named plaintiff in this matter.
On October 5, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff Pardo's motion for
conditional certification of an FLSA Collective, and the Court
ordered the parties to provide notice to the FLSA Collective.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZKheEf at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Zachary Gershman, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Zachary@lebelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Donald P. Sullivan, Esq.
Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
Kathleen B. Roney, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Donald.Sullivan@jacksonlewis.com
Kathleen.Roney@jacksonlewis.com
PAXOS RESTAURANTS: Houtz Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Houtz, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. PAXOS RESTAURANTS d/b/a MELT RESTAURANT, Case No.
5:23-cv-00844-JMG (E.D. Pa., March 6, 2023), is brought against
Defendant, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law ("WPCL"), the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("MWA"), and Wrongful
Termination in violation of Public Policy as a result of the
Defendant's improper and willful failure to pay the Plaintiff
earned tips and wages.
The Plaintiff was a tipped employee in her position as Lead Party
Server. Restaurant automatically added a 20% gratuity for every
event. When permitted to re-open following the loosening of
restrictions associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic. Of the 20%
gratuity, 18% went to Servers and other tipped employees and 2% was
withheld from tipped employees to be withheld by the Defendant. The
Defendant did not publish, publicize, or otherwise make customers
aware that 2% of the automatically added gratuity discussed above
was not provided to the tipped employees at the Defendant. The
Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were equally affected by this
unlawful practice.
When the Defendant reopened following its closure for the COVID-19
lockdowns, it added additional room fees to the 20% gratuity.
Despite the addition of the additional room fees, which Defendant
kept, 2% of the automatically added gratuity still went to the
Defendant instead of the tipped employees while 18% went to the
servers. The Defendant still did not publish, publicize, or
otherwise make customers aware of the portion of the automatically
added gratuity which was not provided to the tipped employees. The
Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were equally affected by this
unlawful practice, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work at Melt Restaurant
in the position of Hostess on November 7, 2011 and promoted to the
position of Lead Party Server in May 2022.
Paxos Restaurants is a restaurant company with a location and
corporate headquarters located in Allentown, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Koller, Esq.
Jordan D. Santo, Esq.
KOLLER LAW LLC
2043 Locust Street, Suite 1B
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 545-8917
Fax: (215) 575-0826
Email: davidk@kollerlawfirm.com
jordans@kollerlawfirm.com
PILLPACK LLC: Ct. Sets Class Cert Schedule, Trial Date in Williams
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON WILLIAMS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PILLPACK LLC, Case
No. 3:19-cv-05282-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G.
Estudillo entered an order setting class certification schedule and
trial date as follows:
Jury Trial Date - 14 Days April 22, 2024
Fact Discovery Cut-Off August 4, 2023
Disclosure of supplemental expert September 1, 2023
reports under FRCP 26(a)(2)
Disclosure of rebuttal expert reports September 29, 2023
Expert discovery cutoff October 13, 2023
Plaintiff serves pretrial statement February 23, 2024
pursuant to LCR 16(h)
Defendant serves pretrial statement March 8, 2024
pursuant to LCR 16(i)
Agreed pretrial order, deposition March 25, 2024
designations, proposed jury
instructions and proposed verdict form
PillPack provides pharmaceutical services. The Company operates a
full service pharmacy with online prescription management and
delivery services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jfx6J7 at no extra charge.[CC]
PISA GROUP: Court OKs William Amended Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANINE WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
PISA GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-04752-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification.
This action shall be maintained as a class action in accordance
with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), pursuant to
the following findings of fact:
1. The Plaintiff has asserted claims for the Defendant's
violations of 47 U.S.C. section 227(c) on behalf of the
following Class:
"All natural persons in the United States who, within four
years preceding the filing of this case, received more
than one telephone solicitation call from PGI within a 12-
month period telemarketing newspaper subscriptions more
than 31 days after registering their telephone number with
the National Do-Not-Call Registry."
The Court also:
-- Certifies and appoints Plaintiff Janine Williams as Class
representative.
-- Certifies and appoints the firms Ellzey & Associates PLLC,
Hughes Ellzey LLP, and Kimmel & Silverman PC as Class
Counsel.
Pisa is a nationwide call center company specializing in outbound
customer retention and inbound customer support services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Mxeac at no extra charge.[CC]
PROUD MOMENTS: Malkin Must File Class Cert Bid by May 31
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malkin v. Proud Moments
Licensed Behavior Analysts, PLLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04834
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Steven Tiscione entered an order setting
the following revised discovery deadlines:
-- Initial limited class discovery April 28, 2023
to be completed by:
-- The Plaintiff shall serve the May 31, 2023
motion for class certification
by:
-- Deadline for motions to join new July 31, 2023
parties or amend pleadings:
-- All fact discovery to be Jan. 31, 2024
completed by:
-- Exchange of expert reports: March 19, 2024
-- Expert depositions completed March 19, 2024
by:
-- All discovery completed by: March 19, 2024
-- Final date to take first step May 20, 2024
in dispositive motion practice:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
QUALTRICS INTERNATIONAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Silver Lake Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Qualtrics
International Inc. (NASDAQ: XM), relating to its proposed sale to
Silver Lake. Under the terms of the agreement XM shareholders are
expected to receive $18.15 in cash per share they own. Click here
for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/qualtrics-international-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Monteverde & Associates PC is 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. The 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, the 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 XM 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
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2023 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]
REVENETICS: Faces Class Action Over Cyberattack, Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
HIPAA Journal reports that Revenetics is facing a class action
lawsuit over its December 2022 cyberattack and data breach that
affected more than 250,000 individuals. Revenetics is a revenue
cycle management company that provides its software solutions to
many healthcare providers. On December 15, 2023, Revenetics
detected a system intrusion and confirmed on December 27, 2022,
that the attackers exfiltrated files that included names, dates of
birth, clinical information, financial information, procedure and
service codes, and healthcare provider and health plan names.
The Royal ransomware group claimed responsibility for the attack
and issued a ransom demand to prevent the publication of the 16GB
of data allegedly stolen in the attack. The Royal ransomware group
is known to target healthcare organizations and typically
exfiltrates data and then issues ransom demands of between $250,000
and $2 million to prevent the publication of the stolen data. When
ransoms are not paid, the group published the stolen data on its
data leak site. In February 2023, Royal started to publish
Revenetics data on its data leak site.
The law firm Cole & Van recently filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of plaintiff
Paula Henderson and similarly affected individuals, alleging
Revenetics was negligent for failing to implement adequate and
reasonable measures to safeguard the personal and protected health
information of patients. As a result of that negligence, the
lawsuit claims the plaintiff and class members have suffered injury
and harm such as anxiety, emotional distress, loss of privacy, and
economic and non-economic losses and that their PHI is now in the
hands of criminals, which means they face an imminent and elevated
risk of identity theft, fraud, and abuse.
In addition to negligence, the lawsuit alleges a breach of implied
contract and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. The lawsuit seeks class action status, a jury trial,
an award of actual, nominal, and consequential damages, equitable
relief, and injunctive relief, including a court order requiring
Revenetics to encrypt sensitive data, comply with applicable
regulations and industry standards for data security, implement and
maintain a comprehensive information security program, segment
data, conduct regular database and security checks, provide regular
security awareness training to employees, submit to third-party
security audits, and conduct penetration tests on a regular basis.
[GN]
REVENTICS LLC: Jones Files Suit in D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reventics, LLC. The
case is styled as Daniel Jones, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Reventics, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00602-NYW
(D. Colo., March 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Reventics -- https://reventics.com/ -- delivers Provider Engagement
Solutions that enhance physician reimbursement and compliance while
improving clinical quality measures.[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
RICH DOSS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Daynes Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMON HAYNES, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RICH DOSS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV05304 (Cal. Super., Mar. 9,
2023) alleges the Defendant failed to pay overtime wages of the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees in the State of California
in violation of California state wage and hour laws, seeking to
recover Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) civil
penalties through a representative action permitted by PAGA.
On July 20, 2022, the Plaintiff provided written notice pursuant to
Labor Code section 2699.3 online and by certified mail, with return
receipt requested, of the Defendants' violation of various,
including the herein-described, provisions of the Labor Code, to
the LWDA, as well as by certified mail, with return receipt
requested to the Defendants, and each of them. Pursuant to Labor
Code section 2699.3, subdivision (a)(2)(A), the LWDA did not
provide notice of its intention to investigate Defendants' alleged
violations within 65 calendar days of the July 20, 2022, postmarked
date of the herein-described notice sent by the Plaintiff to the
LWDA and Defendants, says the suit.
The Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to pay
overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees
working over eight hours per day, 40 hours per week, and/or seven
straight workdays in a workweek, as a result of, without
limitation, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes
actually worked, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California. He worked
for the Defendants from June 2020 through December 2021.
Rich Doss is a logistics provider of load by road.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Alexander D. Wallin, Esq.
Amanda L. Fazio, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 438-5555;
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrawlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
alex@tomorrowlaw.com
amanda@tomorrowlaw.com
RNK INNOVATIONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RNK Innovations, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. RNK Innovations, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01970 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RNK Innovations, LLC doing business as Mom Innovations --
https://www.mominnovations.com/ -- is in the Infants' Wear
business.[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
ROBINS & MORTON: Mitchell Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Mitchell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ROBINS & MORTON CORPORATION AND ROBINS & MORTON,
L.L.C., dba ROBINS & MORTON, Case No. 2:23-cv-00281-RDP (N.D. Ala.,
March 8, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to
protect highly sensitive data.
The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") about its current employees and
former employees, which Defendant lost control over when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").
It is unknown to Plaintiff for precisely how long the
cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach
was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to
prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its
systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to
employee PII.
Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed
the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy
targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff brings this class action
on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's
misconduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim and received a breach notice
on February 2022.
The Defendant is a privately held construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristian Rasmussen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
2701 S Le Jeune Rd. Floor 10
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (786) 206-8306 x 5224
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: Krasmussen@milberg.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
Brittany Resch, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
ROOFLINE INC: Jimenez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARLOS JIMENEZ and JUAN PINZON, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ROOFLINE, INC. dba ROOFLINE SUPPLY &
DELIVERY, an Oregon corporation; SRS DISTRIBUTION INC., a Delaware
corporation; J.B. WHOLESALE ROOFING AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., a
California Corporation; BUILDERS SUPPLY LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
34-2023-00333516-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of Sacramento to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 2,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-at-00209 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) failure to pay
overtime; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide
meal breaks or pay premiums; (4) failure to provide rest breaks or
pay premiums; (5) failure to provide recovery periods; (6) failure
to provide accurate wage statements and maintain payroll records;
(7) failure to timely pay wages upon separation; (8) failure to
timely pay wages during employment; (9) unreimbursed business
expenses; (10) unlawful business practices; and (11) unfair
business practices.
Roofline, Inc. provides building products. The Company offers vinyl
siding, residential roofing, fiber cement, gutter materials, patio
covers, screen rooms, shutters, columns, windows, aluminum railing,
and other related products. Roofline serves customers in the United
States.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
Samuel S. Sadeghi, Esq.
Mayra Negrete, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
sam.sadeghi@morganlewis.com
mayra.negrete@morganlewis.com
S. FELDMAN HOUSEWARES: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S. Feldman
Housewares, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. S. Feldman Housewares,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01706 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
S. Feldman Housewares, Inc. -- https://sfeldmanhousewares.com/ --
is a long-running shop featuring a variety of kitchen supplies &
home goods, plus free NYC delivery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SAFAVIEH INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safavieh, Inc. The
case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Safavieh, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01913
(S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Safavieh -- https://safavieh.com/ -- offer the finest selection of
Rugs & Home Furnishings with luxurious area rugs, finely crafted
furniture, accent accessories, lighting & 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
SALZ GROUP: Garner Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Garner, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Salz Group LLC, Salz Group Taco Bell Brooklyn LLC, Salz Group
Taco Bell LLC, Salz Group WDY Queens LLC, Salz Group WS Queens LLC,
and Suhail Sitaf, Case No. 1:23-cv-01677 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2023),
is brought to recover unpaid overtime 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 Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. No notification, either in
the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever given to the
Plaintiff regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL. The
Defendants did not provide Plaintiff a statement of wages, as
required by NYLL. The Defendants did not give any notice to
Plaintiff of his rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such
other information as required by NYLL. The Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage
rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a crew member at the Defendants'
fast-food restaurants, known as "Taco Bell."
The Defendants own, operate and/or control the fast-food
restaurant, known as "Taco Bell."[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
SAM ASH MUSIC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sam Ash Music
Corporation. The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Sam Ash Music
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01592-PKC-PK (E.D.N.Y., March 1,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sam Ash Music -- https://www.samash.com/ -- was founded in 1924,
and is the largest family-owned chain of musical instrument stores
in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Hasson Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kenneth Hasson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01669 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on March 1, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01221 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the
global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital
media.[BN]
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Morton Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lakia Morton, Zachary Chernik, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00251 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01232 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the
global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital
media.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carson Modrall, Esq.
Charles Hale Van Horn, Esq.
Katherine Merriam Silverman, Esq.
BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
3475 Piedmont Road Northeast, Suite 1640
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 261-8650
Fax: (404) 233-1943
SANDESTIN BEACH: Gardner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Christie Gardner, on behalf of herself and all employees similarly
situated v. SANDESTIN BEACH HOTEL, LTD. d/b/a SANDESTIN GOLF &
BEACH RESORT, Case No. 3:23-cv-05122-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., March 8,
2023), is brought to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
wages and other relief, as well as an additional amount as
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA").
The Plaintiff was paid overtime hourly pay at an incorrect unlawful
rate which resulted in an underpayment of overtime wages due under
the FLSA. The Defendant's unlawful calculation of the overtime rate
and resulting underpayment of overtime to Plaintiff and those
similarly situated violated the FLSA. As a consequence of the
Defendant's violation of the FLSA, the Plaintiff was underpaid for
overtime hours worked by them for which they seek compensation, as
well as liquidated damages in an amount equal to the underpaid
overtime, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as bartenders and servers for the Defendant.
The Defendant provides lodging, food, beverages and recreational
services to customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Culliton, Esq.
SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC
285 John Knox Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Phone: (850)385-9455
Facsimile: (813)441.1999
Email: sean@seancullitonlaw.com
- and -
John C. Davis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
531 Crane Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90065
Phone: (850) 556-0183
Email: john.davis623@gmail.com
- and -
Ryan B. Hobbs, Esq.
PERRY & YOUNG, P.A.
219 E Virginia St
Tallahassee, FL 32301-1263
Phone: (850) 482-7777
Email: rhobbs@perry-young.com
SCHALLER MANUFACTURING: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schaller
Manufacturing Corp. The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Schaller
Manufacturing Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-01594 (E.D.N.Y., March 1,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Schaller Manufacturing Corp. -- https://schallergroup.com/ -- doing
business as Schaller & Weber, provides food products. The Company
offers sausages, smoked meats, salami, spreads, and poultry
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SEA COAST REALTY: Faces Class Suit Over Realtors' Commissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
WECT Staff and Mara McJilton of WECT News report that a lawsuit
filed against Sea Coast Realty, Inc., claims the company retained
millions in real estate commissions that were owed to current and
former agents.
The class action complaint was filed last month by four individuals
who had previously worked for Sea Coast Realty as real estate
brokers.
According to the suit, the company and agents entered an agreement
in which any real estate services that resulted in a commission
being paid to Sea Coast, the company and plaintiffs were entitled
to a share based on an agreed-upon commission schedule.
"Plaintiffs understood that the six percent Coldwell Banker
Franchise Fee that was deducted from each sales commission was, in
fact, a six percent fee that would be paid to Sea Coast's
franchisor, Coldwell Banker," the filing states.
"Under the terms of the Agreement, the remaining commission amount,
i.e. the amount left after Sea Coast deducted the six percent
Coldwell Banker Franchise fee, is split between the agent and Sea
Coast according to the agreed-upon split in the commission
schedule."
The suit goes on to state that Coldwell Banker reduced the
franchise fee that Sea Coast pays "by a significant amount, to as
low as three percent." The plaintiffs claim that Sea Coast failed
to alert the agents to this reduction.
"Sea Coast's continued practice of deducting a six percent Coldwell
Banker Franchise fee, after the fee was reduced by Coldwell Banker
to as little as three percent, resulted in an altered commission
split that fundamentally changed the payment terms in the
agreed-upon Commission Schedule, thereby breaching the material
terms of the Agreement," the complaint states. "This altered
commission split resulted in Seacoast enriching itself at the
expense of the Plaintiffs and other Sea Coast agents because Sea
Coast repeatedly retained a larger percentage of each sales
commission than it was entitled to under the Agreement."
"Under the altered commission split, Plaintiffs and other Sea Coast
agents received a smaller percentage of the total commission than
they were entitled to under the terms of the Agreement."
The plaintiffs are asking for a judgment in excess of $25,000 as
well as attorneys' fees paid.
Gary Shipman, the attorney representing Sea Coast Realty, released
a statement saying:
"The notion that any of our current or former agents/brokers have
been "overcharged" is a complete fabrication. We take pride in
having delivered to each and every one of our current and former
agents/brokers everything that we have committed to provide and we
have always focused on their success. The allegations represent a
gross misunderstanding of what Sea Coast has provided or attempted
to provide. We have been incredibly humbled by the overwhelming
show of support we have received from our team members, who have
likewise expressed to us their beliefs that this lawsuit is
frivolous. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit." [GN]
SEAGEN INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Proposed Sale to Pfizer
----------------------------------------------------------
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 Seagen,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SGEN), relating to its proposed sale to Pfizer Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement SGEN shareholders are expected to
receive $229.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/seagen-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Monteverde & Associates PC is 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. The 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, the 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 SGEN 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]
SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Green Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequoia Benefits and
Insurance Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jessica
Green, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Services, LLC, Sequoia One PEO,
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01028-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 7, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Sequoia -- https://www.sequoia.com/ -- specializes in tying
benefits, compensation, and overall people programs to business
results.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
401 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
SERVICE KING: Class Cert Supplemental Filing Extended to March 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA MONIZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SERVICE KING, INC., a California corporation; SERVICE KING PAINT &
BODY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and DOES 2 through
100, Case No. 5:18-cv-07372-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward
J. Davila entered an order to continue the supplemental filing
deadline in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification from February 17, 2023 to March 17, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F9LUqk at no extra charge.[CC]
SHERRY-LEHMANN INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sherry-Lehmann, Inc.
The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sherry-Lehmann, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01792 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sherry Lehmann Wine & Spirits -- https://www.sherry-lehmann.com/ --
in Manhattan features selections from the world's best wineries and
help find, buy, and ship wine and wine gifts, online and
in-store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: Remodeling Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas Remodeling, Brandi Bagley, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. Sherwin-Williams
Company, Case No. 8:22-cv-02061 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on March 8, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00459-JPC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Sherwin-Williams Company -- http://www.sherwin-williams.com/-- is
an American Cleveland, Ohio–based company in the paint and
coating manufacturing industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
20900 NE 30th Ave
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
The Defendant is represented by:
Darren K. Cottriel, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 851-3939
Fax: (949) 553-7539
- and -
Louis A. Chaiten, Esq.
JONES DAY - CLEVELAND
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 586-7267
Fax: (216) 579-0212
Email: lachaiten@jonesday.com
- and -
Sharyl A. Reisman, Esq.
JONES DAY - NEW YORK
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 326-3405
Fax: (212) 755-7306
Email: sareisman@JonesDay.com
SIG SAUER: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Bid set for Nov. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasscock v. Sig Sauer,
Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R.
Bough entered an order that an oral argument on class certification
is set for Nov. 14, 2023 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 7B, Kansas City
(SRB) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Diversity-Product Liability --
Other Fraud.
Sig Sauer, headquartered in Newington, New Hampshire, is a
worldwide business group of firearms manufacturers.[CC]
SIGNET BUILDERS: Court Extends Briefing Deadlines in Vanegas
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luna Vanegas, Jose v.
Signet Builders, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00054 (W.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered an order granting
the Defendant's unopposed motion to extend briefing deadlines:
-- Defendant's brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint is due March 17, 2023.
-- The plaintiff's reply due March 27.
-- The Defendant's brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion
for conditional class certification is due March 27, 2023
with plaintiff's reply due April 10.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
involving collecting unpaid wages
Signet Builders is a construction, and commercial & residential
construction company.[CC]
SKY CHEFS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 20, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALENTINA REYES, v. SKY
CHEFS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08590-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Laurel Beeler entered a scheduling order as follows:
Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure
Deadline/Hearing Date
Motion for Class Certification May 20, 2024
Filing
Opposition to Class Certification June 17, 2024
Motion
Reply to Opposition to Class July 8, 2024
Certification Motion
Motion for Class Certification July 25, 2024
Hearing
Expert discovery completion date October 15, 2024
Last hearing date for dispositive November 21, 2024
motions and/or further case-
management conference
Meet and confer re pretrial filings November 19, 2024
Sky Chefs provides in-flight services to airlines.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mudKal at no extra charge.[CC]
SMITH GAMBRELL: Faces Owens Class Suit Over Clients' Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES OWENS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL INTERNATIONAL, LLP
(SGR); and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-01789 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 9,
2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to implement and maintain
reasonable cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a data breach
of its systems in or around July 19, 2021 through July 28, 2021,
which was discovered on or around August 9, 2021.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint to redress
injuries related to the data breach, on behalf of himself and a
nationwide class and California subclass of similarly situated
persons.
According to the complaint, SGR waited more than 17 months to
notify impacted individuals of the breach. On or around January 13,
2023, SGR mailed data breach notices to the impacted parties.
According to the notice mailed to impacted individuals, the breach
resulted in individuals' name, social security number, and health
information such as medical history, treatment and diagnosis, being
compromised and acquired by unauthorized actors.
The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of a California subclass for
violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California
Customer Records Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and
for invasion of privacy based on the California Constitution. The
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive and exemplary
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.
Mr. Owens is a citizen and resident of the State of California
whose personal identifying information was part of the July 2021
data breach.
SGR is an international law firm with more than 400 lawyers
operating in 14 domestic and international offices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
SMITH GAMBRELL: Livingston Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
----------------------------------------------------------
Felica Livingston, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, INTERNATIONAL LLP,
a Georgia Limited Liability Partnership, Case No. 1:23-cv-00958-JPB
(N.D. Ga., March 6, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's
and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information
stored within Defendant's information network, including, without
limitation, full names, Social Security numbers, and driver's
license numbers (these types of information, inter alia, being
thereafter referred to, collectively, "personally identifiable
information" or "PII").
The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms
it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and
approximately 19,322 other similarly situated persons in the
massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by the
Defendant on August 9, 2021, by which cybercriminals infiltrated
the Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed
highly sensitive PII belonging to both adults and children, which
was being kept unprotected (the "Data Breach").
While the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early
as August 9, 2021, the Defendant did not begin informing victims of
the Data Breach until August 2022 and failed to inform victims when
or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the Plaintiff was
wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from
Defendant informing them of it. The notice received by the
Plaintiff was dated on September 8, 2022.
The Defendant acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff's PII
and/or financial information. Therefore, the Defendant knew, or
should have known, that the Plaintiff would use the Defendant's
services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly
confidential PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a
benefit from the Plaintiff's PII, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from
state and federal statutes and regulations as well as common law
principles.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure the
Plaintiff's 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 the Plaintiff 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 the Plaintiff in the future. The Plaintiff
has 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.
The Defendant is a law firm supporting Aaron's, LLC, a lease-to-own
retailer of furniture, electronics, and appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Church, Esq.
THE CHURCH LAW FIRM
1875 Old Alabama Road, Suite 760
Roswell, GA 30076
Phone: (404) 223-3310
Email: tom@church.law
- and -
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: sec@colevannote.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Email: daniel@slfla.com
SOLARJUICE TECHNOLOGY: Leach Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solarjuice
Technology, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nkosi Leach, on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Solarjuice Technology, Inc., Solarjuice American, Inc., Does 1-100,
Case No. 34-2023-00335473-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., March 1, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Solarjuice Technology, Inc. -- https://www.solarjuiceamerica.com/
-- supplies residential solar systems that employ proven designs,
the latest technologies, and brand-name products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due May 2
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO and
SELINA CASHIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an
order granting joint stipulation to modify class certification
deadlines as follows:
Deadline to Move for Class Certification: May 2, 2023
Opposition: June 27, 2023
Reply: Aug. 15, 2023
Hearing: Sept. 14, 2023
Southwest Airlines engages in the operation and management of a
passenger airline.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SYzuHp at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Erlich, Esq.
ERLICH LAW FIRM, P.C.
180 Grand Ave., Suite 1380
Oakland CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 390-9140
Facsimile: (510) 369-3876
E-mail: jason@erlichlawfirm.com
- and -
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 986-1400
Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Annie Lau, Esq.
Megan F. Clark, Esq.
Kevin L. Quan, Esq.
Daniel Farrington, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 490-9000
Facsimile: (415) 490-9001
E-mail: alau@fisherphillips.com
mclark@fisherphillips.com
kquan@fisherphillips.com
dfarrington@fisherphillips.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: May 2 Deadline for Class Cert. Filing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO and
SELINA CASHIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties agree that the class certification
briefing schedule be modified as follows:
-- Deadline to Move for Class May 2, 2023
Certification:
-- Opposition: June 30, 2023
-- Reply: August 15, 2023
-- Hearing: September 14, 2023
Southwest Airlines engages in the operation and management of a
passenger airline.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kPbYQx at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Erlich, Esq.
ERLICH LAW FIRM, P.C.
180 Grand Ave., Suite 1380
Oakland CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 390-9140
Facsimile: (510) 369-3876
E-mail: jason@erlichlawfirm.com
- and -
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 986-1400
Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Annie Lau, Esq.
Megan F. Clark, Esq.
Kevin L. Quan, Esq.
Daniel Farrington, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 490-9000
Facsimile: (415) 490-9001
E-mail: alau@fisherphillips.com
mclark@fisherphillips.com
kquan@fisherphillips.com
dfarrington@fisherphillips.com
SQUID SOCKS: Qualilab Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Squid Socks LLC. The
case is styled as Qualilab, a public benefit corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Squid Socks LLC, Case No. 2023-CA-001829-O (Fla. Cir. Ct., Orange
Cty., March 3, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Business Torts."
Squid Socks -- https://squidsocks.ink/ -- offers socks for
children.[BN]
STAR NURSING: Class Action Settlement in Massey Gets Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARAE MASSEY, v. STAR
NURSING, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-01482-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order:
1. granting motion for final approval of class action
settlement; and
2. granting motion for attorneys' fees, costs, service award,
and settlement administrator expenses:
-- Class Counsel is awarded $175,000.00 in attorneys' fees;
-- Class Counsel is awarded $11,604.83 in litigation costs;
-- Plaintiff Sharae Massey is granted a service award of
$5,000.00; and
-- Settlement Administrator CPT Group, Inc.'s service fee
of $10,500.00 is approved.
On December 19, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her unopposed motion for
final approval of class action settlement and indicated that no
class member had objected to or opted out of the settlement.
On February 23, 2022, the Court held a hearing and heard arguments
from the parties.
The Plaintiff Massey filed the putative class action complaint on
March 2, 2021, against Star Nursing, and the operative Second
Amended Complaint on June 22, 2021.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant -- a healthcare
staffing company that employs hourly healthcare workers on
short-term travel assignments at healthcare facilities throughout
California -- underpaid the overtime owed to employees because it
excluded the value of per diem payments from the calculation of
overtime rates.
The Plaintiff asserted claims for failure to pay overtime under
California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194; unfair business
practices under California Business & Professions Code section
17200, et seq.; waiting time penalties under California Labor Code
section 203; violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and civil penalties under the California
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.
The Settlement Agreement and Release defines the class as follows:
"All non-exempt hourly employees employed by Star Nursing,
Inc. in California who, at any time from March 2, 2017
through [October 24,2022], worked one or more workweeks in
which they were paid overtime and received a stipend."
In its preliminary approval order, the Court conditionally
certified the Settlement Class and provisionally appointed Hayes
Pawlenko LLP as Class Counsel and Plaintiff as class
representative. The Court also appointed CPT Group, Inc. ("CPT") as
the Settlement Administrator.
Star Nursing offers healthcare staffing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jpvo8h at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM GENERAL: Pitkin Files Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm General
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Melissa Pitkin, Dan
Grout, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
State Farm General Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924-JCS (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a group of
mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jack W. Weaver, Esq.
Rachel Mache, Esq.
WELTY, WEAVER & CURRIE, PC
3554 Round Barn Blvd., Ste. 300
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Phone: (707) 433-4842
Fax: (707) 473-9778
Email: shannon@weltyweaver.com
- and -
Andrew William Britton, Esq.
Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
Nabilah Hossain, Esq.
Frank Mario Pitre, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577
Email: abritton@cpmlegal.com
akirtley@cpmlegal.com
nhossain@cpmlegal.com
fpitre@cpmlegal.com
- and -
William Hayes Hedden, Esq.
1838 15th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 850-0042
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Bycko Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sharon Bycko, David Grubbs, Angela
Killman-Anderson, Debra Lawless, Pamela S. Norton, Jeremy Waller,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
doing business as: ISO ClaimSearch, Insurance Services Office, Inc.
a subsidiary of Verisk, Case No. MID L 000356 23 was removed from
the Superior Court of Middlesex County, NJ, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on March 8, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01316 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Injunctive &
Declaratory Relief.
State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a group of
mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven L. Penaro, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 210-9400
Email: steve.penaro@alston.com
SUNTIGER INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Suntiger, Inc. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Suntiger, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01992
(S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Suntiger offers motorcycle parts & accessories,.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SVB FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 13
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of SVB Financial Group (NASDAQ: SIVB)
between June 16, 2021 and March 10, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than May 12, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased SVB securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the SVB class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12882 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 12, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company failed to disclose
to investors the risks presented by impending rising interest
rates; (2) the Company failed to disclose to investors that, in an
environment with high interest rates, it would be worse off than
banks that did not cater to tech startups and venture
capital-backed companies; (3) the Company failed to disclose that,
if its investments were negatively affected by rising interest
rates, it was particularly susceptible to a bank run; (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the SVB class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12882 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
SVB FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hemenway, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that Silicon
Valley Bank (SVB) on March 13 was hit with what appears to be the
first federal securities class-action lawsuit against it, carrying
allegations that the bank made false or misleading statements
pertaining to the potential impact rising interest rates could have
on operations.
According to the suit filed against SVB Financial Group, CEO Greg
W. Becker, and CFO Daniel Beck in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, shareholder Chandra Vanipenta, on
behalf of a class that bought securities of SVB between
June 16, 2021 and March 10, 2023 seeks unspecified damages for
SVB's alleged wrongful conduct in violation of federal securities
laws.
The suit outlines multiple financial reports over several years
that Santa Clara, California-based SVB filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission - none of which disclosed the
risk of interest rate hikes. On March 7 the Federal Reserve
announced it would raise interest rates quicker and higher than
previously thought. SVB then experienced a bank run that led to its
doors being shuttered March 10, marking the largest collapse of a
financial institution since the peak of the financial crisis in
September 2008.
"The statements (in SEC filings) were materially false and/or
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose . . .
adverse facts pertaining to the company's business which were known
to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them," the lawsuit
alleged.
Silicon Valley's customers were largely startups and others from
the tech industry. SVB Capital, the venture investing arm of SVB
Financial Group, which includes the failed commercial bank,
provided funding for insurtechs like Root, Pie Insurance, Vouch,
and early debt financing to Embroker and Clearcover.
On Sunday a joint statement from U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet
Yellen, Fed Chair Jerome Powell and FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg
announced a plan to stem a broader financial fallout and said
deposits in SVB will be made whole.
The case is Chandra Vanipenta v SVB Financial Group, Greg W.
Becker, and Daniel Beck, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, No. 23-01097
SYNEOS HEALTH: Order on Class Cert Bids Entered in Scurlock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REGINALD SCURLOCK v.
SYNEOS HEALTH US, INC., et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-09444-FMO-JC (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding
motions for class certification as follows:
1. Joint Brief:
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully integrated joint brief covering each party's
position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a
party is immediately followed by the opposing
party's/parties' response.
2. Citation to Evidence:
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be
directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the
evidentiary appendix.
3. Unnecessary Sections: The parties need not include a
"procedural history" section, since the court will be
familiar with the procedural history.
4. Evidentiary Appendix: The joint brief shall be accompanied
by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and
written evidence (including documents, photographs,
deposition excerpts, etc.).
5. Evidentiary Objections:
All necessary evidentiary objections shall be made
in the relevant section(s) of the joint brief.
6. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief:
The briefing schedule for the joint brief shall be as
follows:
A. Meet and Confer: In order for a motion for class
certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet
and confer must take place no later than 35 days before
the deadline for class certification motions
set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling
Order.
B. No later than seven days after the meet and confer, the
moving party shall personally deliver or e-mail to the
opposing party an electronic copy of the moving party's
portion of the joint brief, together with the moving
party's portion of the evidentiary appendix.
C. No later than 14 days after receiving the moving
party's papers, the opposing party shall personally
deliver or e-mail to the moving party an electronic
copy of the integrated motion, which shall include the
opposing party's portion of the joint brief, together
with the opposing party's portion of the evidentiary
appendix.
D. No later than two days after receiving the integrated
version of the motion and related papers, the moving
party shall finalize it for filing.
Syneos Health provides biopharmaceutical solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mzQmIq at no extra charge.[CC]
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Discovery Due Jan. 16, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poston v. Syracuse
University, Case No. 5:21-cv-01386-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Therese Weley Dancks entered a uniform pretrial scheduling
order as follows:
-- Any application to join any person March 16, 2023
as a party to this action shall be
made on or before:
-- Any application to amend any May 15, 2023
pleading in this action shall be
made on or before:
-- Rule 33 and 34 Requests to be served March 24, 2023
by:
-- All discovery in this matter is to Jan. 16, 2024
be completed on or before:
-- Discovery Motions due: Jan. 30, 2024
Syracuse University is a private research university in the heart
of New York State.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YoACoE at no extra charge.[CC]
TARGET CORP: Kahn's False Price Ad Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YORAM KAHN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04178, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on March
2, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No.
0:23-cv-00500-PJS-TNL to the proceeding.
This action seeks to address and remedy the alleged unfair and
deceptive business practices Target has engaged in by placing false
and misleading price advertisements on shelf signs and price
displays throughout its stores in Illinois and nationwide.
Target Corporation is an American retail corporation headquartered
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey P. Justman, Esq.
Kiera Murphy, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 766-8862
E-mail: jeff.justman@faegredrinker.com
kiera.murphy@faegredrinker.com
TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT: McCree Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANEL MCCREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00318 (E.D. Va., Mar. 9, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
The Plaintiff and the members of the putative collective and class
were employed by the Defendant to work remotely as hourly-paid
customer support workers and were responsible for handling inbound
and outbound telephone calls from the Defendant's clients and
customers.
According to the complaint, one of the abuses, which are at issue
in this case, is the employer's refusal to pay hourly-paid customer
support workers for work "from the beginning of the first principal
activity of the workday to the end of the last principal activity
of the workday." The Defendant allegedly failed to pay hourly-paid
customer support workers for work performed while not "clocked in"
including, inter alia, pre-shift time spent starting up their
computers and logging into required systems and applications, and
time spent preparing and submitting tickets related to customers'
issue troubleshooting. The Defendant also failed to pay hourly-paid
customer support workers for mandatory training directly related to
their jobs that occurred during their regular work hours, says the
suit.
Plaintiff McCree is a resident of Prince George's County, Maryland,
and worked for the Defendant from March 2022 to June 2022.
Technical and Management is an information technology (IT) services
company that offers professional engineering, planning, and
implementation support to federal government agencies and corporate
clients throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Curtis Daniel Cannon, Esq.
GOLDBERG FINNEGAN CANNON, LLC
8401 Colesville Road, Suite 630
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 589-2999
Facsimile: (301) 589-2644
- and -
Eric Sands
Nicholas Conlon
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
TESLA ENERGY: Dismissal of Fallah's Class Action Claims Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOSES FALLAH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TESLA ENERGY
OPERATIONS, INC., as Successor-In-Interest to Solar City
Corporation, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. A-0794-22 (N.J. Super.
App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division,
reverses the trial court's order dismissing the class-action
allegations in the amended complaint.
In 2015, Fallah entered into a contract with SolarCity Corp. by
which he purchased power produced by a solar panel system SolarCity
installed on his home. The contract contained SolarCity's "promise
not to put a lien on" his property. Both parties agreed that any
dispute, claim or disagreement between them will be resolved
exclusively by arbitration.
Years later, the Plaintiff discovered that SolarCity had recorded a
lien on his property. He commenced the action against Tesla, which
acquired SolarCity in 2016, seeking a declaratory judgment and
damages arising from the imposition of the lien.
The Defendant promptly moved to compel arbitration. According to
the trial judge, the contract's section 18, which contained the
arbitration agreement, lacked a "concrete manifestation" of a
waiver of the Plaintiff's statutory rights; for that reason, the
trial judge denied the motion. The Defendant did not appeal that
determination despite the right to do so.
The Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, seeking to pursue
his claims for those similarly situated. In response, the Defendant
moved to bar the Plaintiff's pursuit of a class action by relying
on language in the same arbitration agreement the judge found
unenforceable. The trial judge granted this motion and dismissed
the class-action allegations in the amended complaint.
The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to consider the
Plaintiff's argument, among others, that the judge's finding that
the arbitration agreement was unenforceable compelled a
determination that the class-action waiver within the arbitration
agreement should also be unenforceable.
First, the Appellate Division must divorce from its consideration
the overriding notion, ever-present in appeals of orders compelling
or denying arbitration, that public policy favors enforcement of
the parties' agreement. It is considering enforcement of a
purported waiver of a right to pursue class actions in a court of
law. The policy in favor of arbitration is irrelevant.
Second, once removed from the arbitration setting, the Appellate
Division is driven by a public policy that favors class actions and
disfavors class-action waivers. The Supreme Court has recognized
that class actions are "valuable to litigants, to the courts, and
to the public interest" and that the class-action mechanism should
be construed liberally in a case involving allegations of consumer
fraud.
Third, the enforceability of a class-action waiver turns on an
interpretation of the parties' agreement and an application of
accepted principles of contract law. The party seeking
relinquishment of a right favored in our jurisprudence must show
that the other party "clearly and unambiguously" agreed to forego
that right.
The Defendant relies on a single sentence appearing in section 18
in seeking a holding that the Plaintiff waived the right to pursue
a class action in a court of law; that sentence, however, is
solidly linked to the parties' agreement to arbitrate and should be
so interpreted and limited.
The Appellate Division states that to ascertain the meaning of the
sentence on which the Defendant relies, it is appropriate to
consider not only the wording of that sentence but its neighboring
words and phrases as well. The purported class-action waiver is
contained in the contract's section 18, which is labeled
"Applicable law; Arbitration." That section consists of seven
paragraphs, the first and seventh of which are all in upper case
letters, thereby signifying to a lay person the importance of these
emphasized paragraphs.
Deserving of close analysis is the seventh paragraph, which
contains the single sentence that expresses the class-action waiver
on which defendant solely relies. Both that sentence's wording and
location within the paragraph reveals it is limited to the waiver
of the class-action mechanism in an arbitration and not in a court
of law.
The Appellate Division finds that the seventh paragraph's first
sentence states the parties' agreement to "arbitrate all disputes"
and that neither will litigate any dispute in a court of law. Those
declarations are then followed by a sentence that starts with
"Further." The Defendant argues that "further" connotes that what
follows is an obligation "independent" of the immediately preceding
sentence. That is, defendant argues that "further" represents a
complete break from what the prior sentence -- or, for that matter,
the remainder of the paragraph -- otherwise conveys.
The Appellate Division disagrees. It says the entire sense of the
seventh paragraph, let alone all seven paragraphs of the
arbitration agreement, is that there will be no litigation between
these parties, only arbitration. It finds unconvincing the notion
that -- after attempting to convey throughout section 18 that
plaintiff would have no right to litigate a dispute in a court of
law -- the Defendant also extracted from the Plaintiff a waiver of
the right to pursue a class action in a forum that the parties
agreed would be unavailable to the Plaintiff. That twisted logic,
the Appellate Division opines, is inconsistent with a literal or
reasonable interpretation of section 18. Moreover, even if the
Defendant's argument may be said to be fairly debatable, it says
there still can be no doubt that the alleged class-action waiver in
section 18 was not clearly and unambiguously expressed.
The Appellate Division lastly observes that its recent decision in
Cerciello v. Salerno Duane, Inc., 473 N.J.Super. 249 (App. Div.
2022), does not require a different result. There, the class-action
waiver, which stated that the parties waived the right to maintain
a court action, or to pursue a class action in court and in
arbitration," unambiguously encompassed both arbitration and court
proceedings, unlike in the case.
For these reasons, the order under review, insofar as it dismissed
with prejudice the Plaintiff's class claims, is reversed and the
matter remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the
Appellate Division's Opinion. The Appellate Division does not
retain jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ya5shujb from Leagle.com.
Lisa R. Considine -- lconsidine@disabatolaw.com -- argued the cause
for appellant (DiSabato & Considine LLC, Law Office of Edward
Hanratty, and Schmierer Law Group, LLC, attorneys; David J.
DiSabato -- ddisabato@disabatolaw.com -- Lisa R. Considine, Edward
Hanratty, and Ross H. Schmierer, on the brief).
Seth W. Lloyd -- slloyd@mofo.com -- (Morrison & Foerster LLP) of
the District of Columbia and California bars, admitted pro hac
vice, argued the cause for respondent (Wong Fleming, PC, Lavin,
Cedrone, Graver, Boyd & DiSipio, David J. Fioccola --
dfioccola@mofo.com -- (Morrison & Foerster LLP), Seth W. Lloyd, and
Joseph R. Palmore -- jpalmore@mofo.com -- (Morrison & Foerster LLP)
of the District of Columbia and New York bars, admitted pro hac
vice, attorneys; David C. Fleming, Michael J. Wozny --
mwozny@lavin-law.com -- and David J. Fioccola, on the brief).
TEXAS SWD COMPANY: Hickman Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Hickman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TEXAS SWD COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00045-H (N.D.
Tex., March 2, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the Portal-to-Portal Act, (collectively, the "FLSA")
seeking damages for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time
and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven-day workweek while working for the Defendant paid
on a weekly rate basis.
Specifically, the Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent
contractor by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was paid a weekly rate
and regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek while
performing his job duties for the Defendant. However, he was never
paid time and one half his regular rate of pay by the Defendant for
any hours worked over 40 in a workweek during his work for the
Defendant. As a result of the independent contractor
misclassification, the Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action
Members do not/did not enjoy and receive the benefits of
employment, such as overtime wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Big Lake, Texas from May
2019 to March 2022.
The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM, LLP
400 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
THEORY LLC: Bid to Stay Discovery Deadlines Tossed in Ezra
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALON EZRA, v. THEORY, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10535-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G.
Schofield entered an order denying the Defendant's request for a
stay of discovery deadlines pending resolution of a contemplated
early motion.
The Court further ordered that:
-- if Defendant seeks to file a motion to dismiss or Plaintiff
seeks to file a motion for class certification, that party
shall file a pre-motion letter pursuant to Individual Rules
III.A.1 and III.C.2.
-- if and when the parties are ready to proceed with a
settlement conference with the assigned Magistrate Judge or
mediation in the Court's mediation program, they shall file
a joint letter on ECF requesting a referral.
Theory designs apparels. The Company provides men's and women's
pants, blazers, jackets, shorts, sweaters, skirts, suits, t-shirts,
tops, and dresses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zfe2Ah at no extra charge.[CC]
THEORY LLC: Class Cert Fact Discovery Must be Completed by June 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALON EZRA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THEORY, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10535-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G.
Schofield entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order
as follows:
-- The Defendant's request for a stay of discovery pending
resolution of a contemplated motion is denied.
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than June
23, 2023.
-- The parties may modify the deadlines for initial requests
for production, document production, interrogatories,
depositions and requests to admit upon consent, provided
all fact discovery shall be completed by June 23, 2023.
-- All expert discovery shall be completed by August 11, 2023.
-- The parties shall meet and confer on a schedule for expert
disclosures, including reports, production of documents and
depositions, no later than July 24, 2023.
Theory designs apparels. The Company provides men's and women's
pants, blazers, jackets, shorts, sweaters, skirts, suits, t-shirts,
tops, and dresses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ytibzv at no extra charge.[CC]
TODD GREINER: Lopez, et al., Seek Leave to File Reply Brief
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIA LOPEZ, et al., v.
TODD GREINER FARMS PACKING, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00227-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for leave to file the Plaintiffs' reply brief in response to the
Defendants' opposition brief in response to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and brief in support.
Todd Greiner is an industry leading grower, packer, and shipper of
fresh produce.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L9PgND at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anna Hill Galendez, Esq.
Gonzalo Peralta, Esq.
MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS
CENTER
15 S. Washington St.
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Telephone/Facsimile: (734) 714-3216
E-mail: ahill@michiganimmigrant.org
gperalta@michiganimmigrant.org
- and -
John C. Philo, Esq.
SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
4605 Cass Ave, 2nd Floor
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 993-4505
Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
TORCH ELECTRONICS: Romano Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stavatti Aerospace
Limited, et al. The case is styled as Patrick Romano, Joshua
Wilson, Krystal Christensen, Jeffrey Cordaro, Carmen Weaver, Monica
McGee, Mary Bolden, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Torch Electronics, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-04043-WJE (W.D. Mo., March 3, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
the Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Torch Electronics -- https://torchelectronics.com/ -- is an
industry leader in amusement devices. Contact us to find out more
about our innovative no chance game machines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe D. Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PRESS PC
222 South Central Avenue, Suite 550
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 899-9790
Fax: (314) 899-0282
Email: jacobson@archcitylawyers.com
- and -
Christopher Olsem Miller, Esq.
AMUNDSEN DAVIS LLC
120 S Central Ave., Suite 700
Saint Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 854-5304
Fax: (314) 719-3721
Email: comiller@amundsendavislaw.com
TORY BURCH: Illegally Overcharges Tax Monies, James Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TORY BURCH, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02030 (S.D.N.Y., Mar.
9, 2023) alleges that Defendant illegally and erroneously
overcharges tax monies at a higher tax rate than the correct
applicable use tax rate on products purchased through remote sales
channels, including from Tory Burch's internet website, that are
shipped to Missouri customers from an out-of-state facility,
resulting in the overcollection of monies from Missouri consumers.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a
proposed class of Missouri residents who purchased products for
personal, family, or household use from Tory Burch through remote
sales channels, including its internet website.
On February 19, 2023, the Plaintiff purchased a Small Ella Patent
Tote Bag from Tory Burch's website, www.toryburch.com. The
Plaintiff's purchase was shipped from Atlanta, Georgia.
According to the Missouri Department of Revenue, the applicable use
tax rate for sales of products through remote sales channels that
are shipped by the Defendant from an out-of-state facility for
delivery to 11262 Bristol Rock Rd, Florissant, Missouri 63033 on
February 19, 2023 is 4.225%. When the Plaintiff purchased the purse
from Tory Burch's website on February 19, 2023, the Defendant
required the Plaintiff to pay a 9.237% tax rate, resulting in the
overcollection of monies, the lawsuit alleges.
Tory Burch LLC designs and markets apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
jwolloch@bursor.com
TOWN SHOP: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Town Shop, Inc.
The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Town Shop, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01957 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Town Shop -- https://www.townshop.com/ -- is a one-stop shop for
designer bras that assure both feminine style and support.[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
TR STRONG: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Carreno Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER CARRENO; OLVIN CRUZ; & WILMER CRUZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TR STRONG
INDUSTRIAL, INC.; and RENE GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. Civ. No.
4:22-CV-856 (S.D. Tex., March 8, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.
TR STRONG INDUSTRIAL, INC. is engaged as distributor for bearings
and power transmission parts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
Allison S. Hartry, Esq.
THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132
San Antonio, TX 78201
Telephone: (210) 225-0811
Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
Email: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
ahartry@themoralesfirm.com
TRIDENT RESTORATION: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Angel Ortega and Jorge Navarro, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals v. TRIDENT RESTORATION, INC., TRI
CONTRACTING, INC., UKROP, INC., FINE RESTORATION, INC., REVIVE
RESTORATION, INC., SWIFT ASSIST, INC., PG1 CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
CROWN RESTORATION, INC., RSO MANAGEMENT, INC., 558 MAIN STREET,
LLC, 115 ABEEL STREET, LLC, 2165 23RD STREET LLC, TRI BUILDERS,
INC., TRITON RENOVATION CORP., TRIDENT RENOVATION & ASSOCIATES,
INC., TRIDENT MGMT RE LLC, 64-66 CATHERINE STREET CORP., BROOKLYN
BUILDING SUPPLY, INC., TRI CONTRACTING, INC., CVP CONSTRUCTION
CORP., JMS MICH LLC, STEFAN BOHDANOWYCZ, PETER GOIAN, and VLADIMER
DOBRONRAVOV, Case No. 1:23-cv-01927 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the
Defendants failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs were required to be paid at least the statutory
minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at the statutory
rate of time and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours
worked over 40 hours in a workweek. However, Plaintiffs were paid a
flat day rate. Specifically, Plaintiffs worked between 5 and 6 days
each week. During this time, Defendants paid Plaintiffs a flat
daily rate for each day worked, with no overtime premium for those
hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Thus, after approximately
mid-2020, Plaintiffs worked at least 40 to 48 hours per week and
generally worked at least 48 hours per week in the summer months.
During this time, Defendants paid Plaintiffs a flat daily rate for
each day worked, with no overtime premium for those hours worked in
excess of 40 per week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendants as carpenters.
Trident is a general contractor that facilitates the construction
and/or renovation of properties around New York City and New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
TRUMBULL INS: Suit Seeks to file Certain Class Cert Exhibits
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN GOBLE and PAULA
GOBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05577-SDM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for leave to file certain exhibits manually in support
of their future motion for class certification.
Because the Plaintiffs are unable to convert the Excel spreadsheets
into PDF files for electronic filing, the Plaintiffs seek leave of
Court to manually file the documents. Plaintiffs request that they
be allowed to upload the two Excel spreadsheets bates-numbered
005126-005127 to a secure file transfer platform and then send a
FTP link directly to Chambers to ensure the documents are
transmitted securely.
Alternatively, the Plaintiffs request that they be allowed to file
the materials by mailing a flash drive containing the documents to
the Clerk of Court via U.S. Priority Mail.
Trumbull operates as an insurance company. The Company provides
fire and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZFzNti at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
SNODGRASS LAW LLC
100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 448-2600
E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com
- and -
Stephen G. Whetstone
WHETSTONE LEGAL , LLC
P.O. Box 6, 2 N. Main Street, Unit 2
Thornville, OH 43076
Telephone: (740) 785-7730
E-mail: steve@whetstonelegal.com
- and -
J. Brandon Mcwherter
MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
E-mail: brandon@msb.law
- and -
Erik D. Peterson
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES PSC
110 W. Vine St., Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (800) 225-3731
E-mail: erik@eplo.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael H. Carpenter, Esq.
Katheryn M. Lloyd, Esq.
Todd L. Minton, Esq.
CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP
280 Plaza, Suite 1300
280 North High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com
lloyd@carpenterlipps.com
tminton@carpenterlipps.com
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Must Oppose Class Certification by May 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN GOBLE, et al., v.
TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05577-SDM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order granting
the parties' joint motion to extend Rule 23 Certification Motion,
Opposition, and Expert Disclosure Deadlines.
The class certification briefing and expert deadlines are extended
as follows:
a. Plaintiffs' class certification motion due by March 10,
2023;
b. Plaintiffs' primary expert on class certification due by
March 10, 2023;
c. Trumbull's opposition to class certification due by May
18, 2023;
d. Trumbull's primary and rebuttal expert on class
certification due by May 18, 2023;
e. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file amended class
certification motion due by June 9, 2023;
f. Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification due
by July 10, 2023; and
g. The Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert on class certification
due by July 10, 2023.
The Defendant asserts that the 210 documents comprise three
categories:
(1) spreadsheets from Trumbull's claims system and its
customized use of an Xactimate estimate system detailing
the claim-by-claim and aggregate insurance claim and
financial details for all of Trumbull's property
structural damage insurance claims in a 12-state area for
a five-year period;
(2) documents reflecting the inner workings of Trumbull's
claims adjustment processes and procedures, and the
configuration of internal software settings for
Trumbull's claims and estimate systems; and
(3) a compilation of Trumbull's 175 policy forms and
specified endorsements for a 12-state and five-year
period.
Thge Plaintiffs shall file their forthcoming motion for class
certification and associated exhibits under seal. However, the
Court is mindful that sealing of documents should be narrowly
tailored and no broader than necessary.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs shall also, WITHIN 14 days of filing
their Motion for Class Certification, file a redacted version of
the Motion and Exhibits on the public docket, redacting only that
information constituting the confidential and proprietary
information as described in Defendant's Motion.
Trumbull Insurance operates as an insurance company. The Company
provides fire and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L87U8C at no extra charge.[CC]
UNILEVER UNITED: Court OK's Viscara Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA VIZCARRA, v. UNILEVER
UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02777-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting
Vizcarra's motion for certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2)
and Rule 23(b)(3), and denying Unilever's motion to strike.
The Court certifies the following class under Rule 23(b)(2) and
Rule 23(b)(3):
"All persons residing in California who have purchased
Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream, for their own use and not
for resale, since April 21, 2016."
In its order of October 27, 2021, the Court found that Vizcarra had
shown, and Unilever did not dispute, that a class action is
superior to other available methods of litigating the claims of the
proposed class members because
(1) the amounts that each proposed class member can recover
are not significant and are small relative to the high
costs of individual litigation;
(2) judicial economy would be promoted and the litigation of
the claims would be made more efficient and practical;
and
(3) the prosecution of individual claims could establish
inconsistent standards of conduct for defendant.
The Plaintiff Vizcarra brings this proposed class action against
Unilever for claims arising out of Unilever's allegedly misleading
labeling of Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream as containing vanilla
flavor derived exclusively from the vanilla plant.
Unilever manufactures personal care products.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SQiFhH at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED PARCEL: Thistlewaite Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephen Thistlewaite, individually, and on
behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated v. United
Parcel Service, Inc., Robbie Gaze, an individual, Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02022-01298622-CU-OE-CXC was removed
from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on March 3, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00381-CJC-DFM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
United Parcel Service -- https://www.ups.com/ -- is an American
multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management
company founded in 1907.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E Quintilone, II, Esq.
Jeffrey T. Green, Esq.
Kyle J. Gallego, Esq.
QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
22974 El Toro Road Suite 100
Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
Phone: (949) 458-9675
Fax: (949) 458-9679
Email: req@quintlaw.com
jtg@quintlaw.com
KJG@quintlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth Alexandra Brown, Esq.
Amanda Osowski, Esq.
Jennifer P. Svanfeldt, Esq.
GBG LLP
633 West 5th Street Suite 3330
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 358-2810
Fax: (213) 995-6382
Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
amandaosowski@gbgllp.com
jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
UNITED STATES: First Amended Class Suit Filed Against SSA
---------------------------------------------------------
CHLP reports that the class action complaint, filed by the National
Senior Citizens Law Center (NSCLC), the Urban Justice Center, and
others, challenges the Social Security Administration's (SSA)
application of the "fugitive felon" statute, the provisions of
which prohibit the payment of certain public benefits, including
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), if the payee is "fleeing to
avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction" of a
felony. The complaint alleges that the SSA has been suspending
payments of these benefits based solely on whether a recipient's
name and either date of birth or social security number matches
those of an individual in various federal, state, and local warrant
databases, without first confirming that the warrant is still
active, involves avoidance or prosecution for a felony, or actually
applies to the person whose benefits have been suspended. This is
contrary to the plain language of the statute and repeated court
rulings that provide that benefits may be suspended only when an
individual actually has fled a particular state or locality with
the specific intention of avoiding felony prosecution.
SSA's refusal to follow the law required low-income individuals
around the country who actually are eligible for benefits to find
both criminal and civil attorneys to help them research and secure
the lifting of outdated or inapplicable warrants, and then
challenge the denial of benefits, in order to secure medical and
disability benefits needed for their survival. In response to SSA's
stubborn refusal to correct its practices, NSCLC sought to end the
problem through a class action challenge to SSA policy on behalf of
all those who are affected by it, i.e., all persons whose benefits
have been suspended or denied, who are threatened with the
suspension or denial of such benefits, or who are not permitted to
serve as representative payees, for allegedly fleeing to avoid
prosecution, or custody or confinement, after conviction for a
felony.
This case prompted a $500 million settlement and change in the
SSA's policies. The settlement agreement is available in the
Resource Bank here. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND: Thomson Appeals Judgment to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOGAN THOMSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Logan Thomson, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Board of Trustees of the
University of Rhode Island, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00295-JJM,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
As previously reported in Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which
was removed from the Superior Court of Rhode Island, Washington
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island, is brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant to seek
refunds of tuition and fees paid by or on behalf of students
because the University closed its campus and transitioned to online
learning in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On Sept. 13, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
John J. McConnell, Jr. on Jan. 31, 2023. The Court determined that
the Plaintiffs failed to adduce genuine and material factual issues
that they are equitably entitled to relief, given the University's
expenditures on services and amenities in alternative forms.
The appellate case is captioned Thomson, et al. v. Board of
Trustees of the University of RI, Case No. 23-1192, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on March 7,
2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement, transcript report/order form, and
appearance form are due on March 21, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants LOGAN THOMSON, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann St.
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
- and -
Robert J. Caron, Esq.
478A Broadway
Providence, RI 02909
Telephone: (401) 621-8600
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
- and -
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N. Mall Dr., Ste. R108
St. George, UT 84790
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
- and -
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
1307 Chalkstone Ave
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Defendant-Appellee BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF RHODE
ISLAND is represented by:
C. Russell Bengtson, Esq.
BENGTSON & JESTINGS LLP
40 Westminster St., Ste. 300
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 331-7272
- and -
Marina Eudjienii Lev, Esq.
Shon Morgan, Esq.
Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq.
Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
- and -
T. Scott Mills, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3636
US TOY CO: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Toy Co., Inc.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01990 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
U. S. Toy Co., Inc. -- https://ustoy.com/ -- was founded in 1954.
The company's line of business includes distributing professional
equipment, such as drafting instruments, laboratory equipment, and
scientific instruments.[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
VANDERBILT HEALTH: Fagan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Fagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VANDERBILT HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00190
(M.D. Tenn., March 2, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), pursuant to the state laws of Tennessee,
and to recover unpaid straight time wages and other applicable
damages and penalties.
Although the Plaintiff has routinely worked (and continue to work)
in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff was not paid
overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, the
Plaintiff worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were
not fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked each workweek and the
proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for Vanderbilt in June of 1980 as a
Registered Nurse at Vanderbilt's Pediatric Clinic in Nashville,
Tennessee.
Vanderbilt operates several hospitals and clinics throughout the
State of Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
Melody Fowler-Green, Esq.
N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
P.O. Box 159033
Nashville, TN 37215
Phone: (615) 250-2000
Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
mel@yezbaklaw.com
teeples@yezbaklaw.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin Anderson, Esq.
Blayne Fisher, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
blayne@a2xlaw.com
VERTEX ENERGY: Shareholder Class Action Case Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Randy Ungar, Attorney at Law, on March 13 disclosed that in the
case, Daryl P. Duffy v. Vertex Energy, Inc., et al, that a Notice
Of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) was
filed Monday, March 6, 2023, by the law firm, Robbins Gellar Rudman
& Dowd LLP. The dismissal was filed voluntarily and without
prejudice on behalf of Mr. Duffy. A class action has not been
certified and no defendant in this action has served an answer or
motion for summary judgement. The dismissal was filed in US
District Court, Southern District of Alabama Southern Division on
March 6, 2023 under Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00076.
Contact:
Randy Ungar Attorney at Law
Sharon Romero
504-616-7570
www.ungarlaw.net [GN]
VPC IMPACT: ATG Fund Sues Over Self-Interested Misappropriation
---------------------------------------------------------------
ATG Fund II LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VPC IMPACT ACQUISITION HOLDINGS SPONSOR II, LLC,
BRENDAN CARROLL, GORDON WATSON, CARLY ALTIERI, JOHN MARTIN, JOSEPH
LIEBERMAN, and KAI SCHMITZ, Defendants; VPC IMPACT ACQUISITION
HOLDINGS II, Nominal Defendant; Case No. 1:23-cv-01978 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 8, 2023), is brought involving the self-interested
misappropriation of a $50 million corporate asset belonging to a
special purpose acquisition company (or SPAC) and its public
stockholders orchestrated by the SPAC's sponsor, officers and
directors.
The SPAC, VPCB, was formed by Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC to
complete a business combination with private company. It is
operated by its Sponsor, an entity created, owned and controlled by
Victory Park. The SPAC's officers and directors are, with only two
exceptions, senior executives of Victory Park. Like a typical SPAC,
VPCB was structured to be a boom or bust proposition for its
Sponsor: Defendants would either (i) own twenty percent of the
public portion of the post Acquisition company if the SPAC
successfully completed a business combination; or (ii) lose their
entire investment if it failed to complete a business combination.
Prior to raising money from the public, VPCB issued millions of
shares of Class B common stock ("Founder Shares") at less than a
penny per share to the Sponsor (i.e., Victory Park) as well as the
only two SPAC directors not directly affiliated with Victory Park.
As a result, each of the SPAC's officers and directors have
substantial financial interests in the Founder Shares through their
employment with Victory Park or direct ownership of shares. In
March 2021, the SPAC completed an initial public offering ("IPO")
of Class A common stock (the "Public Shares") at $10.00 per share,
generating proceeds of approximately $254 million. The proceeds of
the IPO were placed in a trust account pending the SPAC's business
combination or liquidation.
The SPAC had two years to use the IPO proceeds to complete a
business combination. If the SPAC successfully completed a
transaction, then Defendants' Founder Shares would convert to
Public Shares worth over $60 million on paper. If, however, the
SPAC failed to close a deal, then the SPAC's assets would be
returned to investors, the Founder Shares would become worthless,
and Defendants would lose their capital invested.
The Defendants repeatedly acknowledged in public filings that they
would lose their entire investment if the SPAC did not complete a
business combination, and each Defendant contractually agreed in
connection with the IPO that they would have "no right, title,
interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies held in the trust
account or any other asset of the SPAC as a result of any
liquidation."
In August 2021, Defendants announced a proposed transaction with
Kredivo, a consumer credit platform operating in Southeast Asia.
The transaction valued Kredivo at $2.5 billion and Defendants
touted the company as the "largest and fastest growing" consumer
finance business in the region. The deal was supposed to close no
later than the first quarter of 2022, but by early 2022 the SPAC
had yet to seek shareholder approval of the transaction, and
Kredivo was seeking an out. Rather than enforce the SPAC's right to
force Kredivo to close, Defendants struck a new deal to make their
multimillion-dollar windfall anyway, despite that the SPAC's deal
would fall apart.
In March 2022, Defendants announced that they had agreed to a
mutual termination of the Kredivo transaction through which the
SPAC waived its rights to enforce the transaction agreement and
released claims for breach. Defendants obtained three forms of
consideration in exchange for the SPAC's agreement: Victory Park
orchestrated for itself and other institutional investors a $145
million private investment in Kredivo; Kredivo agreed to pay to the
SPAC $4 million as a reimbursement of transaction costs; and
Kredivo agreed that, if the SPAC failed to identify a replacement
transaction, it would issue warrants permitting the SPAC to acquire
up to 3.5% of Kredivo's outstanding equity.
Instead of distributing the value of the warrants to public
stockholders, Defendants announced that the Public Shares would be
redeemed immediately in exchange for only the IPO proceeds (i.e.,
shareholders would get their money back with nominal interest), and
the "redemption will completely extinguish public shareholders'
rights as shareholders (including the right to receive further
liquidation distributions, if any)." Thereafter, only the Sponsor
and other Defendants, as the remaining stockholders in the SPAC
through their ownership of Founder Shares, would stand to reap the
value of the Kredivo warrants. Defendants hired a third-party
liquidator to determine how to liquidate and distribute the SPAC's
remaining assets, including the Kredivo warrants, to themselves. If
allowed to proceed, Defendants will achieve precisely what the SPAC
structure does not allow: an exponential profit on their initial
investment, procured through their control of the SPAC and its
public assets, despite having failed to complete a transaction.
The Defendants' efforts are self-interested, disloyal and a breach
of the SPAC's governing documents, given that the break-up fee is a
corporate asset to which Defendants have "no right, title, interest
or claim." Judicial intervention is required to prevent this
misappropriation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff ATG Fund II LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and the owner of Class A Public Shares of VPCB.
VPCB is a special purpose acquisition company, sometimes called a
"blank check company," organized as a Cayman Islands exempted
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron T. Morris, Esq.
Andrew W. Robertson, Esq.
MORRIS KANDINOV LLP
1740 Broadway, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (877) 216-1552
Email: aaron@moka.law
andrew@moka.law
WALGREEN CO: Bryant ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KARIMA BRYANT, JOSHUA FLANARY, DIEUNIPHERE DELCY,
and TELISA WHALEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-02732, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 2,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01294 to the proceeding.
The first amended class action complaint alleges that Defendant
Walgreen Co. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985, by failing to provide Plaintiffs and
the putative class members with a COBRA notice that complies with
the law.
Walgreen Co. provides online medical products. The Company sells
prescription refills, health info, contact lenses, and other
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexandre S. Drummond, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
1075 Peachtree St NE Ste 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309-3962
Telephone: (404) 885-1500
E-mail: adrummond@seyfarth.com
WELLS FARGO BANK: Munoz Sues Over Unauthorized Transfers
--------------------------------------------------------
Ana Munoz and Michael Tilley, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; CONDUENT STATE
& LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC.; and CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00202 (D.N.M., March 8, 2023), is brought against
Defendants for violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act
("EFTA"), which protects consumers from liability for such
unauthorized transfers.
EPPICards are refillable prepaid debit cards, which are linked to
limited purpose subaccounts ("Accounts") maintained by Defendants.
The Accounts contain funds owed to Plaintiffs by the State of New
Mexico for unemployment insurance, child support, and foster care
maintenance. Each of the Plaintiffs' Accounts contained thousands
of dollars on deposit. By unknown means, perpetrators gained access
to the accounts and commenced a series of fraudulent unauthorized
transactions, draining nearly all funds from the Accounts without
the consent, knowledge, or authorization of Plaintiffs.
Following discovery of the unauthorized transactions, each of the
Plaintiffs disputed the fraudulent charges with Defendants. Despite
their obligation under the EFTA, to promptly credit the Accounts,
Defendants refused to credit the amounts of the stolen funds and
associated fees for the transactions charged to the Accounts by the
Defendants.
Financial institutions are barred under the EFTA from holding a
consumer and accountholder liable for unauthorized use for any
reason that is not specifically set forth in the statute. The
Defendants' error resolution process and form correspondence
violate the EFTA: the Defendants have an overt policy of denying
claims where they, the financial institutions, cannot confirm that
a fraud occurred.
The Defendants' error resolution process violates the EFTA by
explicitly placing the burden of proving the unauthorized transfer
on the consumer and denying disputes on grounds that the consumer
has not met his or her burden of proving that the transaction was
unauthorized. The EFTA requires the opposite, providing that
Defendants are liable for disputed transactions where the
Defendants cannot show that the transactions were in fact
authorized, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are the victims of fraud.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a federally chartered bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas H. Mattison, Esq.
FEFERMAN, WARREN & MATTISON
300 Central Ave., SW, Suite 2000 West
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Phone: (505) 243-7773
Fax: (505) 243-6663
Email: nmattison@nmconsumerwarriors.com
- and -
Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
Evan S. Rothfarb, Esq.
SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
80 Broad Street, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 500-6114
Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
Email: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net
erothfarb@consumerprotection.net
WILLIS-KNIGHTON MEDICAL: Horton Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jacqueline Horton, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. WILLIS-KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER,
Case No. C-93767 was removed from the Tenth Judicial District
Court, to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Louisiana on March 8, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-00314.
The underlying factual basis for the petition is that WKMC
allegedly violated Louisiana law by embedding certain third-party
source code onto WKMC's publicly available websites. This source
code is referred to in the petition as the "Meta Pixel." The
Plaintiff alleges that WKMC "is among the hospital systems who have
embedded the Meta Pixel on their websites." The Plaintiff alleges
that "once Meta Pixel is installed on a business's website, the
Meta Pixel tracks users as they navigate through the website and
logs which pages are visited, which buttons are clicked, the
specific information entered in forms (including personal
information), as well as 'optional values' by the business
website." The Plaintiff's petition contains two counts. First,
plaintiff alleges that WKMC violated the Louisiana Wiretap Act by
embedding the Meta Pixel source code on its website. Second,
plaintiff alleges that WKMC was unjustly enriched through the Meta
Pixel source code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lamar P. Pugh, Esq.
Robert G. Pugh, III, Esq.
PUGH, PUGH & PUGH, L.L.P.
333 Texas Street, Suite 2100
Shreveport, LA 71101
Phone: 318.227.2270
Email: lamar@thepughlawfirm.com
gahagan@thepughlawfirm.com
- and -
David A. Carney, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: 216.621.0200
Email: dcarney@bakerlaw.com
WISCONSIN: Vargo, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Victor Vargo and Carijean
Buhk individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, v. Peter W. Barca, Wisconsin Secretary of Revenue, in his
official capacity, Case No. 3:20-cv-01109-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the action as a class action;
2. designating them as class representative and appointing
their counsel as counsel for the Class defined as
follows:
"All persons or entities (including their heirs,
assignees, legal representatives, guardians,
administrators, and successors in interest) whose non-
interest bearing property is being held in the custody of
the Defendant under the Wisconsin UPA, except for (1)
other states and governmental units or subdivisions of
states (2) persons whose only property so held by the
Defendant was interest bearing to the owner on the date
of surrender by the holder and who were paid interest
equal to or greater than Defendant's earnings or
interest.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jsguhw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dennis M. Grzezinski, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS M GRZEZINSKI
1845 N. Farwell Avenue, Suite 202
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 530-9200
E-mail: dennisglaw@gmail.com
- and -
Charles R. Watkins, Esq.
GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
805 Lake Street, #226
Oak Park, IL 60301
Telephone: (312) 878-8391
E-mail: charlesw@gseattorneys.com
- and -
Garrett Blanchfield, Esq.
Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 N. Minnesota Street, #W1050
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
r.yard@rwblawfirm.com
WYNN RESORTS: Judge Allows Shareholders' Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that a federal judge gave the
green light for a class action lawsuit to proceed against Wynn
Resorts former Chairman and CEO Steve Wynn and former and current
leaders of the company.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon issued an order March 1
certifying the class action as part of a lawsuit initially filed as
an amended complaint July 1, 2020, by John and JoAnn Ferris and
Jeffrey Larsen against the company, Steve Wynn, four current and
former Wynn executives and nine former and current members of the
company's board of directors.
The case stems from Wynn Resorts shareholders alleging their stock
shares lost value as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct
by Steve Wynn, raised in 2018, and the failure of Wynn executives
to do anything about it once they were made aware of the
allegations.
Steve Wynn has said he has never assaulted any employees.
Steve Wynn did not respond to a request for comment. A Wynn Resorts
spokesman on Friday said the company has no comment.
Murielle Steven Walsh, an attorney representing the class from the
New York office of the Pomerantz LLP law firm, said that a judge
had to formally grant the motion for class certification so that
attorneys can represent all investors who bought stock during the
relevant period.
"Class certification is a necessary step in all class actions, and
basically requires a showing that the proposed class members have
similar claims and are otherwise similar enough to proceed on a
class basis," she said in an emailed statement.
This means investors who purchased Wynn's stock from March 2016
until mid-February 2018 can now join the lawsuit to seek
compensation for the loss of value of their shares.
'Sufficient evidence'
Gordon's ruling determined that there was "numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequacy among the affected investors."
"There is no dispute that the defendants' alleged
misrepresentations were publicly known because they are contained
in the defendants' press releases," according to Gordon's order. He
added that the plaintiffs "have presented sufficient evidence of
reliance based on the fraud-on-the-market theory."
Walsh said it's unclear how many investors would become part of the
class.
"I don't have an exact number for class members included, but it
will be substantial," she stated. "Now that we are certified as a
class action, class members are included in the class, unless they
exclude themselves.
"Now we will be moving into merits discovery, getting documents
from the defendants and third parties, and taking depositions of
numerous witnesses. We don't have a trial date set. However, I
expect we will have a scheduling order for the case soon."
$55 million in fines
The 198-page amended complaint from 2020 details Steve Wynn's
alleged sexual misconduct history that began in the 1970s and how
executives at his hotels through the years failed to investigate
the allegations.
Many of the allegations were reported by the Wall Street Journal in
January 2018. Steve Wynn resigned as chairman and CEO within two
months of the article's publication, and he sold his company shares
and completely severed his relationship with the company by May
2018.
Gaming regulators from Nevada and Massachusetts punished Wynn
Resorts for failing to investigate the allegations with record
fines totaling more than $55 million -- $20 million in Nevada and
$35 million in Massachusetts, where the company was in the process
of opening Encore Boston Harbor.
Since the Nevada and Massachusetts disciplinary hearings, the
company has replaced many of its executives and directors.
The former and current executives and directors named in the
lawsuit: Wynn CEO Craig Billings, former CEO Matt Maddox, former
General Counsel Kim Sinatra, former Chief Financial Officer Stephen
Cootey; current board directors Pat Mulroy and Clark Randt and
former board directors John Hagenbuch, Bob Miller, Alvin Shoemaker,
Daniel Wayson, Jay Johnson, Ray Irani and J. Edward Virtue.
The lawsuit also details millions of dollars in stock share sales
executives and directors made between 2014 and 2017.
Contact Richard N. Velotta at rvelotta@reviewjournal.com or
702-477-3893. Follow @RickVelotta on Twitter. [GN]
WYNN RESORTS: Schuster Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A. RICHARD SCHUSTER, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS,
LLC, WYNN MA, LLC, and WYNN RESORTS, LTD., Case No.
1:19-cv-11679-ADB (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs
entered an order:
-- granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and
-- denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Court further denies the Plaintiff's request to strike the
Pangoras Declaration and his motion to supplement the record.
The Plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim fails for the same
reasons. "An essential element under the promissory estoppel theory
is that there be an unambiguous promise and that the party to whom
the promise was made reasonably relied on the representation. For
the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that no factfinder
could reasonably conclude that Defendants made an unambiguous
promise to Plaintiff or other customers to pay out slot machine
tickets in cash and coin at the TRUs. The Defendants are therefore
also entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract
and promissory estoppel claims.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for conversion
Without citation, the Plaintiff contends in his opposition that
when he demanded the return of his monies, the Defendants refused
and thereby converted his coins.
This, however, misconstrues the record and defies logic. As
previously discussed, it is undisputed that when Plaintiff inserted
slot machine tickets into Encore's TRUs, the machines would
dispense cash up to the nearest whole-dollar value of the slot
machine ticket and then print and dispense a TRU ticket that
reflected the remaining value of the slot machine ticket, which was
less than $1.
The Plaintiff Schuster brings claims on behalf of himself and a
putative class for breach of contract, promissory estoppel,
conversion, and violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A
against Defendants Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC, Wynn MA, LLC, and
Wynn Resorts, Ltd.
Wynn Resorts operates as a holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mzQI1I at no extra charge.[CC]
XAVIER BECERRA: Bid for Enforcement of Initial Injunction Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH CARR, BRENDA
MOORE, MARY ELLEN WILSON, MARY SHAW, and CAROL KATZ, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, v. XAVIER BECERRA,
SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00988-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move for
enforcement of the Court's January 31, 2023 preliminary injunction
in the case by:
(1) removing the "previous guidance" regarding the
implementation of the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (FFCRA) from its website and
(2) refusing to answer state inquiries about that "previous
guidance," Defendant failed to comply with its obligation
under this Court's injunction to "reinstate its previous
guidance."
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek an order directing Defendant
through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to
immediately provide the states with copies of that "previous
guidance" and to highlight the key provisions of that prior
guidance that:
(1) no further terminations of Medicaid coverage should
occur,
(2) persons erroneously dropped from coverage should have
that coverage restored "automatically, if feasible," and
(3) coverage should be restored retroactively to the date it
was erroneously dropped.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 28,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mEsGTb
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sheldon V. Toubman, Esq.
Deborah A. Dorfman, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS CONNECTICUT
846 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
Telephone: (475) 345-3169
E-mail: sheldon.toubman@disrightsct.org
deborah.dorfman@disrightsct.org
- and -
Carol A. Wong, Esq.
Regan Bailey, Esq.
JUSTICE IN AGING
1444 I Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 683-1995
E-mail: cwong@justiceinaging.org
rbailey@justiceinaging.org
- and -
Jane Perkins, Esq.
Miriam Heard, Esq.
NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
1512 E. Franklin St., Ste. 110
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Telephone: (984) 278-7661
E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org
heard@healthlaw.org
- and -
Harvey L. Reiter, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 2006
Telephone: (202)728-3016
Facsimile: (202)572-9968
E-mail: harvey.reiter@stinson.com
XTO ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply Brief
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER BRUSAMONTI and LISA
BRUSAMONTI, husband and wife, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00652-CB (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs submit a motion for
leave to file reply brief in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
The Defendant opposes the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification primarily on the basis of numerosity and
ascertainability, namely that the Plaintiffs have not identified,
nor can they identify, members of the proposed Class.
The Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs fail the adequacy and
typicality prongs. As detailed in Plaintiffs' Reply Brief, the
Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence that (1) Defendant's
switch to a new accounting software caused potentially thousands of
similarly situated lessors to have post-production costs improperly
deducted from their royalty payments, and (2) the Class can be
ascertained from a review of Defendant's records.
XTO Energy operates as an oil company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/424JYZN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, PC
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com
YAZAM INC: Woodford Files Bid for Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA WOODFORD,
Individually, and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. YAZAM
INC., d/b/a EMPOWER, Case No. 1:22-cv-03665-BAH (D.D.C.), the the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
class action certification, issuance of class notice, and
appointment of class counsel.
The Plaintiffs' Counsel satisfy the final Rule 23(g)(1)(A) factor
because they have committed, and will continue to commit, the
resources necessary to fully protect the interests of the Class.
Regan Zambri Long PLLC is a well-established law firm that has the
resources, knowledge, and personnel necessary to vigorously pursue
a case of this magnitude. The firm's resources are not merely
financial, but also include substantial expertise and work-product
in similar cases.
The Plaintiff is one of the District of Columbia consumers
victimized by the Defendant Empower's dishonesty. She was injured
when her Empower driver lost control of his vehicle and crashed.
Afterwards, she learned that the Empower driver had no insurance
coverage -- in violation of the law, Defendant Empower had neither
provided coverage nor verified that the driver himself was carrying
it. Ms. Woodford brought this action on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated District of Columbia consumers.
The Plaintiff moves for class certification against Defendant
Empower as to the sole count set forth in the Complaint:
Violation(s) of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection
Procedures Act. Plaintiff proposes that the Class consist of all
Empower passenger-consumers who through the Empower app have booked
and taken rides beginning or ending in the District of Columbia
during the time Empower has operated here.
Under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(5), the Plaintiff proposes that the
Class be divided into the following sub-classes:
a. All Empower passengers who through the Empower app
have booked and taken rides beginning or ending in the
District of Columbia but were not involved in a Damages-
Exacerbating Event (any event in which a passenger
suffered personal injuries as a result of the intentional
or negligent conduct of an Empower driver); and
b. All Empower passengers who through the Empower app
have booked and taken rides beginning or ending in the
District of Columbia and were involved in a Damages-
Exacerbating Event.
Yazam provides investment banking services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JqX5xq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Regan, Esq.
Patrick M. Regan, Esq.
Emily C. Lagan, Esq.
REGAN ZAMBRI LONG PLLC
1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 463-3030
Facsimile: (202) 463-0667
E-mail: pregan@reganfirm.com
cregan@reganfirm.com
elagan@reganfirm.com
[*] Class Action Defense Spending Up 8% to 3.46 Billion in 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Moran, writing for LegalDive, reports that companies spent a
record $3.64 billion defending against class actions last year, an
8% increase compared to 2021, according to a recent report.
Labor and employment cases comprised roughly one-third of the
matters and led the way in the share of class action defense
spending (34.8%) they comprised by a wide margin, the 2023 Carlton
Fields Class Action Survey found.
Consumer fraud was the second largest area of class action spending
in 2022 and companies see those types of legal complaints as posing
the largest threat moving forward, according to the survey of GCs
or senior legal officers at more than 400 large companies.
Dive Insight:
The report said there were two key drivers of the increased
class-action defense spending: Claims are getting larger and more
companies are facing class actions.
Overall, companies reported the average number of class actions
they faced rose from 8.9 in 2021 to 9.6 in 2022.
Labor and employment matters were a major driver of this increase,
as the report said they "rose substantially."
"Companies perceive both regulatory agencies and employees (through
their counsel) as being more aggressive than in years past," the
report said. "The announcement of a regulatory investigation or
enforcement action, in such an environment, can lead to a follow-on
putative class action."
The nearly 35% of overall class action budgets labor and employment
cases accounted for was up from 23.5% in the prior year's survey.
Additionally, while COVID-19 related class actions were down, 50%
of the remaining pandemic class actions were in the employment
arena.
Meanwhile, the report said consumer fraud class actions were up
"due to claims resulting from the use of social media, product
labeling, and debt collection."
Additionally, the plaintiff's bar has been vigilant in challenging
corporate statements regarding environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) issues, the report said.
Consumer fraud cases made up 21.7% of class-action matters and 21%
of related spending in 2022.
The consumer fraud matters are perceived by in-house counsel as
posing the largest risk at 27.5%, followed by employment cases at
19.6%.
Surveyed companies had an average annual revenue of $23.7 billion
and a median annual revenue of $14.1 billion. They operate in more
than 25 industries. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Faces Product Liability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc.'s subsidiary, together with other
defendants (including Advance and other of its subsidiaries), has
been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The plaintiffs have alleged that certain
products contained asbestos and were manufactured, distributed
and/or sold by the various defendants. Many of the cases pending
against us are in the early stages of litigation. While the damages
claimed against the defendants in some of these proceedings are
substantial, we believe many of these claims are at least partially
covered by insurance and historically asbestos claims against us
have been inconsistent in fact patterns alleged and immaterial."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3TghacQ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,598 PI Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., as of December 31, 2022, is a defendant
in 3,598 claims brought in various courts in the United States by
plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We anticipate that additional claims will be
filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but
are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims.
Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do
not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range
of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and
therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future
claims.
"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2022 we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 38,022 claims. The
total cost of resolving all claims was $10.6 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims.
"We currently do not anticipate, based on currently available
information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned
proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.
Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims,
based on the foregoing factors, the trends in claims filed against
us, and available insurance, we also do not currently anticipate
that potential future claims will have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Fpg7ls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Corp.'s Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Corporation's subsidiaries, as premises owners are defendants
in active lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions on behalf of
persons seeking damages for alleged personal injury as a result of
occupational exposure to asbestos at various facilities, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Our subsidiaries and acquired companies all
have had numerous insurance policies over the years that provide
coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies provide
layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for varying
locations. We have significant insurance coverage and believe that
our reserves are adequate for known asbestos exposure related
liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and
are not expected to be material to the results of operations, cash
flows, and financial position of Alcoa Corporation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/405X47A
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Faces A&E Exposure Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc., has asbestos and environmental
("A&E") exposures arising from its insurance operations and former
railroad and manufacturing operations, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Uncertainties surrounding the final resolution
of these A&E liabilities continue, and it is difficult to estimate
AFG's ultimate exposure to such liabilities and related litigation.
Establishing A&E liabilities is subject to uncertainties that are
significantly greater than those presented by other types of
liabilities. Uncertainties include the long delays between exposure
and manifestation of any bodily injury or property damage,
difficulty in identifying the source of the asbestos or
environmental contamination, long reporting delays, the risks
inherent in complex litigation and difficulty in properly
allocating liability for the asbestos or environmental damage. As a
result, A&E liabilities are subject to revision as new information
becomes available and as claims are made and develop. Claimants
continue to assert new and novel theories of recovery, and from
time to time, there is proposed state and federal legislation
regarding A&E liability, which would also affect AFG's exposure. If
AFG has not established adequate reserves to cover future claims,
AFG's results of operations and financial condition could be
materially adversely affected."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3YTj30m
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Has $248,000 Loss & LAE Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMERISAFE, Inc., has recorded reserves for loss and loss adjustment
expenses (LAE) of $248,000 at year ended December 31, 2022,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Reserves established for workers' compensation
insurance includes the exposure to occupational disease or
accidents related to asbestos or environmental claims. The
exposure to asbestos claims emanates from the direct sale of
workers’ compensation insurance. These claims resulted from
industry workers who were exposed to tremolite asbestos dust and
electricians and carpenters who were exposed to products that
contained asbestos. There has been no known exposure to asbestos
claims arising from assumed business. The emergence of these
claims is slow and highly unpredictable. The Company estimates
full impact of the asbestos exposure by establishing full case
basis reserves on all known losses. Reserves for losses incurred
but not reported (IBNR) include a provision for development of
reserves on reported losses. Reserves are established for loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) associated with these case and IBNR loss
reserves."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/429hoXr
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business
which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which
were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these
lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the
Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The
Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended
by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such
party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date,
no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of
any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good
and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/427JGBA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Hathaway Has $2.1BB Claim Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has reported an estimated net claim
liabilities for environmental, asbestos and other latent injury
exposures of approximately $2.1 billion at December 31, 2022 and
2021, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These liabilities are subject to change due to
changes in the legal and regulatory environment. We are unable to
reliably estimate additional losses or a range of losses that are
reasonably possible for these claims.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3EXsWDJ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders FirstSource Faces Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Builders FirstSource, Inc., is involved in several asbestos
personal injury suits due to the alleged sale of
asbestos-containing products by legacy businesses that they
acquired, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, " In addition, we are exposed to potential
claims arising from the conduct of our respective employees and
subcontractors, and builders and their subcontractors, for which we
may be contractually liable. Although we currently maintain what we
believe to be suitable and adequate insurance in excess of our
self-insured amounts, there can be no assurance that we will be
able to maintain such insurance on acceptable terms or that such
insurance will provide adequate protection against potential
liabilities. Product liability, product warranty, casualty,
construction defect, asbestos, vehicle, and other claims can be
expensive to defend and can divert the attention of management and
other personnel for significant periods, regardless of the ultimate
outcome. Claims of this nature could also have a negative impact on
customer confidence in our products and our company. In addition,
we are involved on an ongoing basis in other types of legal
proceedings, such as workers' compensation proceedings."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3LlO8H3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Faces Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF) is party to asbestos
claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
BNSFs personal injury liability includes the cost of claims for
employee work-related injuries, third-party claims, and asbestos
claims. BNSF records a liability for asserted and unasserted claims
when the expected loss is both probable and reasonably estimable.
Because of the uncertainty of the timing of future payments, the
liability is undiscounted. Defense and processing costs, which are
recorded on an as-reported basis, are not included in the recorded
liability.
The amount recorded by the Company for the personal injury
liability is based upon the best information currently available.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs
to resolve these claims may be different from the recorded amounts.
The Company estimates that costs to resolve the liability may range
from approximately $220 million to $335 million.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3YQAAXd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $92MM Loss for A&E Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation has reportedly carried $92 million
of net loss and loss expense reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims at year-end 2022, compared with $88 million at
year-end 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The asbestos and environmental claims amounts
for each respective year constituted less than 2.0% of total net
loss and loss expense reserves at these year-end dates.
"We believe our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is
limited, largely because our reinsurance retention was $500,000 or
below prior to 1987. We also were predominantly a personal lines
company in the 1960s and 1970s, when asbestos and pollution
exclusions were not widely used by commercial lines insurers.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a
percentage of our overall business and our exposure to asbestos and
environmental claims grew accordingly. Over that period, we
endorsed to or included in most policies an asbestos and
environmental exclusion.
"Additionally, since 2002, we have revised policy terms where
permitted by state regulation to limit our exposure to mold claims
prospectively and further reduce our exposure to other
environmental claims generally. Finally, we have not engaged in any
mergers or acquisitions through which such a liability could have
been assumed. We continue to monitor our claims for evidence of
material exposure to other mass tort classes, but we have found no
such credible evidence to date.
"Reserving data for asbestos and environmental claims has
characteristics that limit the usefulness of the methods and models
used to analyze loss and loss expense reserves for other claims.
Specifically, asbestos and environmental loss and loss expenses for
different accident years do not emerge independently of one another
as loss development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods assume. In
addition, asbestos and environmental loss and loss expense data
available to date did not reflect a well-defined tail, greatly
complicating the identification of an appropriate probabilistic
trend family model. At year-end 2022, we used a weighted average of
a paid survival ratio method and report year method to estimate
reserves for IBNR asbestos and environmental claims. Our exposure
to such claims is limited; we believe a weighted average of both
methods produces a sufficient level of reserves."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3yFrbqI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Pending PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in pending lawsuits that
allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "To date, we have not been found liable or paid
any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related
case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past
operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in
our products make it unlikely that we will face material liability
in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the
aggregate. We maintain insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to cover any
unanticipated asbestos liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3YJnKtz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Defends190 Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation, currently has approximately 190 lawsuits
involving approximately 320 claimants, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits have been filed in state
courts against primarily Entergy Texas and Entergy Louisiana by
individuals alleging exposure to asbestos while working at Entergy
facilities between 1955 and 1980. Entergy is being sued as a
premises owner. Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits
as well. Management believes that adequate provisions have been
established to cover any exposure. Additionally, negotiations
continue with insurers to recover reimbursements. Management
believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be
handled so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position, results
of operation, or cash flows of the Utility operating companies."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3JaBM1G
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $233MM Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at December
31, 2022, had net asbestos loss reserves of $233 million, or 90.5%,
of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We continue to receive claims under expired
insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting injuries and/or
damages relating to or resulting from environmental pollution and
hazardous substances, including asbestos.
"Environmental claims typically assert liability for (a) the
mitigation or remediation of environmental contamination or (b)
bodily injury or property damage caused by the release of hazardous
substances into the land, air or water. Asbestos claims typically
assert liability for bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for
property damage resulting from asbestos or products containing
asbestos. Our reserves include an estimate of our ultimate
liability for A&E claims. There are significant uncertainties
surrounding our estimates of our potential losses from A&E claims.
Among the uncertainties are: (a) potentially long waiting periods
between exposure and manifestation of any bodily injury or property
damage; (b) difficulty in identifying sources of asbestos or
environmental contamination; (c) difficulty in properly allocating
responsibility and/or liability for asbestos or environmental
damage; (d) changes in underlying laws and judicial interpretation
of those laws; (e) the potential for an asbestos or environmental
claim to involve many insurance providers over many policy periods;
(f) questions concerning interpretation and application of
insurance and reinsurance coverage; and (g) uncertainty regarding
the number and identity of insureds with potential asbestos or
environmental exposure.
"Due to the uncertainties discussed above, the ultimate losses
attributable to A&E, and particularly asbestos, maybe subject to
more variability than are non-A&E reserves and such variation could
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results
of operations and/or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3TwOLzH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Defends 10,561 Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation, like hundreds of other industrial companies, have
been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2022, there were
approximately 10,561 premises and product asbestos claims pending
against FMC in several jurisdictions. Since the 1980s,
approximately 120,000 asbestos claims against FMC have been
discharged, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed
without any payment to the claimant. Since the 1980s, settlements
with claimants have totaled approximately $182 million.
"Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from
exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing
components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold
by discontinued operations. The machinery and equipment businesses
we owned or operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing
component parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day,
neither the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor
the Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these
components. Further, the asbestos-containing parts for this
machinery and equipment were accessible only at the time of
infrequent repair and maintenance. A few jurisdictions have
permitted claims to proceed against equipment manufacturers
relating to insulation installed by other companies on such
machinery and equipment. We believe that, overall, the claims
against FMC are without merit."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3mSr20t
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Faces Product Liability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Energy Technologies, Inc.'s subsidiaries has been named as
one of many defendants in a number of product liability claims for
alleged exposure to asbestos used in valves, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits are typically filed on behalf
of plaintiffs who allege exposure to asbestos, against numerous
defendants, often forty or more, who are alleged to have
manufactured or distributed products containing asbestos. The
injuries alleged by plaintiffs in these cases range from
mesothelioma and other cancers to asbestosis. The earliest claims
against our subsidiary were filed in New Jersey in 1998, and our
subsidiary currently has active cases in Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, and Illinois. These complaints do not typically include
requests for a specific amount of damages. Our subsidiary acquired
the trademark for the product line in question in 1985. To date,
most of the claims against our subsidiary alleging illnesses due to
asbestos have generally been based on products manufactured by the
previous owner prior to 1985 that are alleged to have contained
asbestos. Many claimants alleging illnesses due to asbestos sue on
the basis of exposure prior to 1985, as by that date the hazards of
asbestos exposure were well known and asbestos had begun to fall
into disuse. Our subsidiary has been successful in obtaining
dismissals in most lawsuits without any cash contribution including
because the "successor liability" law in most states does not hold
a purchaser in good faith liable for the actions of the seller
prior to the acquisition date unless the purchaser contractually
assumed the liabilities, which our subsidiary did not. There are
exceptions to the successor liability doctrine in many states, so
there are no assurances that our subsidiary will not be found
liable for the actions of its predecessor. The law in other states
on so called "successor liability" may be different or ambiguous in
this regard, and could also expose our subsidiary to liability. Our
subsidiary could also be found liable should a trier of fact reject
our subsidiary's position that it is not responsible for the
alleged asbestos injuries, such as in a case where a plaintiff
alleges post-1985 exposure. To date, asbestos claims have not had a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flow, as our annual out-of-pocket
costs over the last five years has been less than $300,000. There
were approximately forty new cases filed against our subsidiary in
each of last two years, and a significant number of existing cases
were dismissed, settled or otherwise disposed of over the last
year. We currently have fewer than 150 lawsuits pending against
this subsidiary. Our subsidiary has over $17 million in face amount
of insurance per occurrence and over $23 million of aggregate
primary insurance coverage. In addition, our subsidiary has over
$950 million in face amount of excess coverage applicable to the
claims. There can be no guarantee that all of this can be collected
due to policy terms and conditions and insurer insolvencies in the
past or in the future. In January 2011, we entered into an
agreement with seven of our primary insurers under which they have
agreed to pay 80% of the costs of handling and settling each
asbestos claim against the affected subsidiary. The insurers'
portion of the settlements is funded by our primary insurance
limits, which are eroded only by settlements and not legal fees.
Approximately $2.0 million in settlements has been paid by insurers
and our subsidiary to date, with approximately $100,000 paid over
the course of the last two years. Our subsidiary and the
subscribing insurers have the right to withdraw from this
agreement, but to date, no party has exercised this right or
expressed an intent to do so."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/425XsVg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $11.9MM Net A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., as of December 31, 2022, had
$11.9 million of net asbestos and environmental reserves, comprised
of $9.8 million of direct reserves and $2.1 million of assumed
reinsurance pool reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "This compares to net reserves of $11.7 million
and $39.8 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
Ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct business written by our
insurance companies related to asbestos and environmental damage
liability were $9.8 million, $9.6 million and $8.3 million, net of
reinsurance of $16.8 million, $16.7 million and $17.9 million for
the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
Activity for our direct asbestos and environmental reserves was not
significant to our 2022, 2021 or 2020 financial results. As a
result of our historical direct underwriting mix of Core Commercial
and Specialty policies toward smaller and middle market risks, past
asbestos and environmental damage liability loss experience has
remained minimal in relation to our total loss and LAE incurred
experience. Although we attempt to limit our exposures to asbestos
and environmental damage liability through specific policy
exclusions, we have been, and may continue to be, subject to claims
related to these exposures.
"In addition to reserves we carry to cover exposure in our direct
business, we have established gross and net loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and
environmental damage liability. As of December 31, 2022, we had
$30.5 million of gross reserves and $2.1 million of net reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business. This compares to $31.0
million of gross loss and LAE reserves and $2.1 million of net loss
and LAE reserves at December 31, 2021, and gross and net loss and
LAE reserves of $31.5 million at December 31, 2020. These reserves
relate to pools in which we have terminated our participation;
however, we continue to be subject to claims related to years in
which we were a participant. Results of operations from these pools
are included in our Other segment. A significant part of our gross
pool reserves relates to our participation in the ECRA voluntary
pool. In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the
business has been in run-off. During 2021, we entered into an
agreement to transfer our ECRA pool participations to a third-party
reinsurer. This transfer was executed through a 100% reinsurance
arrangement for our ECRA claim liability participations written
during the period 1950 to 1982. This transaction had no significant
impact on our 2021 results of operations.
"We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental and
toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct
business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon
currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are
not known, current law, and methodologies currently available.
Although these outstanding claims are not believed to be
significant, their existence gives rise to uncertainty and are
discussed because of the possibility that they may become
significant. We believe that, notwithstanding the evolution of case
law expanding liability in asbestos and environmental claims,
recorded reserves related to these claims are adequate.
Nevertheless, the asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability
reserves could be revised, and any such revisions could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations for a
particular quarterly or annual period, or on our financial
position."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3TeNdtV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Faces Numerous Personal Injury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hess Corporation and its subsidiary HONX, Inc. have been named as
defendants in various personal injury claims alleging exposure to
asbestos and/or other alleged toxic substances while working at a
former refinery (owned and operated by subsidiaries or related
entities) located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "On April 28, 2022, HONX, Inc. initiated a
Chapter 11 § 524G process in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to resolve
these asbestos-related claims. In February 2023, Hess, HONX, Inc.,
the Unsecured Creditors' Committee, and counsel representing
claimants, reached a mediated resolution of the matter, contingent
upon final approvals of all parties and confirmation by the
Bankruptcy Court. In light of this tentative resolution, we have
increased our reserve for this matter."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3yBFigK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp & Subsidiaries Defend PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and seven of its subsidiaries, are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various
asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of
exposure to products manufactured with components that contained
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These components were acquired from third
party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of
the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's
settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination,
administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense
costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to
applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether
and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover
these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to
claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United
Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for
various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting
in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been
made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for
insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does
not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3FoM4Ko
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Defends Asbestos Exposure Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand Inc. has been named as a defendant in a number of
asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure
to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the
Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants.
"Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the
Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if
any, were enclosed within the subject Products.
"Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold
products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure,
many of the companies that did engage in such activities or
produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to
law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in
lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related
injury.
"The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from
the Products described above; the Company's experience that the
vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease
attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or
relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears
responsibility; various potential defenses available to the Company
with respect to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition
of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties of
litigation and future developments, including, without limitation,
potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants,
an adverse determination in the Adams County Case (discussed
below), or other inability to collect from the Company's historical
insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the
outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on
presently known facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company
believes that the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate
and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and
silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity. "Accrued liabilities" and
"Other liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets include a
reserve of $137.9 million and $136.9 million as of December 31,
2022 and 2021, respectively, for asbestos-related indemnification.
Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from this liability and
are recorded separately as services are incurred. In the event of
unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate
resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operation or
liquidity.
"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and reimbursement for the
costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary. The
Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos
related recoveries of approximately $154.2 million and $145.1
million as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, which was
included in "Other assets" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
There were no material recoveries received in the years ended
December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020.
"The most recent significant action brought by the Company against
an insurer, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth
Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case number 10-L-48
(the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among
other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to honor
their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including
payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Company. In October
2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the insurer
defendants, which had issued both primary and excess policies, for
approximately the amount of such defendant's policies that were
subject to the lawsuit. Since then, the case has been proceeding
through the discovery and motions process with the remaining
insurer defendants. On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on
the first phase of that discovery and motions process ("Phase I").
Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the
Company has rights under all of the policies in the case, subject
to their terms and conditions, even though the policies were sold
to the Company's former owners rather than to the Company itself.
On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the
insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling
immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as
is normally required. The case is now proceeding through the
discovery and motions process regarding the remaining issues in
dispute ("Phase II"). In that regard, the Company obtained some
favorable rulings on various Phase II issues during 2021 and 2022;
however, several disputes still remain and will need to be
addressed as Phase II continues to progress.
"A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the
costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject
of the Adams County Case.
"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently
available information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions. There are a number of key variables and assumptions
including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year,
the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of
resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available,
allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer
with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of
coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the
Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk
with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Other factors
that may affect the future liability include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made
by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal
legislation. The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the
asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an
annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of
an interim date."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/408wKtA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kite Realty Confirms "ACBM" in Properties
----------------------------------------------------------
Kite Realty Group Trust's certain of its properties have confirmed
asbestos-containing building materials ("ACBM") and other
properties may contain such materials based on the date of building
construction, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Environmental laws require that ACBM be
properly managed and maintained, and fines and penalties may be
imposed on building owners or operators for failure to comply with
these requirements. The laws also may allow third parties to seek
recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated
with exposure to asbestos fibers.
We evaluate our properties for compliance with applicable
environmental laws on a limited basis, and we cannot give assurance
that existing environmental studies with respect to our properties
reveal all potential environmental liabilities or that current or
future uses or conditions (including, without limitation, changes
in applicable environmental laws and regulations or the
interpretation thereof) or changes in environmental laws will not
result in environmental liabilities."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3JhbI4R
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. has been involved in various claims and
lawsuits incidental to its business, including those involving
product liability, labor relations, alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials and environmental matters, some of
which claim significant damages, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Estimates related to our claims and lawsuits,
including estimates for asbestos-related claims and related
insurance recoveries, involve numerous uncertainties. Given the
inherent uncertainty of litigation and estimates, we cannot be
certain that existing claims or litigation or any future adverse
legal developments will not have a material adverse impact on our
financial condition."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3YQhIHE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,483 Exposure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of December 31, 2022, was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 1,483 plaintiffs, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In each instance, we are one of a large number
of defendants. The asbestos claimants allege that exposure to
asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to
develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and
other lung cancers.
"Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos
cases that have been resolved as follows: 56,877 of those claims
were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal),
1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,012 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.
"The long-term impact of the asbestos loss contingency, in the
aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access to
capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since claims
are in many different stages of development and we benefit
significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance
carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously, and
believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims,
there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our
liability for personal injury claims relating to exposure to
asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing
arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience.
"Asbestos use in welding consumables in the U.S. ceased in 1981."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3JEowDV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has $320MM Asbestos Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure
from asbestos litigation, has updated its recorded liability for
asbestos-related claims to $320 million at December 31, 2022,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing
products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling
asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused
on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and
other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the
period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege
that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/42cbJQp
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Int'l. Has $121.3MM Gross Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation, at December 31, 2022 and
2021, has reported an aggregate indemnity and loss adjustment
expense reserves specifically identified with A&E exposures
amounted to approximately $121.3 and $118.1 gross, respectively,
and $84.0 and $77.2 net of reinsurance, respectively, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Old Republic's reserve estimates also include provisions for
indemnity and settlement costs for various A&E claims that have
been filed in the normal course of business against a number of its
insurance subsidiaries. Many such claims relate to policies
incepting prior to 1985, including many issued during a short
period between 1981 and 1982 pursuant to an agency agreement
canceled in 1982. Over the years, the Company's property and
liability insurance subsidiaries have typically issued general
liability insurance policies with face amounts ranging between $1.0
and $2.0 and rarely exceeding $10.0. Such policies have, in turn,
been subject to reinsurance cessions which have typically reduced
the subsidiaries' net retentions to $500 thousand or less as to
each claim.
Old Republic's exposure to A&E claims cannot, however, be
calculated by conventional insurance reserving methods for a
variety of reasons, including: a) the absence of statistically
valid data inasmuch as such claims generally involve long reporting
delays and very often uncertainty as to the number and identity of
insureds against whom such claims have arisen or will arise; and b)
the litigation history of such or similar claims. Inconsistent
court decisions stem from such questions as: when an alleged loss
occurred, which policies provide coverage, how a loss is to be
allocated among potentially responsible insureds and/or their
insurance carriers, how policy coverage exclusions are to be
interpreted, what types of environmental impairment or toxic tort
claims are covered, when the insurer's duty to defend is triggered,
how policy limits are to be calculated, and whether clean-up costs
constitute property damage.
Over time, the Executive Branch and/or the Congress of the United
States have proposed or considered changes in the legislation and
rules affecting the determination of liability for A&E claims. As
of December 31, 2022, however, there is no solid evidence to
suggest that possible future changes might mitigate or reduce some
or all of these claim exposures. Because of the above issues and
uncertainties, estimation of reserves for losses and allocated loss
adjustment expenses for A&E claims in particular is much more
difficult to quantify with a high degree of precision. Accordingly,
no representation can be made that the Company's reserves for such
claims and related costs will not prove to be overstated or
understated in the future. Based on average annual claims payments
during the five most recent calendar years, such reserves
represented a paid loss survival ratio of 6.4 years (gross) and 7.6
years (net of reinsurance) as of December 31, 2022 and 5.9 years
(gross) and 6.8 years (net of reinsurance) as of December 31, 2021.
Fluctuations in this ratio between years can be caused by the
inconsistent pay out patterns associated with these types of
claims. For the five years ended December 31, 2022, incurred A&E
claim and related loss settlement costs have averaged .4% of
average annual General Insurance loss and loss adjustment
expenses.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3yCUSsz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair's Subsidiaries Had 689 Pending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2022, are named
defendants of approximately 689 claims pending, substantially all
of which relate to its discontinued operations, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Our subsidiaries, along with numerous other
companies, are named as defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials, substantially all of which relate to our discontinued
operations. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution
of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were
attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third parties. In addition, some cases brought
against us involve the presence of asbestos at facilities that we
own or used to own. Each case typically names a large number of
product manufacturers, service providers and premises owners.
Historically, our subsidiaries have been identified as defendants
in asbestos-related claims. Our strategy has been, and continues to
be, to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated
suits dismissed, and settling claims before trial only where
appropriate. We cannot predict with certainty the extent to which
we will be successful in litigating or otherwise resolving lawsuits
in the future, and we continue to evaluate different strategies
related to asbestos claims filed against us including the
possibility of entity restructuring. Unfavorable rulings, judgments
or settlement terms could have a material adverse impact on our
business and financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows. In addition, while most of the asbestos claims against us
are covered by liability insurance policies from many years ago,
not all claims are insured. As our insurers resolve claims relating
to past policy periods, the aggregate coverage provided by those
policies erodes. If we exhaust our coverage under those policies,
we will be exposed to potential uninsured losses. Over time, the
uninsured portion of our asbestos docket may increase, which may
require us to set greater reserves to resolve future asbestos
cases."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3yBcDbo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 86 Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc, as of December 31, 2022, is currently named in
86 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages
and has accepted a tender for a portion of the defense costs and
liability from a retailer for one additional matter, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company has been named, together with other manufacturers, in
product liability lawsuits in state courts in California, Florida,
Missouri, New Jersey, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Oregon and
Illinois alleging that the use of body powder products containing
talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the
presence of asbestos. All but one of these cases involve legacy
talcum powder products that have not been manufactured by the
Company since 1999. One of the pending actions involves a current
prescription product that contains talc as an excipient. The
Company has several defenses and intends to aggressively defend
these lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled
throughout 2023, 2024 and 2025 with the earliest potential trial
date in March 2023.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3YK2Quh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer & Subsidiaries Still Defends PI Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., American Optical, and certain of its previously owned
subsidiaries, are parties to numerous lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal
injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and
other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of
its previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "There also are a small number of lawsuits
pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for
alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned
by Pfizer or its subsidiaries.
"Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold
respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In
connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3mPv4GS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Subsidiary Faces PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation's inactive subsidiary, that was
acquired in the late 1970s sold certain products containing
asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, is among the defendants
in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991
and has no remaining assets other than proceeds received from
insurance settlements. To date, the overwhelming majority of these
claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no
adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued
analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this
subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total
liability over the next 50 years for these claims is approximately
$0.2 million (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has
also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims
have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has
not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases
pursued against the subsidiary.
"These cases were originally handled by the subsidiary's primary
and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs
and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of their policies. A significant portion of this
primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is
insolvent, and the other primary insurers asserted that the
aggregate limits of their policies had been exhausted. The
subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of
the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release
agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and 2007 for $15.0 million
and $20.0 million, respectively."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/42ejOE7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Faces Multiple PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Rexnord Industries, is a
defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in
numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Our products are used in a variety of
industrial, commercial and residential applications that subject us
to claims that the use of our products is alleged to have resulted
in injury or other damage. Many of these matters will only be
resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. Our
management conducts regular reviews, including updates from legal
counsel, to assess the need for accounting recognition or
disclosure of these contingencies, and such assessment inherently
involves an exercise in judgment. We accrue for exposures in
amounts that we believe are adequate, and we do not believe that
the outcome of any such lawsuit individually or collectively will
have a material effect on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3yHkVyw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech Defends Asbestos-Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc., or its subsidiaries have been named
defendants along with numerous industrial companies in
asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "To date, no significant resources have been
required by Roper to respond to asbestos claims. In the first
quarter of 2022, Roper completed a transaction in which it
transferred the remainder of our exposure for asbestos claims to a
third party. In connection with this transaction, Roper incurred a
one-time charge of $4.1, which is recorded as a component of "Other
income (expense), net" within the Consolidated Statements of
Earnings for the year ended December 31, 2022."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3LuN9o5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Defends Asbestos Actions in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation is a defendant in a number of
asbestos-related actions in Canada arising from Grace's activities
in Canada prior to the 1998 transaction, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Although the Settlement agreement has been
implemented and we have been released from the various
asbestos-related, fraudulent transfer, successor liability, and
indemnification claims made against us arising from a 1998
transaction with Grace, if the courts were to refuse to enforce the
injunctions or releases contained in the Plan and the Settlement
agreement with respect to any claims and if Grace were unwilling or
unable to defend and indemnify us for such claims, then we could be
required to pay substantial damages, which could have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition and results
of operations.
"The Company has recorded asset retirement obligations primarily
associated with asbestos abatement, lease restitution and the
removal of underground tanks. The Company's asset retirement
obligation liabilities were $8.2 million and $8.1 million at
December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The Company also recorded
assets within property and equipment, net which included $2.5
million and $3.0 million related to buildings and $4.4 million and
$4.1 million related to leasehold improvements as of December 31,
2022 and 2021, respectively. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021,
accumulated depreciation amounts related to buildings was $1.3
million and $1.2 million and leasehold improvements was $3.9
million and $3.6 million, respectively. Accretion expense was $0.5
million for the year ended December 31, 2022, and $0.3 million for
the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3FkdK2Y
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part
of the merger of EFH, were defendants in personal injury lawsuits
brought in state courts throughout the U.S., according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These cases alleged illness or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or
built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor
entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for
product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.
They sought compensatory and punitive damages. As of February 21,
2023, two lawsuits are pending. Additionally, in connection with a
December 2015 deadline in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding,
approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed on behalf of
persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances
and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. None of
these claims or lawsuits were discharged in the EFH bankruptcy
proceeding. The costs to defend or resolve these lawsuits or claims
and the amount of damages that may be imposed or incurred could
have a material adverse effect on Sempra’s results of operations,
financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3ZNZCHL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 1,530 Exposure Cases at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at December 31, 2022, has recorded
1,530 cases outstanding for which they may be responsible for any
related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through
December 31, 2022, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards
of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately
$64.6 million. A substantial increase in the number of new claims,
or increased settlement payments, or awards of asbestos-related
damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition and results of operations.
"In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold
in March 1998. When we originally acquired this brake business, we
assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the
acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase
agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims
filed after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon
the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001,
and the amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related
damages, and defense of such claims. We do not have insurance
coverage for the indemnity and defense costs associated with the
claims we face.
"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an actuarial study
was performed as of August 31, 2022. Based upon the results of the
August 31, 2022 actuarial study, and all other available
information to us, we increased our asbestos liability to the low
end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of
$18.5 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in
the accompanying statement of operations. The results of the
August 31, 2022 study included an estimate of our undiscounted
liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related
damages, excluding legal costs, ranging from $68.8 million to
$111.6 million for the period through 2065. Future legal costs,
which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated, according to the August 31, 2022 study,
to range from $53.2 million to $105.7 million for the period
through 2065.
"Given the uncertainties associated with projecting
asbestos-related matters into the future and other factors outside
our control, we cannot give any assurance that significant
increases in the number of claims filed against us will not occur,
that awards of asbestos-related damages or settlement awards will
not exceed the amount we have in reserve, or that additional
provisions will not be required. Management will continue to
monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities
in determining whether additional reserves and provisions may be
necessary. We plan on performing an annual actuarial analysis
during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future,
and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that
additional provisions may be necessary.
"In addition to asbestos-related claims, our product sales entail
the risk of involvement in other product liability actions. We
maintain product liability insurance coverage, but we cannot give
any assurance that current or future policy limits will be
sufficient to cover all possible liabilities. Further, we can give
no assurance that adequate product liability insurance will
continue to be available to us in the future or that such insurance
may be maintained at a reasonable cost to us. In the event of a
successful product liability claim against us, a lack or
insufficiency of insurance coverage could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3yBt3Ay
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Tech Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teledyne Technologies Incorporated had been joined, among a number
of defendants (often over 100), in lawsuits alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In addition, because of the prominent
"Teledyne" name, we may continue to be mistakenly joined in
lawsuits involving a company or business that was not assumed by us
as part of our 1999 spin-off. To date, we have not incurred
material liabilities in connection with these lawsuits. However,
our historical insurance coverage, including that of our
predecessors, may not fully cover such claims and the defense of
such matters. Coverage typically depends on the year of purported
exposure and other factors. Nonetheless, we intend to vigorously
defend our position against these claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Thamfa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 426 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of December 31, 2022, was a party to 426
pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,798 claimants primarily
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons
division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily
in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In addition, the Company acquired various
companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets
of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes
that many of the pending cases relate to locations at which none of
its gaskets were distributed or used.
"The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims
varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do
not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,798 claims pending at
December 31, 2022, 45 set forth specific amounts of damages (other
than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At December
31, 2022, of the 45 claims that set forth specific amounts, there
was no claim seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3LGMYpR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Group Reports $1.9MM A&E Loss Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire Group, Inc., at December 31, 2022 and 2021, had $1.9
million and $2.5 million, respectively, in direct and assumed
asbestos and environmental loss reserves, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Included in the other liability and assumed
reinsurance lines of business are reserves for asbestos and other
environmental losses and loss settlement expenses. The estimation
of loss reserves for environmental claims and claims related to
long-term exposure to asbestos and other substances is one of the
most difficult aspects of establishing reserves, especially given
the inherent uncertainties surrounding such claims. Although we
record our best estimate of loss and loss settlement expense
reserves, the ultimate amounts paid upon settlement of such claims
may be more or less than the amount of the reserves, because of the
significant uncertainties involved and the likelihood that these
uncertainties will not be resolved for many years."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3JIn2bC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Faces 232 Cases at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions Inc., as of December 31, 2022, had approximately
232 asbestos-related cases for it has the obligation to defend and
indemnify; however, this number tends to fluctuate up and down over
time, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos. The claims result primarily from
an indemnification obligation related to Univar Solutions USA
Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from
McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). Univar is pursuing insurance
coverage for certain matters under McKesson's historical insurance
coverage to partially offset the impact of any fees, settlements,
or judgments that Univar is obligated to pay because of its
obligation to McKesson. Historically, the vast majority of these
asbestos cases have been dismissed without payment or with a
nominal payment. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome
of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently
available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these
matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/42dXF96
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vector Group's Subsidiary Defends 16 PI Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett, was a defendant in 16
multi-defendant personal injury cases in Maryland alleging claims
arising from asbestos and tobacco exposure ("synergy cases"),
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In June 2017, after the Court of Appeals
(Maryland's highest court) ruled that joinder of tobacco and
asbestos cases may be possible in certain circumstances and then
remanded the case, the trial court dismissed all synergy cases
against the tobacco company defendants, including Liggett, without
prejudice. Plaintiffs may seek appellate review or file new cases
against the tobacco companies.
"In December 2022, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore sued
Liggett and others, claiming, among other things, that defendants'
failure to use biodegradable filters on their cigarette products
resulted in littering by smokers of the city's streets, sidewalks,
beaches, parks, lawns and waterways, which in turn resulted in
contamination of the soil and water, increased costs of clean-up
and disposal of this litter, as well as the reduction of property
values and tourism to the city. Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, punitive damages, penalties, fines, disgorgement of
profits and equitable relief."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3l5yyok
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Berkley Records $20MM A&E Claims Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves for losses and loss
expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims on policies
written before adoption of the absolute exclusion was $20 million
at both December 31, 2022 and 2021, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "To date, known environmental and asbestos
claims have not had a material impact on the Company's operations,
because its subsidiaries generally did not insure large industrial
companies that are subject to significant environmental or asbestos
exposures prior to 1986 when an absolute exclusion was incorporated
into standard policy language.
"The estimation of these liabilities is subject to significantly
greater than normal variation and uncertainty because it is
difficult to make an actuarial estimate of these liabilities due to
the absence of a generally accepted actuarial methodology for these
exposures and the potential effect of significant unresolved legal
matters, including coverage issues, as well as the cost of
litigating the legal issues. Additionally, the determination of
ultimate damages and the final allocation of such damages to
financially responsible parties are highly uncertain."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3lkUVpB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Defends Exposure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., from time to time, has been named, along with
numerous other nonaffiliated companies, as defendant in litigation
in various states involving asbestos and/or silica, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits typically assert claims of
personal injury arising from alleged exposure to asbestos and/or
silica as a consequence of products manufactured by third parties
purportedly distributed by the Company. While several lawsuits have
been dismissed in the past based on the lack of product
identification, if a specific product distributed by the Company is
identified in any pending or future lawsuits, the Company will seek
to exercise indemnification remedies against the product
manufacturer to the extent available. In addition, the Company
believes that a substantial number of these claims are covered by
insurance. The Company has entered into agreements with its major
insurance carriers relating to the scope, coverage and the costs of
defense, of lawsuits involving claims of exposure to asbestos. The
Company believes it has strong legal and factual defenses and
intends to continue defending itself vigorously in these
lawsuits."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3LF1GxB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Tech. Faces 550 Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., is defending approximately 550
lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The complaints in these cases typically name a
large number of defendants and do not identify any of our
particular products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date,
discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to
any of our products and no judgments have been entered against us.
"We have been and expect to continue to be subject to various
product liability claims or other lawsuits, including, among
others, that our products include inadequate or improper
instructions for use or installation, inadequate warnings
concerning the effects of the failure of our products, alleged
manufacturing or design defects, or allegations that our products
contain asbestos. If we do not have adequate insurance or
contractual indemnification, damages from these claims would have
to be paid from our assets and could have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.
Like other manufacturers and distributors of products designed to
control and regulate fluids and gases, we face an inherent risk of
exposure to product liability claims and other lawsuits in the
event that the use of our products results in personal injury,
property damage or business interruption to our customers. We
cannot be certain that our products will be completely free from
defect. In addition, in certain cases, we rely on third-party
manufacturers for our products or components of our products. We
cannot be certain that our insurance coverage will continue to be
available to us at a reasonable cost, or, if available, will be
adequate to cover any such liabilities."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/404T0En
*********
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 ***