/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230321.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 21, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 58
Headlines
1656 WIRELESS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Albim Suit Says
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
AM RETAIL: Faces Tafolla Suit Over Leather Products' False Ads
AMAZON.COM LLC: Court Dismisses Miller Class Suit With Prejudice
AMGEN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Amateur Rugby Players Join Concussion Suit
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Plaintiff Suit Claims Being Concussed 30 Times
BAYER CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Corpuz Consumer Class Suit
BHP GROUP: England Suit May Reach $66-B Deal, Largest in History
BLOOMBERG LP: Petkovic's Bid to Approve Collective Class Suit OK'd
CALIFORNIA: Order Sustaining Demurrer in Hashim v. Cohen Affirmed
CONOPCO INC: Bid to Strike Candelaria's Class Claims OK'd in Part
COOK COUNTY, IL: Peoples Files 7th Cir. Appeal in Civil Rights Suit
D.J. BRONSON: Situ Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
DAVEY TREE: Counts I-VII in Luna Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
DDR MEDIA: Joint Bid to Compel Arbitration in Williams Suit Denied
DIGNITY HEALTH: Walker Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
DR. DENNIS: Faces Kandel Suit Over Mislabeled Treatment Masks
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Claim in Video Game Loot Boxes Can Proceed
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: $36M Deal in Labor Class Suit Granted Prelim. OK
ESTEE LAUDER: Fontanez Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
FAT BRANDS: Order & Final Judgment Entered in Securities Class Suit
FRED MEYER: Sapphire Suit Remanded to King County Superior Court
FRONTLINE ASSET: Nuamah-Williams Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
GEISINGER HEALTH: Freitas Appeals Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
GLOBAL THREAT: Alexander Sues Over Security Staff's Unpaid Wages
GOOGLE INC: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $90-Mil.
HERSHEY CO: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Over Heavy Metal Filed
HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE: Sixth Cir. Overturned FDCPA Suit Dismissal
HOME DEPOT: Swarts Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Martin Files Suit Over Data Breach
ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Claims in Daniels v. Jeffreys and IDOC
INVITATION HOMES: Stone Appeals Decision to Minn. Supreme Court
JONKER TRUCKER: Added as One of the Defendants in Protest Suit
JRN INC: E.D. Kentucky Denies Bid to Dismiss Spencer ADA Class Suit
JUUL LABS: Local Schools Await Monetary Awards in Class Settlement
KILGORE ISD: Class Suit Over Homestead Exemption Reaches Settlement
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Lowe Product Liability Suit Removed to D.S.C.
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Isaacs Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LCMC HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Sharing Sensitive Patients' Data
LIVING ALTERNATIVES: Turner Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Hughley Suit Says
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Hunt Suit Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Led to Death, Marquart Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Led to Death, Schoenbeck Says
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Led to Death, Villars Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Led to Death, Warner Claims
MDL 2873: Fitzgerald Estate Sues Over Death Due to PFAS Exposure
MDL 2873: Gibbs Claims Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer
MDL 2873: Jones Estate Sues Over Death Due to Toxic PFAS Exposure
MDL 2873: Kirkpatrick Estate Sues Over Death Due to PFAS Exposure
MDL 2873: Malitos File PI Suit Over Exposure to Toxic PFAS
MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class Suit Over TCPA Claims
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Court Orders Garnere to Clarify Citizenship
META PLATFORMS: Dutch Court Found Facebook Guilty of Misused Data
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over Ransom Attacks
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Bid to Transfer Venue in Lopez Class Suit Denied
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Owen Fraud Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
NEW JERSEY: Marrara Appeals Rulings in Civil Rights Suit
NISSAN NORTH: Pascal Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
NURSING CORPS: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Nurses' Unpaid Wages
NUVE MIGUEL: $450K Class Deal in Santos Suit Wins Final Approval
OLYMPIAN LABS INC: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OMV MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Fraser Suit
P. GRAHAM DUNN: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PERRY ONAH: Vazquez Sues Over Construction Flaggers' Unpaid Wages
PICTSWEET COMPANY: Anciola Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
PIH HEALTH: Ahimbisibwe Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Reese Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
PROUD SOURCE WATER: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RED BARN: Court Certifies Class Action Over Washroom Voyeurism
RICH DOSS INC: Haynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Bergeron Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
ROSITA USA: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAVIAN PIZZA: Joseph Sues Over Deliver Workers' Unpaid Wages
SEDUCTION COSMETIC: Adaramaja TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
SIGNATURE BANK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
SILICON VALLEY: Failed to Disclose Future Interest, Class Suit Says
SNAP-ON INC: Breach Class Suit Settlement to Be Heard on May 22
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA: Comeaux Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. La.
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA: Guillory Breach Suit Removed to W.D. La.
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA: Manuel Breach Suit Removed to W.D. La.
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA: Navarro Breach Suit Removed to W.D. La.
SPEACH FAMILY CANDY: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Sullivan Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
STREETTEAM SOFTWARE: Ulmer Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
SUMMIT UTILITIES: Seeks to Dissolve TRO in Price Gouging Suit
SUNSHINE IMPORTS: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SURVIVAL GEAR: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TARGET CORP: Cortez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
TELECON LLC: Shaw Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Ga.
TESLA INC: Faces Two Class Suits Over Monopolizing Repair Service
TESLA INC: Taylor Sues Over Failure to Provide Complete Records
TOMMY BAHAMA: Sherman Sues Over Overcharge Tax Monies
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Suit Over Dark Chocolate Lead Content
TRADER JOE'S: Herd Suit Transferred to S.D. California
TROPICAL RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Solis Suit Says
TRULIEVE INC: WARN Class Action Suit Over Mass Layoffs Dismissed
UNITED PARCEL: Thistlewaite Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP: Mansor Files Suit in W.D. Wash.
UNITED STATES: Murphy Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir.
UROLOGY OF GREATER ATLANTA: Kreider Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Gibbs Labor Suit Removed to N.D.N.Y.
WALMART INC: Opposition to Class Certification Due March 31
WALMART INC: Weinberg Suit Removed to S.D. California
WENDELL AUGUST FORGE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WESTWEGO, LA: Patton Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir.
WHAT IF HOLDINGS: Williams Appeals Denied Bid to Amend Complaint
WHOLE FOODS: Foster Appeals Fraud Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
XCENTRIC VENTURES: Selker Suit Remanded to San Diego Superior Court
XEROX CORP: Court Vacated $185M Attorney's Fees Award in Class Suit
ZEN BEVERAGE LLC: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
*********
1656 WIRELESS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Albim Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PABLO ALBIM and MARICELA MARTINEZ MORAN, on behalf of
themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 1656 WIRELESS INC. d/b/a TOTAL BY VERIZON
f/k/a TOTAL WIRELESS, 4017 WIRELESS INC. d/b/a TOTAL BY VERIZON
a/k/a NY CELL SPOT, INC., f/k/a TOTAL WIRELESS, NY CELL SPOT, INC.,
NY MOBILAI INC., d/b/a TOTAL BY VERIZON f/k/a TOTAL WIRELESS, GC
WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC., WIRELESS POINT INC., and YARIN NADEL,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01732 (E.D.N.Y., March
6, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for Plaintiffs'
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unpaid spread of hours
compensation, unfurnished wage statements and wage notices, and for
retaliation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Albim was employed as store manager responsible for the
day-to-day operations within Defendants' retail locations from
August 2020 until Defendants constructively terminated his
employment in June 2022.
Plaintiff Moran also worked a store manager for the Defendants from
February 1, 2022.
1656 Wireless Inc. owns wireless service and cell-phone stores
under various and shifting trade names.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
Matthew G. Ellias, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled MISTY SNOW, et al., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-mc-00217, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco, on March 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-mc-80055-VC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs in this action are consumer purchasers of Invisalign
treatment, i.e., individuals who purchased Invisalign aligners
through their dentist or orthodontist. In their operative
complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Align engaged in a multifaceted
scheme to monopolize the market for (1) clear aligners sold through
dentists' and orthodontists' offices, and (2) the market for
digital intraoral scanners used for ordering clear aligners, in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act as well as various state
consumer protection laws.
Align Technology manufactures Invisalign brand clear tooth
aligners, which are generally used to straighten teeth.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Harold Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80303
Telephone: (202) 210-9393
E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Rio Shaye Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3042
E-mail: riop@hbsslaw.com
Interested Party OrthoFi, Inc. is represented by:
Tanner Joseph Walls, Esq.
MOYE WHITE LLP
1400 16th Street, 6th Floor
Denver, CO 80202-1486
Telephone: (303) 292-2900
E-mail: tanner.walls@moyewhite.com
AM RETAIL: Faces Tafolla Suit Over Leather Products' False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL TAFOLLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00419-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation, and violations of California's False Advertising
Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's
Unfair Competition Law.
Defendant AM Retail Group, Inc. makes, sells, and markets clothing
and accessories, particularly the Wilsons Leather products. The
products are sold online through Defendant's website,
WilsonsLeather.com.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's website prominently
advertises sales. These advertisements include purported regular
prices, purported discounts, and purported end dates for the sales.
These advertisements are allegedly false since the sales are not
limited in time, and the discounts continue to be available.
Mr. Tafolla bought a Wilsons Leather jacket from AMRG on
WilsonsLeather.com. Like AMRG's other customers, when Mr. Tafolla
bought the product, AMRG advertised that a purported sale was going
on. Mr. Tafolla believed that the Wilsons Leather product that he
purchased retailed for the displayed regular price. He further
believed that he was getting a substantial discount from the
regular price, and that the sale would end soon. These reasonable
beliefs are what caused him to buy from Defendant. If the product
he purchased wasn't on sale, he would not have bought it, the suit
alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin K. Cho, Esq.
Simon C. Franzini, 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
AMAZON.COM LLC: Court Dismisses Miller Class Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California dismisses the case, JASMINE
MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 17-CV-03488-MMC (N.D. Cal.), in its entirety with
prejudice based on the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/55eh8r9w from Leagle.com.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER Isam C. Khoury, Michael D. Singer, San
Diego, CA.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC Ronald A. Marron --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- San Diego, CA, Counsel for Plaintiff
Jasmine Miller.
AMGEN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
---------------------------------------------------------
CEO Today reports that investors have until May 15, 2023 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit in a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Amgen Inc. ("Amgen" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: AMGN) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Amgen securities
between July 29, 2020 and April 27, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").
Amgen is one of the world's largest independent biopharmaceutical
companies.
The Amgen class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the U.S. government claimed Amgen owed
more than $3 billion in back taxes for tax years 2010, 2011, and
2012; (ii) the U.S. government claimed Amgen owed more than $5
billion in back taxes for tax years 2013, 2014, and 2015; (iii) the
U.S. government would likely claim Amgen owed materially more to
the U.S. government than investors had been led to believe for
subsequent tax years for which Amgen had used the same profit
allocation treatment between its U.S. and Puerto Rico operations;
(iv) Amgen had not taken sufficient accruals to account for its
outstanding tax liabilities; (v) Amgen had failed to comply with
ASC 450 and other rules and regulations regarding the preparation
of its periodic U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings;
and (vi) Amgen's refusal to pay taxes claimed by the U.S.
government exposed Amgen to a substantial risk of severe financial
penalties imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service ("IRS").
On August 3, 2021, Amgen issued an earnings release for its second
fiscal quarter of 2021, which, for the first time, disclosed
massive outstanding tax liabilities sought by the IRS. The release
stated that Amgen had received a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS
in July 2021 which sought $3.6 billion in back taxes, plus
interest, for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012. On this news, the
price of Amgen common stock fell by more than 6%.
Then, on April 27, 2022, Amgen issued an earnings release for its
first fiscal quarter of 2022, which disclosed that Amgen had
received a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS in April 2022 which
sought $5.1 billion in back taxes, plus interest, for tax years
2013, 2014, and 2015, and proposed a $2 billion penalty as a result
of Amgen's improper tax avoidance strategies. On this news, the
price of Amgen common stock fell by an additional 4.3%, further
damaging investors.
Amgen has additionally disclosed that it is under examination by
the IRS for the years 2016 to 2018 for similar issues as the prior
Notices of Deficiency for years 2010 to 2015, as well as
examination by various state and foreign tax jurisdictions. Amgen
has also admitted that "the ultimate outcome of any tax matters may
result in payments substantially greater than amounts accrued and
could have a material adverse effect on the results of our
operations."
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Amgen shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates reports
that On March 14, on behalf of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. and
three of its officers, Skadden secured a motion to dismiss a
putative class action brought under the federal securities laws in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
plaintiffs asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about the likelihood of FDA approval of its new drug
application for Libervant, an epilepsy treatment. In dismissing the
complaint in its entirety, the court held that the plaintiffs
failed to adequately plead that any of the challenged statements
were false or misleading and also failed to plead scienter. [GN]
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Amateur Rugby Players Join Concussion Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Mulvenney in Sydney, edited by Peter Rutherford of WTAQ
reports that on March 13, 2023, another 55 amateur rugby players
joined the growing list of claimants in a class-action concussion
lawsuit against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh
Rugby Union.
A class action lawsuit on behalf of former professional Australian
rules players over alleged damage to their health caused by
concussions sustained during their careers was lodged in Victoria's
Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Margalit Injury Lawyers are seeking damages of A$2 million ($1.33
million) per player plus medical expenses from the Australian
Football League (AFL), the Australian Associated Press reported.
"Their careers are finished and years later they find these
concussion-related injuries creeping in and affecting their ability
to work, their ability to have a happy family life," Michel
Margalit said outside the court in Melbourne.
"The whole class action could cost the AFL close to A$1 billion 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."
More than 60 players have already signed up to the class action and
more are expected to follow. The case covers any player who
sustained concussion-related injuries while playing or training
since 1985.
There was no immediate response to a request for comment from the
AFL, who earlier on Tuesday issued updated guidance for the
management of concussion ahead of this week's start to the new
season.
The issue of repetitive head trauma has triggered lawsuits in
numerous sports in recent years.
In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the National
Football League's estimated $1 billion settlement of
concussion-related lawsuits with more than 4,500 former players.
In 2019, the NHL paid $18.49 million to settle a concussion lawsuit
brought by more than 100 players. [GN]
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Plaintiff Suit Claims Being Concussed 30 Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC of Sport reports that former Geelong player Max Rooke, the lead
plaintiff in the new AFL concussion class action, was concussed up
to 30 times in his career and lost consciousness at least twice,
according to court documents.
The writ for the class action, which has been lodged in the
Victorian Supreme Court, refers to lead plaintiff Rooke -- formerly
known as Jarad Maxwell Rooke -- as a former Geelong player who
played 135 games for the Cats between 2002 and 2010.
He became a dual premiership player in 2007 and 2009.
Rooke was a cult football figure at Geelong, with a distinctive
grown-out beard and hair.
Along with his wild-man look, he became known for his fearless,
physical play in defence or further up the ground and generally
being hard at the ball.
His physical approach also led him to be suspended on several
occasions for rough conduct due to delivering hard bumps on the
field.
The class action alleges that Rooke suffered "permanent,
life-altering injuries" as a result of concussions.
The court documents state that Rooke suffered a series of
concussions during his training and playing career for Geelong:
"Insofar as the plaintiff [Rooke] can say, [he was concussed] on
approximately 20 to 30 occasions, including head strikes causing
unconsciousness on at least two occasions."
The writ mentions a timeline of medical knowledge regarding head
injuries and concussions in sport, listing times from when the
league could reasonably have been aware of various risks to
players.
"At all relevant times . . . the defendant knew or ought to have
known:
a) of the potential long-term consequences of concussion suffered
by AFL players while training for and playing AFL football
b) of the need to make and enforce rules reasonably designed so as
to mitigate consequences of long-term injury arising from
concussion
According to the lawsuit, the applicable standard of care required
the defendant to take reasonable steps to:
(a) inform itself regarding the risks of concussion to players, in
line with the state of medical knowledge from time to time
(b) make rules, policies, procedures, and protocols applicable to
clubs and players reasonably designed so as to mitigate,
ameliorate, and reduce the risk of long-term injury arising from
repetitive minor head strikes, and concussion
(c) ensure clubs abided by the rules, policies, and procedures in
matches, in training and in directing players.
(d) provide information regarding the risk of long-term injury
arising from repetitive mild head strikes and concussion to clubs
and players.
The AFL, the writ says, "breached the duty owed to the plaintiff".
This breach of duty had resulted in injury, loss and damage to
Rooke, including closed head injury, cognitive impairment and
"associated psychiatric injury".
The action takes in people who played for AFL clubs between 1985
and March 14, 2023.
The scope of the action also takes in representatives of the
estates of players now dead, who played during the relevant time
period.
The class action will seek damages, interest and costs on behalf of
Rooke and the other group members.[GN]
BAYER CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Corpuz Consumer Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDISON CORPUZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-1085-MMA (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael
M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint.
On July 25, 2022, Corpuz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against
Bayer. The Defendant sells the popular "One A Day" ("OAD") line of
multivitamins. The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's OAD Natural
Fruit Bites Multivitamin products in July 2019 from retail outlets
in San Diego, California. He alleges the Defendant's "advertising
and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading" because
it holds its Products out as "natural" even though they "contain
non-natural, synthetic ingredients."
The Plaintiff bought the Defendant's Products because he believed
they were natural based on the Products' packaging, which displays
the word "natural" on the front labels. However, the ingredient
list on the back of the Products included cholecalciferol,
niacinamide, pyridoxine hydrochloride, D-biotin, and potassium
iodide.
The Plaintiff alleges that these are "synthetic" ingredients
because they are formulated or manufactured by a chemical process
or by a process that chemically changes a substance extracted from
natural sources. He further alleges that consumers would not know
the true nature of the ingredients merely by reading the
ingredients label" because "the ingredient list does not disclose
the manufacturing process for each ingredient.
The Defendant's Products did not contain the phrase "natural" on
the labels, the Defendant would not have paid the same price and
would not have been willing to purchase the Products. Although the
Plaintiff alleges he would not buy the Defendant's Products again
if they contain "synthetic" ingredients, he would like to buy them
in the future if they were truly "natural" as advertised.
Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff brings the putative class
action on behalf of himself and other members of a proposed class
defined as "all consumers within the State of California who
purchased the Products from July 25, 2019 through the date of entry
of class certification for their personal use, rather than for
resale or distribution." In his sole cause of action, the Plaintiff
alleges the Defendant violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq.
On Oct. 5, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
As an initial matter, the Defendant asks the Court to take judicial
notice of Exhibits A through K in support of its motion to dismiss.
The exhibits include the following: two articles containing general
information about multivitamins and their manufacturing process
(Exhibits A and B); information and documents found on the websites
of the Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS"), the Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA"), and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture ("USDA") (Exhibits C through F, I, and J); an image of
the supplement facts from one of the Products (Exhibit K); and
images of the labels from two other multivitamin brands (Exhibits G
and H).
The Plaintiff only objects to Exhibits A and B. He argues that
judicial notice of these exhibits is inappropriate because the
Defendant uses them to inject facts into the record that are not
properly before the Court. The Defendant responds that all of its
exhibits are judicially noticeable as public records.
Judge Anello grants the Defendant's request for judicial notice as
to Exhibits G, H, and K, which feature product labels. In addition,
the Plaintiff does not dispute the accuracy or the authenticity of
the information and documents Defendant provides from the FDA,
USDA, and DHHS. Therefore, the Defendant's request for judicial
notice as to Exhibits C through F, I, and J is also granted.
However, Judge Anello denies the Defendant's request for judicial
notice as to Exhibits A and B. As to the disputed exhibits, he
finds that it need not determine if judicial notice is appropriate
as they do not bear on the Court's analysis.
Judge Anello then turns to the motion to dismiss. He finds that the
Plaintiff alleges with sufficient plausibility that a reasonable
consumer is likely to be deceived by the term "natural." Therefore,
the motion to dismiss on these grounds is denied.
Judge Anello finds that the Plaintiff needs not allege that every
consumer shares the same definition of 'natural,' only that a
reasonable consumer -- regardless of the precise definition of
natural to which that consumer adheres -- could be misled by the
use of "natural" on the Defendant's labels. Also, the Defendant
cannot, as a matter of law, demonstrate that the ingredient list on
the back packaging of the relevant Products defeats the Plaintiff's
claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/n8c6fch3 from Leagle.com.
BHP GROUP: England Suit May Reach $66-B Deal, Largest in History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans van Leeuwen of Financial Review reports that the England-based
class action against BHP is "the largest in history", say the
lawyers behind the suit, after they added half a million new
claimants in the past three months and said the compensation demand
could mount to GBP36 billion ($66 billion).
The long-running lawsuit, which has 700,000 claimants attached to
it and which is set down for trial in April next year, will try to
hold BHP financially liable for damages from the 2015 Samarco dam
disaster in Brazil.
"This is the largest case class action case in history that we're
aware of, " said Tom Goodhead, global managing partner of
class-action lawyers Pogust Goodhead.
He accused BHP's leaders of "failing to warn their investors" about
the scale of the lawsuit, saying its most recent public accounts
had allocated just GBP2.8 billion against the potential liability
from the claim.
BHP "denies the claims in their entirety", a company spokesman
said, rejecting the allegation that provisioning was inadequate,
particularly as the case was still at the stage of determining,
rather than quantifying, liability.
"The UK claim is at a preliminary stage, with full details of claim
yet to be provided and no damages quantified for most of the
claims, " he said. "Our financial statements appropriately disclose
a contingent liability in relation to the UK action. "
The spokesman also said that many of the new claimants "have other
avenues to resolve any potential claims in Brazil, which would be
quicker and easier" for them. And he pointed to the existing
reparation and compensation programs run by the purpose-built
Renova Foundation.
The collapse of the Fundao iron ore tailings dam killed 19 people
and left hundreds homeless. The floods and toxic wastewater wrought
environmental and infrastructure damage that extended across two
states and almost 700 kilometres of waterways.
Eight BHP executives were charged with criminal offences by
Brazilian authorities, including intentional homicide and serious
bodily injury. BHP Brazil was charged with environmental crimes.
Within weeks, a Brazilian class action was launched that ultimately
won a settlement of 20 billion Brazilian reals ($5.7 billion).
In response, BHP and Vale set up the Renova Foundation to remediate
damage and compensate affected individuals, which has spent more
than 10 billion reals.
The litigants say they have had to turn to the English legal system
because they are getting only slow and inadequate redress through
the Brazilian courts - where a second, 155 billion real lawsuit is
under way - and from the Renova Foundation.
The lawsuit looked doomed in late 2020, when a lower English court
judge ruled that the huge class action would be too complex and
costly, and might duplicate litigation efforts in Brazil. At that
point, there were 200,000 claimants.
The claimants lost an appeal against that decision in March 2022,
but then in July won an "exceptional appeal" that allowed the case
to go ahead.
The judges said the court case should proceed because the remedies
on offer in Brazil were "not so obviously adequate that it can be
said to be pointless and wasteful to pursue proceedings" in
England.
After almost three years of twists and turns in lower courts,
Pogust Goodhead had until the end of February to complete the
number of claimants, and has rustled up 500,000 new signatories,
including Brazilian businesses, churches, municipalities, utility
companies and individuals.
Mr Goodhead said signing up the claimants forced him to set up "a
sort of a mini tech start-up within our law firm".
"There are over 50 developers. We use the Salesforce platform to be
able to do it. And then we've got a call centre of over 250 people
and then about 2000 partner lawyers in Brazil. The scale of it is
extraordinary," he said.
"Some of the claimants don't even have fixed addresses, or they're
members of indigenous communities, and then their address is just a
particular area rather than a particular house. It's an immense
challenge."
The scale of the case, and the task of determining and distributing
individual compensation, if it came to that, sound hugely daunting.
But Mr Goodhead said the court seemed up for it.
"The judge who's currently running the case in England, she's put
in place a structure called a master schedule, which is basically a
huge Excel document, in effect, where every claimant is required to
just put some basic information in there," he said.
Mr Goodhead said he still hoped BHP would agree to start
negotiating a settlement, and accepted that this might come in
below the GBP36 billion claim.
But he said the firm had the funding to push on into the courtroom
if necessary, as the case is backed by hedge funds and other
investors who bankroll the suit in the expectation of taking a cut
of the winnings.
"There has probably now been north of GBP70 million that has been
invested into the case by hedge funds and litigation funds and
others behind us," Mr Goodhead said.
"If this carries on for another two, three years, I expect that
number is going to triple. It's going to cost us GBP150 million,
GBP200 million if this goes all the way to trial. Inevitably, those
investors want a substantial return on that capital."
BHP has given no sign of being willing to settle. It says that
between the Renova Foundation and Brazilian court settlements,
about 28 billion reals had been spent on reparation and
compensation by the end of last year.
The company says this includes more than 13.5 billion reals in
indemnities and assistance to about 410,000 people, and that about
70 per cent of resettlement cases have been completed.
The claimants counter that Renova has struggled to keep its
projects on track, and allege its real purpose is to limit BHP's
and Vale's liability, rather than deliver effective remedies.
Renova is understood to have allocated two-thirds of its 2023
budget, or about 5.3 billion reals, to finalising key
indemnification and resettlement programs.
The case will have another hearing in late March. The trial that
begins in April next year may be as quick as a few months, Pogust
Goodhead says. But it would only establish liability, while a
determination of claims could then take years.
BHP is still fighting two other class actions related to Samarco.
One, in the Brazilian courts, appears temporarily paused while the
system digests the change of administration from former president
Jair Bolsonaro to new incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
The other claim is in the Australian courts, and is jointly run by
Maurice Blackburn and Phi Finney McDonald. It is a shareholder suit
alleging that BHP breached continuous disclosure obligations by
failing to inform the market that the dam was at risk of imminent
failure. It also alleges misleading or deceptive conduct. [GN]
BLOOMBERG LP: Petkovic's Bid to Approve Collective Class Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEFAN PETKOVIC, et al., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 19-9471 (ZNQ) (TJB) (D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N.
Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
grants the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Approve Collective Class
Action.
Named Plaintiffs Stefan Petkovic, John Hughes, and Rohan Vagle are
former employees of Bloomberg and current residents of New York and
New Jersey. The Plaintiffs bring a collective action for class
members under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and under the
New Jersey Overtime Law.
The proposed class is all persons that were "non-supervisory
employees (including but not limited to Data Analysts and Data
Specialists) who acquire, maintain, and update data in Bloomberg
L.P.'s Global Data Division, and who were not paid time and one
half hours for hours worked over 40 in one or more weeks."
Bloomberg is a multinational media corporation with its principal
place of business in New York. Additionally, Bloomberg maintains a
Global Data Division located in Princeton, New Jersey.
The Plaintiffs were employed as either Data Analysts or Data
Specialists within the Global Data Division. They were salaried
employees and were hired to work 40 hours per week. Generally, the
Plaintiffs were scheduled to work weekly for five eight-hour
shifts, plus additional time for lunch. They allege that they often
worked beyond their scheduled shift hours and during their lunch
breaks.
The Plaintiffs assert that Bloomberg knew or should have known that
they worked beyond their scheduled shift hours because they
typically reviewed work emails and studied different issues
regarding the data outside of their scheduled hours. Therefore, in
failing to provide a timekeeping system that would record hours
worked, Bloomberg failed to compensate them accordingly.
In the operative First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert
five causes of action based on violations of the following
statutes: (1) FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 203, 207; (2) New Jersey Wage
and Hour Laws, N.J.S.A Sections 34:11-56a et seq.; (3) New York
Labor Law Articles 6 and 19; (4) New York Labor Law Section
195(1)(a); and (5) New York Labor Law Section 195(1)(3).
The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification to properly proceed
as a collective action under FLSA. Bloomberg argues that
conditional certification is not warranted because the Plaintiffs
have (1) failed to produce some evidence that there is a common
unlawful policy that they were subjected to and (2) the Plaintiffs
have failed to establish a factual nexus between the manner in
which the employer's alleged policy affected them and the manner in
which it affected other employees.
Judge Quraishi finds that the Plaintiffs have met the "fairly
lenient standard" for certification, and may proceed as a
collective action under the FLSA. At this stage, the Court is to
assess whether the Plaintiffs have produced some evidence, 'beyond
pure speculation,' of a factual nexus between the manner in which
the Bloomberg's alleged policy affected them and the manner in
which it affected other employees.
Judge Quraishi finds that the Plaintiffs have met this burden.
Specifically, they submitted Declarations which include: the shared
job description/title of a GDA, shared work responsibilities,
shared job instruction/training, similar use of Bloomberg's badge
time-keeping system, and the shared allegation of extra hours
worked without pay at the rate of time and one half for any hours
over 40 in a pay week. They have therefore produced enough evidence
for the Court to find that similarly situated plaintiffs do in fact
exist.
Bloomberg opposes the content and method of the Plaintiffs'
proposed notice, claiming that the proposed notice form submitted
is defective. The Plaintiffs have proposed that notice should be
disseminated to all GDAs that worked for Bloomberg at any time
within three years preceding Dec. 13, 2019 -- the date when the
claims of the putative FLSA class were tolled.
Judge Quraishi finds that (i) the parties agree that notice to
potential plaintiffs may include the following job titles: "Global
Data Specialist," "Global Data Analysts," and or "Data Analyst";
(ii) he won't require the two revisions to the notice sought by
Bloomberg; (iii) the content of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice
meets the purposes of a court-facilitated notice; (iv) the notice
by way of first-class mail and electronic mail is sufficient for
reaching the opt-in plaintiffs; and (v) to facilitate the notice,
Bloomberg will produce the relevant names, addresses, phone numbers
and email addresses of potential class members.
For these reasons, Judge Quraishi grants the Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion to Approve Collective Class Action. An appropriate Order
will follow.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ycxna6jm from Leagle.com.
CALIFORNIA: Order Sustaining Demurrer in Hashim v. Cohen Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON HASHIM, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
MALIA M. COHEN, as State Controller, etc., et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. A161478 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California for the First District, Division Four, affirms the trial
court's order sustaining the Defendant's demurrer to the
Plaintiffs' third amended complaint without leave to amend and
entering the judgment at issue.
The Plaintiffs filed the purported class action lawsuit in 2013,
alleging that the State Controller violated their constitutional
rights with respect to property governed by the Unclaimed Property
Law (UPL) (Code Civ. Proc., Section 1500 et seq.). Among other
allegations, they asserted causes of action under 42 United States
Code section 1983 claiming that the Controller violated their
rights under the takings and due process clauses of the United
States Constitution.
The Plaintiffs' lawsuit stems from the Controller's allegedly
unconstitutional treatment of their property under the UPL. The
Plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of certain unclaimed
property -- specifically, money in an amount less than $50. They
also alleged that the Controller does not request owner-identifying
information for unclaimed property with a value of less than $50,
violating the UPL and effecting a permanent deprivation and taking
of their property without constitutional "Mullane-style" notice.
The Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for: (1) declaratory
relief; (2) deprivation of the constitutional right to procedural
due process in violation of 42 United States Code section 19834;
(3) unconstitutional taking of personal property in violation of 42
United States Code section 1983; (4) violation of the UPL; and (5)
breach of fiduciary duty. The court sustained a demurrer with leave
to amend as to the Plaintiffs' first, second, and fourth causes of
action, and without leave to amend as to their third and fifth
causes of action.
The Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, then a second
amended complaint following the Defendant's successful demurrer and
motion to strike.
The court sustained the Defendant's demurrer to the Plaintiffs'
second amended complaint without leave to amend on the claim that
the Controller violated the UPL by failing to request identifying
information for owners of unclaimed property valued at less than
$50. It granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their remaining
claims for declaratory relief and deprivation of procedural due
process under 42 United States Code section 1983. With respect to
the latter claim, the court found that the Plaintiffs could not
state a claim against the Controller individually due to the
doctrine of qualified immunity, but it granted them leave to amend
as they may be able to amend the second amended complaint to state
a cause of action against the State directly to the extent they
seek damages equal to the amount of the property held in trust only
or an injunction.
The Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (TAC) in December
2014 against the Controller in his official capacity, alleging
claims for declaratory relief and deprivation of procedural due
process in violation of 42 United States Code section 1983. The
Defendant demurred to the TAC and moved to strike it for
noncompliance with the order allowing plaintiffs leave to amend.
The trial court granted the Defendant's motion to strike and ruled
that the demurrer was moot. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of
Appeals reversed the judgment that followed the trial court's grant
of the Defendant's motion to strike, but it did not pass on the
merits of the Defendant's demurrer to the TAC in light of the trial
court's ruling that the demurrer was moot.
On remand, the Defendant demurred to the TAC. Prior to the demurrer
hearing, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining
order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. The trial court denied the
Plaintiffs' motion and it subsequently sustained the Defendant's
demurrer without leave to amend. In its order sustaining the
demurrer, the court reviewed federal decisions in similar
litigation initiated by the Plaintiffs' counsel challenging the
constitutionality of the UPL (the Taylor decisions discussed,
post), and it found that the claims in the TAC had been previously
rejected in its own prior decisions and those of the Ninth Circuit.
The Plaintiffs timely appealed from the subsequent judgment.
The Plaintiffs seek to challenge the trial court's rulings that
they did not state a claim under 42 United States Code section 1983
for violations of the takings and due process clauses of the United
States Constitution.
First, the Court of Appeals opines that courts have rejected
takings claims for the interest earned by escheated property held
by the Controller under the UPL, reasoning that California need not
compensate the plaintiffs for the consequences of their neglect.
This reasoning defeats the Plaintiffs' claims premised on
violations of the takings clause.
Second, the Court of Appeals is not persuaded that the court erred
in sustaining the Defendant's demurrer to the Plaintiffs' claims
based on alleged violation of their rights to due process. The
Plaintiffs again fail to plead valid claims under 42 United States
Code section 1983 premised on the alleged violation of their due
process rights because they entirely fail to cite to the operative
pleading or set forth its allegations in their brief. Their claims
also fail because they have not alleged facts showing that the
Controller permanently deprived them of their property without due
process. As such, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that
they suffered a permanent deprivation of their property.
In addition, the Plaintiffs did not plead a stand-alone claim
seeking to void the Controller's alleged underground regulations
for violation of the APA, and they do not seek leave to amend their
complaint. Their argument regarding the APA thus does nothing to
advance their cause. And, because the Plaintiffs do not argue they
are entitled to amend their complaint or that the trial court erred
in denying leave to amend, they necessarily fail to provide any
basis on appeal to grant leave to amend.
Lastly, an injunction is not warranted where, as in the present
case, the Plaintiffs have not established a viable claim for
relief. A preliminary injunction is an interim remedy designed to
maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits. It is
not, in itself, a cause of action. Thus, a cause of action must
exist before injunctive relief may be granted.
In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirms the
judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/35ya595b from Leagle.com.
CONOPCO INC: Bid to Strike Candelaria's Class Claims OK'd in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH CANDELARIA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a
UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-6760
(FB) (TAM) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Frederick Block of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York:
a. denies Unilever's motion to dismiss; and
b. grants in part and denies in part its motion to strike the
Complaint's class allegations.
Candelaria brought the action on behalf of herself and a putative
class against Conopco, Inc., d/b/a Unilever Home & Personal Care
USA ("Unilever"), alleging that its TRESemme shampoo caused her to
lose her hair. She alleges defective design, failure to warn, and
negligence.
Conopco is a New Jersey corporation and subsidiary of Unilever that
designs, manufactures, and markets a line of shampoos under the
brand name TRESemme. Candelaria, a domiciliary of New York, used
TRESemme products including TRESemme Color Revitalize shampoo over
an extended period, until 2019 or 2020. She suffered an
increasingly severe reaction to the products, experiencing
significant hair loss, hair thinning, and severe scalp irritation,
including hair falling out in clumps after washing. These reactions
ceased once Candelaria stopped using TRESemme products.
The TRESemme products that Candelaria used contained DMDM, a
hydantoin compound used in cosmetics as a preservative. DMDM acts
as a "formaldehyde donor" that slowly releases formaldehyde in
order to prevent microbial growth and extend the shelf life of
cosmetics.
The Complaint alleges that DMDM has been shown by scientific and
medical studies to "cause dermatitis" and increase the risk of
cosmetic dermatitis in patients allergic to formaldehyde. DMDM is
considered by the Food and Drug Administration to be a common
allergen, causing itchiness, red rashes on the skin, or more
extreme reactions. Exposure to the compound over extended periods
increases the risk of negative effects as well as their severity, a
phenomenon known as "irritant contact dermatitis" which occurs when
DMDM exposure is sufficient to cause direct epidermal keratinocyte
damage.
Unilever has been the subject of customer complaints and at least
three other lawsuits since 2012 concerning consumers' adverse
reactions to DMDM. Candelaria's Complaint alleges that Unilever did
not provide warnings about the potential effects of DMDM exposure
on TRESemme product labels or through other means. Several of
Unilever's competitors have removed DMDM from their cosmetic
products between 2012 and 2019, including one major manufacturer
that included DMDM in a list of "potentially harmful chemicals"
being removed from its products.
Candelaria maintains that there are several "comparable and
affordable" alternative preservatives that Unilever could use
instead of DMDM. She also claims that Unilever could reduce the
amount of DMDM present in TRESemme products.
Unilever moves to dismiss Candelaria's claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and in the alternative to strike her class
allegations under Rules 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D).
First, Unilever argues that Candelaria fails to plead that her hair
loss was caused by her use of TRESemme. It argues that the
Complaint fails to plead causation for two reasons: (1) because
Candelaria fails to rule out potential alternative causes of her
hair loss, and (2) because Candelaria does not plead that she is
allergic or hypersensitive to DMDM, despite highlighting the risks
DMDM poses as an allergen.
Judge Block holds that the facts in the Complaint, taken as true,
plausibly support Candeleria's allegation that exposure to DMDM in
TRESemme products was a substantial factor in causing her hair
loss. He finds that the Complaint explains that medical and
scientific research has shown the risks of DMDM and formaldehyde,
which include hair loss, and that the risks of these injuries
become greater after prolonged exposure to DMDM. The Complaint also
does not allege that Candelaria is allergic or hypersensitive to
DMDM, or that she took a patch test to determine her tolerance of
DMDM. But, this does not render causation implausible, as the
Complaint does not allege that DMDM only causes dermatitis and hair
loss in allergic individuals.
Second, Unilever attacks Candelaria's design claims on the basis
that they allege injury based on an allergy, which is not a
cognizable basis for finding a defect. It cites Kaempfe v. Lehn &
Fink Prod. Corp., 21 A.D.2d 197, 199 (1964), aff'd, 20 N.Y.2d 818
(1967). In Kaemfe, if the injuries were suffered by reason of the
patron's allergy to the product or to its ingredients, no right of
action exists in favor of the patron on any theory of negligence in
manufacture, distribution or use.
Judge Block notes that Candelaria does not describe her injury as
an allergic reaction, nor are the Complaint's allegations regarding
the potential side effects of DMDM limited to allergic reactions or
DMDM's status as an allergen. Candelaria's design defect claim does
not solely rely on allegations that DMDM is an allergen that caused
Candelaria to have an allergic reaction and is therefore not
foreclosed by the holding in Kaempfe.
Third, Unilever also argues that Candelaria's failure-to-warn
claims must fail because she does not allege that Unilever
concealed the presence of DMDM in TRESemme, as it was listed as an
ingredient. Candelaria claims Unilever failed to warn consumers
about the risks of severe reactions, including hair loss, thinning
hair, dermatitis, and other adverse reactions.
Judge Block holds that the Defendant's argument ignores that the
Complaint is not solely couched in DMDM's danger as an allergen. He
says Candelaria's claim that DMDM causes a substantial proportion
of users to experience negative effects therefore cannot be said to
be implausible as a matter of law.
Lastly, Unilever moves to strike the Complaint's class allegations.
First, it argues that all of Candeleria's class allegations must be
struck because she cannot satisfy Rule 23's numerosity requirement.
Second, it maintains that Candelaria's claim for injunctive class
relief under Rule 23(b)(2) must be deleted from the Complaint
because it is not cognizable.
Judge Block grants Unilever's motion only with respect to
Candeleria's Rule 23(b)(2) allegations. He says numerosity is a
fact-intensive inquiry better suited for the class certification
stage. Hence, Unilever's motion to strike on the ground of
numerosity is denied. Candelaria also concedes that she will not
seek certification for her claim for injunctive relief because
Unilever has already begun phasing out DMDM in its TRESemme
products. Unilever's motion to strike the Rule 23(b)(2)
allegations, which are contained in paragraph 63 of the Complaint,
is therefore granted.
Consistent with his analysis, Judge Block denies Unilever's motion
to dismiss Candeleria's claims. He grants its motion to strike the
Complaint's class allegations with respect to claims for injunctive
relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and denies with respect to all other
allegations. Accordingly, he directs that paragraph 63 be stricken
from the Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mwckkh6y from Leagle.com.
STEPHEN J. FEARON, JR. -- stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- PAUL SWEENY --
paul@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, New York, New York,
for the Plaintiff.
REYNOLD LAMBERT -- rlambert@lowenstein.com -- GAVIN J. ROONEY --
grooney@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New York, NY, for
the Defendants.
COOK COUNTY, IL: Peoples Files 7th Cir. Appeal in Civil Rights Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN PEOPLES has filed an appeal in his lawsuit entitled
Jonathan Peoples, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cook County, Illinois, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07712, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks relief for the Defendants' violation of his rights and
privileges secured under United States and Illinois law. According
to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class were unlawfully
detained and incarcerated without legal authority under the
Defendants' policy, custom, or practice. The Defendants have a
policy and practice of detaining and re-incarcerating people after
they are sentenced to time served without any legal justification
to do so. As a direct and proximate result of such policy, custom,
or practice, hundreds or thousands of free people have been wrongly
incarcerated for extended periods of time in Cook County Jail and
the Illinois Department of Corrections' Stateville Correctional
Center. This exhibits deliberate indifference to fundamental civil
rights and liberty interests, and is violative of the United States
Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, Section 1983 of the United
States Code, and Illinois common law.
The appellate case is captioned Jonathan Peoples v. Cook County,
Illinois, et al., Case No. 23-1454, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 10, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Jonathan Peoples Docketing Statement was due on
March 16, 2023;
-- Transcript information sheet is due on March 24, 2023; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before April 19, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JONATHAN PEOPLES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
John Shannon Marrese, Esq.
HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE
One S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 955-0545
Defendants-Appellees COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al. are represented
by:
Elizabeth A. Ekl, Esq.
REITER BURNS, LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 878-1297
D.J. BRONSON: Situ Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
MINDY SITU, an individual, PATRICIA GONZALEZ, an individual, ROSE
LAZO, an individual, ELIZABETH DIZON, an individual, and ELAINE
DIZON, an individual, Plaintiffs v. D.J. BRONSON, INC., a
California corporation, JUSTIN DING, an individual, EDRICK DING, an
individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed on
March 6, 2023 in the Superior Court for the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, is a class action brought by the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
employees, against the Defendants pursuant to the California Labor
Code for rescission, fraud, breach of contract, failure to pay
timely wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to
reimburse expenses, failure to pay minimum wages, and unfair
business practices.
Each of the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant. In 2019, Mr.
Ding, officer and director of D.J. Bronson, informed Plaintiffs
that the company was experiencing cash flow problems and that they
would be paid later. From July to September 2017, the Plaintiffs
were terminated and all wages owed to them were never paid, says
the suit.
D.J. Bronson, Inc. is a company engaged in the textile business and
does business in the county of Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. DesJardins, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC.
17130 Van Buren Blvd #435
Riverside, CA 92504
Telephone: (714) 265-2100
Facsimile: (714) 494-8215
E-mail: md@desiardinslaw.com
DAVEY TREE: Counts I-VII in Luna Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGEL LUNA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00822 (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Nathaneal M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California:
1. dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's first through
seventh causes of action to the extent they are brought on
an individual basis;
2. dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's first through
seventh causes of action to the extent they are brought on
behalf of a putative class; and
3. remands the entire Action back to the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Cruz.
On Jan. 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in
Santa Cruz County Superior Court of the State of California,
captioned Luna v. Davey Tree Surgery Company, et al., Case No.
23CV00040, alleging the following eight causes of action: (1)
failure to pay wages for all hours worked in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 204, 218, 1194, and 1194.2; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code
Sections 218, 510, and 1194; (3) failure to provide mandatory
meal-and-rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code Sections
226.7 and 512; (4) failure to reimburse business expenses in
violation of California Labor Code Section 2802; (5) failure to
provide accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor
Code Sections 226 and 1174; (6) waiting time penalties under
California Labor Code Sections 201-203; (7) violation of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); and (8)
violation of California Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq.
("PAGA").
The Plaintiff filed the first seven causes of action on behalf of
himself and members of a putative class of "all individuals (a) who
are currently or formerly employed by Defendants and performed work
in California as non-exempt hourly employees or similar job
position, job title, job code, job classification, or job
description, and (b) who were subject to Defendants' illegal
policies and practices as alleged herein during the Class Period,"
defined as "the four years prior to the filing of the original
Complaint to the present including tolling."
On Feb. 23, 2023, Davey Tree removed the action to the Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1441, 1446, and 1453, and
specifically the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, based on the
first through seventh causes of action.
The parties met and conferred and agree that the Plaintiff signed
arbitration agreements on April 29, 2019 and Dec. 27, 2021, in
which the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate -- in his individual
capacity and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported
class or representative proceeding -- all claims against Davey Tree
for wages, benefits, or other compensation due and all claims
against Davey Tree for any violation of any federal, state, or
other governmental law, statute, regulation or ordinance.
The Plaintiff agrees that the Arbitration Agreements cover the
first through seventh causes of action asserted in his Complaint
(both in terms of the Plaintiff's individual claims and the
putative class claims). He accordingly seeks to dismiss his first
through seventh causes of action without prejudice as to both his
alleged individual claims and the alleged claims of the unnamed
putative class members.
The Defendant agrees with such dismissal. To date, no class has
been certified in the Action nor has any notice been provided to
other current or former employees of Davey Tree regarding the
Plaintiff's putative class claims. To date, the Court has not
entered any judgment following final approval of a settlement. No
consideration, direct or indirect, is being provided to the
Plaintiff for the dismissal.
The Parties dispute the impact of the Arbitration Agreements on the
Plaintiff's remaining cause of action (the eighth cause of action)
seeking to represent alleged "aggrieved employees" under PAGA in
the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Viking River
Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022), the pending
California Supreme Court decision in Adolph v Uber Technologies,
Inc. (2022) (Aug. 1, 2022, S274671) [2022 Cal. Lexis 5021]), and
the recent Appellate Court decision in Galarsa v. Dolgen California
LLC, 2023 WL 2212196 (Cal.App. 5 Dist., 2023) (decision after
remand in light of Viking River).
Davey Tree expressly reserves the right to file a motion to compel
arbitration as to the claims asserted in the Complaint, if
necessary, and the Plaintiff agrees that he will not argue or
assert that Davey Tree has waived any right to arbitration with
respect to the claims asserted in the Complaint (including the PAGA
claims asserted in the eighth cause of action) by entering into
this stipulation or removing the case to federal court.
The Parties further met and conferred and agree that, upon
dismissal of the first through seventh causes of action (leaving
only the Plaintiff's PAGA claim), the operative complaint will no
longer meet the jurisdictional requirements of the CAFA, making it
appropriate to remand the case back to state court. Davey Tree
accordingly stipulates to remand the action back to Santa Cruz
County Superior Court, and the Parties jointly request that the
Court issue an order regarding the same.
Therefore, the parties stipulate and agree that:
1. The Plaintiff's first through seventh causes of action are
dismissed without prejudice to the extent they are brought on an
individual basis;
2. The Plaintiff's first through seventh causes of action are
dismissed without prejudice to the extent they are brought on
behalf of a putative class; and
3. Upon dismissal of the Plaintiff's first through seventh
causes of action, the entire action should be remanded back to the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz,
where it was originally filed.
Having read and considered the Stipulation, and finding good cause,
Judge Cousins so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5ae6x6rb from Leagle.com.
Brian D. Chase, Esq. -- bchase@bisnarchase.com -- Ian M. Silvers,
Esq. -- isilvers@bisnarchase.com -- BISNAR|CHASE LLP, Newport
Beach, California Richard C. Alpers, Esq. --
clerk@alperslawgroup.com -- ALPERS LAW GROUP, INC., Aptos, CA,
Attorneys the Plaintiff and Putative Class.
DDR MEDIA: Joint Bid to Compel Arbitration in Williams Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORETTA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. DDR MEDIA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-03789-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan
Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denies the Defendants' joint motion to compel
arbitration.
On June 27, 2022, Williams filed a class action complaint against
Defendants DDR Media LLC and Lead Intelligence Inc., d/b/a/
Jornaya, alleging that the Defendants violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 631, and
California's Unfair Competition Law, and invaded her and the class
members' privacy rights under the California Constitution. She
alleges that the Defendants unlawfully recorded her electronic
communications or interactions with DDR Media's website
"SnappyRent2own.com" when she used the website on Dec. 10, 2021.
According to the complaint, Jornaya offers a product called "TCPA
Guardian" to lead generators and telemarketers. The product is
designed to allow these lead generators and telemarketers to
attempt compliance with the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by documenting alleged evidence of prior express consent to
receive telemarketing calls provided on websites. One feature of
TCPA Guardian is a "visual playback" function, which records, in
real time, a person's interactions with a website that is using
TCPA Guardian. DDR Media installed TCPA Guardian by embedding
Jornaya's code onto the SnappyRent2own.com website.
Williams alleges that when she visited SnappyRent2own.com on Dec.
10, 2021, the Jornaya TCPA Guardian replay function created a video
that captured Williams' keystrokes and clicks on the website. TCPA
Guardian also captured the date and time of the visit, her IP
address, and her geographic location, as well as Williams' name,
address, and phone number. Williams alleges that the recording was
done without her consent, and that the Defendants did not inform
website visitors that their strokes and clicks would be recorded.
On Dec. 15, 2022, the Defendants filed a joint motion to compel
arbitration based upon an arbitration agreement contained in the
Terms of Use on the SnappyRent2Own.com website. They have submitted
pictures of the website, which they implicitly represent is the
version of the website that Williams accessed. The hyperlink to the
Terms of Use is on lines 16 and 17 of 21 in a full-justified
paragraph of text. The Terms of Use hyperlink leads to a page
titled "Terms and Conditions." The Terms and Conditions document is
seven pages and is mostly single-spaced. The arbitration agreement
appears on page five of seven.
On Feb. 17, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Defendants' joint
motion to compel arbitration. The Defendants do not contend that
Williams had actual notice. Instead, they argue that she had
inquiry notice because the website provided reasonably conspicuous
notice of the Terms of Use, and the Terms of Use hyperlink is
conspicuous when viewed in the context of the website. Williams
contends that the notice of the Terms of Use is not reasonably
conspicuous and that defendants have not shown that she took any
action that unambiguously manifested her assent to those terms.
Judge Illston finds that the SnappyRent2own.com website did not
provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the Terms of Use. She also
finds that the Terms of Use hyperlink is not "readily apparent" to
a reasonably prudent user. She further finds that the Defendants
have not met their burden to show that Williams took some action
that unambiguously manifested her assent to the Terms and
Conditions.
Because Judge Illston concludes that the Defendants have not shown
that Williams agreed to arbitrate her claims, she does not reach
the other arguments raised by the parties' briefs, including the
question of whether Jornaya has standing to seek arbitration.
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, Judge Illston
denies the Defendants' joint motion to compel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2uf96d96 from Leagle.com.
DIGNITY HEALTH: Walker Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHELE WALKER, PEARL IRENE WISE, and TAMI
HUNTER-NEAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California Corporation;
dba MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - MERCED; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants,
Case No. 22CV-01588, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of Merced to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
March 8, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:23-at-00205 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims for relief arising from Plaintiffs'
employment experiences with Defendant, on behalf of proposed
classes of Defendant's non-exempt employees. In the complaint,
Plaintiffs asserted claims for: (1) violation of California
Business and Professions Code; (2) failure to provide meal periods;
(3) failure to provide rest breaks; (4) inaccurate wage statements;
and (5) waiting time penalties.
Dignity Health is a health care organization with a principal place
of business in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard J. Simmons, Esq.
Daniel J. McQueen, Esq.
Nora K. Stilestein, Esq.
Richard B. Azada, Esq.
Chenxi Lu, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com
nstilestein@sheppardmullin.com
razada@sheppardmullin.com
DR. DENNIS: Faces Kandel Suit Over Mislabeled Treatment Masks
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMI KANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DR. DENNIS GROSS SKINCARE, LLC, a New York
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01967
(S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2023) is a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
purchasers of the Dr. Dennis Gross C + Collagen product line,
including C + Collagen Deep Cream, C + Collagen Serum, C + Collagen
Mist, C + Collagen Eye Cream, and C + Collagen Biocellulose
Brightening Treatment Masks. The lawsuit arises from the
Defendant's alleged deceptive labeling and advertising in violation
of the New York's General Business Law.
According to the complaint, consumers are deceived by Defendant's
uniform labeling and advertising of the products as "C + Collagen"
believing that they are purchasing skincare products which contain
Vitamin C and collagen. In reality, the products do not contain
collagen or collagen amino acids. Instead, they contain vegetable
amino acids which are neither collagen nor collagen amino acids,
says the suit.
Through Defendant's false, misleading, and deceptive advertising,
Defendant has duped thousands or more consumers into buying the
products at stores across New York, and the nation, based on its
material claims that the products contain collagen, the suit
contends.
Dr. Dennis Gross skincare, LLC manufactures skincare products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
Valter Malkhasyan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
590 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-407
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
vmalkhasyan@clarksonlawfirm.com
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Claim in Video Game Loot Boxes Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser of Vancouver Sun reports that a judge has found that a
claim that was made in a class-action lawsuit involving the use of
so-called loot boxes in video games can proceed.
In her ruling, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Margot Fleming found that
the plaintiff's claim discloses a viable cause of action under a
law, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, which
prohibits deceptive acts and practices.
An official for the company said the judge's finding was not the
same as concluding their business practices were deceptive.
"It's just that they allege enough to meet the low pleading
standard."
The judge refused to rule the use of loot boxes amounted to
unlawful gambling and was unconscionable, a major element of the
class-action lawsuit.
"This decision is the first step toward addressing the legal issue
of loot boxes in video games, and the negative effect it can have
on consumers," Sam Jaworski, a lawyer acting for the plaintiff,
said in a statement released March 15, 2023.
"This is likely to be a long road but is one in which we will
continue to advance the interests of consumers."
An official for the company said in a statement that it was pleased
that the court rejected, as a matter of law, the allegation of
unlawful gambling.
"This further affirms our position that nothing in our games
constitutes gambling. We don't believe the remaining claims have
any merit either, and will continue to vigorously defend against
this opportunistic action."
A loot box is a feature of a video game that contains virtual
items, to be used in the game, and can be accessed through
gameplay, or purchased with virtual currency or directly with real
money.
Mark Sutherland, the representative plaintiff in the case, brought
the lawsuit on behalf of all residents of B.C. who paid directly or
indirectly for loot boxes in more than 70 of the company's video
games since 2008.
The pleadings in the lawsuit also alleged that video game
developers have increasingly employed "addictive game elements"
such as loot boxes to lead players to spend more time and money on
the games. But the issue of addictive video games played no role in
the business practice claims against the defendants, the judge
noted.
The claim that the company's business practices were deceptive
related to a number of things, including that they mislead class
members regarding the availability and scarcity of rare or valuable
items within the loot boxes.
The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants controlled the
probabilities of a loot box containing a particular item without
disclosing those probabilities to class members before they
purchase the opportunity to open a loot box.
The judge said that assuming the pleaded facts were true, she was
satisfied it was not plain and obvious the claim is bound to fail
and thus accepted that the lawsuit included material facts
necessary to make out a deceptive act or practice claim.
But the judge said her view of the claim that the loot boxes
amounted to unlawful gambling was different, finding that portion
of the plaintiff's case must be struck down.
She said that the plaintiff could amend the lawsuit to plead
material facts in support of the elements of the claim of
unconscionable acts or practices that are unrelated to illegality.
Other elements that need to be addressed before a decision on
whether the lawsuit can be certified as a class action are expected
to be addressed at a later date.
Another class-action lawsuit involving the use of loot boxes has
been filed in Quebec but that litigation is in the early stages.
The inclusion of loot boxes in video games has attracted
controversy and the attention of lawmakers around the world. One
country, Belgium, has even gone so far as to ban the practice,
declaring it illegal under the European country's gambling laws.
[GN]
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: $36M Deal in Labor Class Suit Granted Prelim. OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Makarem and Associates reports that On March 9, 2023, Alameda
County Superior Court Judge Paul D. Herbert granted preliminary
approval to the global settlement of two wage and hour class and
representative actions brought against Equinox Holdings, Inc.:
Renee Porter, et al. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Alameda County
Superior Court, Case No. RG19009052, an action under California's
Private Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA"), and Frank J. Fodera, Jr.,
et al. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:19-cv-05072-WHO, a
class action brought under California's Labor Code. The Fodera
action was consolidated with the Porter action for settlement
purposes.
Under the settlement, which is subject to final approval by the
Court, Equinox will pay $36 million to resolve the claims in both
actions. The settlement covers over 15,000 employees who worked for
Equinox in California between April 3, 2015 and December 31, 2022
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuits alleged Equinox had a policy of
not paying certain California employees, including personal
trainers, group fitness instructors, and other positions, for all
time worked. Plaintiffs also challenged Equinox's policies
regarding meal and rest breaks, wage statements, and other wage and
hour practices.
Plaintiffs filed the Porter and Fodera actions in early 2019. In
May 2022, Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in Fodera, paving the way for trial on
Plaintiffs' class claims. After extensive discovery, including
dozens of depositions and the court-ordered production of hundreds
of thousands of internal Equinox emails, electronic files, and
documents, Equinox settled instead of going to trial.
Class Counsel: Ron Makarem, Samuel D. Almon, and Makarem &
Associates are class counsel, and represent Plaintiffs in both the
Fodera and Porter actions.
Plaintiffs: The Named Plaintiffs are Renee Porter, Joshua Tolin,
Frank Fodera, Michael Bonella, and Genevieve Billson. All of the
Named Plaintiffs worked as non-exempt employees of Equinox in
California during the Class Period.
Statements on the Settlement: "This settlement is a hard-fought
victory that will return tens of millions of dollars to past and
present Equinox employees in California. We were focused on taking
these important wage claims to trial, which is what allowed us to
obtain this significant victory for class members," said
Plaintiffs' counsel Samuel Almon.
About Makarem & Associates APLC: Makarem & Associates APLC is a
top complex litigation and trial firm that represents employees in
wrongful termination, sexual harassment, and wage and hour class
action litigation. Ron Makarem has received numerous honors and
accolades in the legal industry for landmark cases, was named a
'Top 100 Attorney in Southern California' in 2013 and 2019, and a
Southern California Super Lawyer for 2011 – 2023, by Thomson
Reuters. Samuel D. Almon devotes much of his practice to class
actions and individual lawsuits on behalf of workers, and was named
a Southern California Super Lawyer in employment law by Thomson
Reuters for 2022 and 2023. For more information about the law firm
go to: www.makaremlaw.com.
For more information regarding this case or to set up an interview,
please contact: info@makaremlaw.com
Samuel D. Almon
Makarem & Associates
11601 Wilshire Bl. Ste. 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025
almon@law-rm.com
Phone: 323-217-4125 [GN]
ESTEE LAUDER: Fontanez Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------
The case styled DORIS FONTANEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2023CA-000215-0000-00, was removed from
the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Polk County, Florida,
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on March 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:23-cv-00491 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's single-count complaint seeks relief from Defendant,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly-situated
persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made multiple
unlawful "telephonic sales calls" without the "prior express
written consent" of Plaintiff and the putative class members,
purportedly violating the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. is an American multinational
cosmetics company, a manufacturer and marketer of makeup, skincare,
fragrance and hair care products.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Yaniv Adar, Esq.
Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 374-0440
E-mail: yaniv@markmigdal.com
josh@markmigdal.com
FAT BRANDS: Order & Final Judgment Entered in Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California enters Order and Final Judgment in the case,
IN RE: FAT BRANDS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
2:22-cv-01820-MCS-RAO, No. 2:22-cv-02541-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal.).
On Feb. 28, 2023, the Court held the Fairness Hearing. Having
considered all matters submitted to the Court and otherwise, Judge
Scarsi finds that the prerequisites for a class action under Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been
satisfied. The Settlement Class is being certified for settlement
purposes only.
Judge Scarsi finally certifies the action as a class action for
purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all Persons who
purchased publicly traded FAT Brands, Inc. ("FAT Brands")
securities during the period from Dec. 4, 2017 through February 18,
2022, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period").
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Plaintiffs are certified as the class representatives on behalf of
the Settlement Class ("Class Representatives") and the Lead Counsel
previously selected by the Lead Plaintiff and appointed by the
Court are appointed as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
All Settlement Class Members are bound by the Final Judgment except
those persons listed on Schedule A to the Final Judgment.
Judge Scarsi approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The
Action and all claims contained therein, as well as all of the
Released Claims, are dismissed with prejudice as against each and
all of the Defendants. The Parties are to bear their own costs,
except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Stipulation.
Upon the Effective Date, the Released Parties will be deemed to
have, and by operation of the Final Judgment will have, fully,
finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all
claims they may have against the Releasing Parties related to the
Releasing Parties' prosecution of the Action or any other known or
unknown counter-claim related thereto and will have covenanted not
to sue the Releasing Parties with respect to any counter claim,
claim, or sanction related to the Released Claims, and will be
permanently barred and enjoined from asserting, commencing,
prosecuting, instituting, assisting, instigating, or in any way
participating in the commencement or prosecution of any action or
other proceeding, in any forum, asserting any such claim, in any
capacity, against any of the Releasing Parties. Nothing contained
in the Final Judgment shall, however, bar the Released Parties from
bringing any action or claim to enforce the terms of this
Stipulation or the Final Judgment.
Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the Parties and the
Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to the Action.
Without further order of the Court, the Defendants and the Class
Representatives may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry
out any of the provisions of the Stipulation.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Final
Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly
directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The finality of the Final Judgment will not be affected,
in any manner, by rulings that the Court makes on the proposed Plan
of Allocation or the Class Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses or an award to the Class
Representatives.
Judge Scarsi directs the Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator
to administer the Plan of Allocation in accordance with its terms
and the terms of the Stipulation.
The Class Counsel is awarded 25% of the Settlement Amount, or
$625,000 in cash and $125,000 worth of FAT Brands Class A common
stock, in fees, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable,
and $45,000 in reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. The Class
Representatives are awarded $1,500 each. The Defendants and the
Released Parties will have no responsibility for, and no liability
whatsoever with respect to, any payments to the Class Counsel, the
Class Representatives, the Settlement Class and/or any Person who
receives payment from the Settlement Fund.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order & Final
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/3nf95e8h from
Leagle.com.
FRED MEYER: Sapphire Suit Remanded to King County Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMELIA SAPPHIRE, Plaintiff v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C22-1795-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C.
Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's motion to remand and for attorney fees.
In November 2022, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action in
King County Superior Court, alleging that errors caused by the
Defendant's new payroll system violated Washington wage laws. The
complaint did not specify an exact amount of damages. Instead, it
requested compensatory and exemplary damages, as well as attorney
fees and costs.
The Defendant removed the case to this Court, pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), codified in part at 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d), based on its assertion that this case involves a class
action with at least 100 members, minimal diversity exists, and the
amount in controversy of the aggregated claims exceeds $5 million.
The Plaintiff then moved to remand, arguing the amount in
controversy requirement has not been met; she also seeks fees and
costs incurred.
Judge Coughenour grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand. He finds
that (i) the impacted class will likely include at least 12,000
employees; (ii) the evidence presented does not support the
conclusion that the average impact per employee is likely over
$200; and (iii) the Defendant has not shown, by a preponderance of
evidence, that the average claim per employee is over $200. In
addition, if the Defendant had first shown sufficient evidence
supporting its average claim per employee, the Court could then
reasonably extrapolate and apply that to all employees. But it did
not.
Judge Coughenour denies the Plaintiff's request for fees. He says
although the Defendant does not provide sufficient evidence
regarding the amount in controversy requirement, he cannot conclude
that it lacked a reasonable basis when seeking removal. The
Defendant believes there is a large number of impacted employees
and put forth evidence the amount in controversy was met when
considering the average harm per employee. Although the evidence
presented does not support this claim, the Defendant's basis for
removal was not unreasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughenour grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for remand and fees. He
directs the Clerk to remand the case to King County Superior
Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/cwezrvxz from Leagle.com.
FRONTLINE ASSET: Nuamah-Williams Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HILDA NUAMAH-WILLIAMS is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Hilda Nuamah-Williams, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Frontline Asset Strategies LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2-21-cv-15440,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for alleged violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
On Dec. 17, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint, which the Court granted in part and denied
in part through an Order entered by Judge William J. Martini on
Mar. 28, 2022.
On Oct. 18, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
On Feb. 2, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
was denied as moot, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Hilda Nuamah-Williams v. Frontline
Asset Strategies LLC, Case No. 23-1404, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 8, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant HILDA NUAMAH-WILLIAMS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
Defendant-Appellee FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES LLC is represented
by:
Daniel W. Meehan, Esq.
Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 549-2500
- and -
Patrick D. Tobia, Esq.
MORGAN MELHUISH ABRUTYN
651 West Mount Pleasant Avenue, Suite 200
Livingston, NJ 07039
Telephone: (973) 549-2553
GEISINGER HEALTH: Freitas Appeals Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs LORI FREITAS, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated February 8, 2023 and Order dated November 16,
2022 entered in the lawsuit entitled LORI FREITAS and KAYLEE
McWILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GEISINGER HEALTH PLAN, and SOCRATES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-01236, in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Freitas and McWilliams sued Defendants Geisinger Health Plan
("GHP") and its subrogation agent, Socrates, alleging various
causes of action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. Freitas received
insurance coverage from her employer, Mount Airy Casino Resort. As
did McWilliams from her father's employer, Big Heart Pet Brands, a
subsidiary of the J.M. Smucker Co.
Both employers had employee welfare benefit plans that included
health insurance from GHP. These plans were termed the Mount Airy
Wrap Plan and the J.M. Smucker Master Health Plan (collectively,
the "Employer Plans"). GHP set out its coverage of Mount Airy and
J.M. Smucker employees through a document known as the Group
Subscription Certificate.
Both Plaintiffs were injured by third-party tortfeasors. They both
sought and received compensation from GHP for their injuries.
Eventually, they both sued and later settled with the respective
tortfeasors who injured them.
On November 16, 2022, Chief District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania:
a. granted the Defendants' June 28, 2022 Motion to Dismiss which
the Court converted into a motion for summary judgment; and
b. denied the Plaintiffs' August 11, 2022 Motion to Strike the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Discovery.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Matthew W. Brann of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
entered an order on Feb. 8, 2023, granting the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment on Count VII of Plaintiff Kaylee McWilliams'
second amended complaint.
The appellate case is captioned as Lori Freitas, et al. v.
Geisinger Health Plan, et al., Case No. 23-1381, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 2,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants LORI FREITAS and KAYLEE McWILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
104 West High Street
Milford, PA 18337
Telephone: (570) 296-6471
Defendants-Appellees GEISINGER HEALTH PLAN and SOCRATES INC. are
represented by:
Raymond A. Kresge, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Pasek, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-2128
GLOBAL THREAT: Alexander Sues Over Security Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alexander, Vivian Perrin, and Matthew Tyson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Global
Threat Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01891 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 6, 2023) seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid minimum wage
and overtime compensation, liquidated damages for untimely wage
payments, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs, and liquidated damages and civil penalties pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New
York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Plaintiffs Alexander, Perrin, and Tyson worked as security guards
for Defendant from approximately October 2022 to the first week in
January 2023, from October 2, 2022 to January 2023, and from
October 2022 to December 31, 2022, respectively.
Global Threat Solutions, LLC provides security guards to its
customers, including retail and other commercial businesses, in New
York State.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
GOOGLE INC: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $90-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Action reports that Google agreed to pay a $90 million
settlement to resolve claims it monopolized Android app markets
through the Google Play platform, in violation of federal and state
antitrust laws.
The Google Play settlement benefits U.S. developers of Android
applications or in-app products (including subscriptions) who sold
an application or in-app product for a non-zero price and paid a
service fee greater than 15% on at least one transaction between
Aug. 17, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021. Developers must have earned
between $0 and $2 million in every calendar year between 2016 and
2021.
The Google Play class action lawsuit accused Google of violating
federal and state antitrust laws by monopolizing the android app
market through its Google Play platform. The company allegedly
forced app developers to use its billing services, forcing them to
pay hefty service fees.
Google Play is Google's Android app store. Developers can
distribute their applications through the platform.
Google hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $90 million
class action settlement to resolve the antitrust allegations.
Under the terms of the Google Play settlement, developers can
receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund based on
the amount they paid in service fees during the class period.
According to the settlement administrator's website, payments could
range from $250 to over $200,000. Class members can check their
estimated payment amount on the settlement website.
Google has also agreed to make business practice changes to better
compensate developers for apps. The company agreed to charge
service fees no greater than 15%, allow developers to promote
alternative billing systems, allow the use of other app stores and
develop an "Indie Apps Corner" in the Google Play store. The
deadline for exclusion and objection is April 5, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Google Play settlement is
scheduled for May 18, 2023.
Class members who received an email or mailed notice do not need to
take action to benefit from the settlement but may submit a payment
selection form by May 30, 2023, to receive their payment in a
digital format.
Class members who did not receive a settlement notice must submit a
payment selection form by May 30, 2023, in order to receive a
settlement payment.
Who's Eligible
U.S. developers of Android applications or in-app products
(including subscriptions) who sold an application or in-app product
for a non-zero price and paid a service fee greater than 15% on at
least one transaction between Aug. 17, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021.
Developers must have earned between $0 and $2 million in every
calendar year between 2016 and 2021.
Potential Award
Varies.
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
05/30/2023
Case Name
In re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-
cv-05792-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California
Final Hearing
05/18/2023
Settlement Website
GooglePlayDeveloperSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Google Play Developer Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@GooglePlayDeveloperSettlement.com
844-423-3488
Class Counsel
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
SPERLING & SLATER PC
HAUSFELD LLP
Defense Counsel
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
HOGAN LOVELLS
KWUN BHANSALI LAZARUS LLP Form [GN]
HERSHEY CO: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Over Heavy Metal Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Haas, Frederick Stearns, and Emily Thomas of the National
Law Review report that On March 10, Hershey Company filed a motion
to dismiss a consumer class action suit which claimed that its
chocolate contained toxic substances. Hershey maintains that it
"never promised, in words or substance, that its products were
utterly lead- and cadmium- free," just that they were safe to
consume. See Eva Grausz v. The Hershey Company, case number
3:23-cv-00028, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.
Hershey maintained that the plaintiffs failed to show an
injury-in-fact, arguing that the suit does not allege that the bars
purchased were contaminated; rather, plaintiffs rely on testing
reported by the publication Consumer Reports (CR). "That CR
detected traces of lead and cadmium in two or three product samples
does not indicate that the chocolate bars plaintiff herself
purchased contained those contaminants," said Hershey.
The CR study published in December 2022 tested 28 dark-chocolate
bars. All candy tested contained both lead and cadmium, but 23 of
them contained more than 0.5 micrograms of lead, more than 4.1
micrograms of cadmium, or both. To read more about the CR study,
see our previous blog post here.
Hershey claims that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring a claim
because CR did not test the particular bars purchased, and the
study's analysis states that results "can vary" from bar to bar.
Alternatively, even if the candy consumers bought did contain lead
and cadmium at the levels stipulated, they would still lack
standing because the presence of heavy metals in low amounts do not
render the food inedible or unsafe to consume.
Moreover, Hersey maintains, it's a sad reality of "modern life"
that lead and cadmium are omnipresent in the air, water and soil,
making it impossible for anyone to make a product "absolutely free"
of heavy metals. Accordingly, the company had never made that
guarantee but at most implicitly promised the products were safe to
consume.
Consumers claimed that they frequently purchased Lily's Extremely
Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa, which is made by Hershey and tested at
143% of the maximum allowable dose level for lead in the state of
California and 101% of the maximum allowable dose for cadmium.
Other products named in the CR study included Hershey's Special
Dark Mildly Sweet and Lily's Extra Dark 70% Cocoa.
Hershey is not the only company to face recent consumer actions for
chocolate products as a result of the CR study. Earlier this month,
chocolate makers Mondelez Global LLC, which manufactures Hu-branded
chocolate, and Lindt & Sprungli North America Inc. were hit with
proposed class actions in New York. See Newman v. Lindt & Sprungli
(North America) Inc., case number 1:23-cv-01972, and Newman v.
Mondelez Global LLC, case number 1:23-cv-01988, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]
HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE: Sixth Cir. Overturned FDCPA Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Account Recovery reports that it definitely seems like more of an
"inside baseball" type of ruling, but the Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit has overturned the dismissal of a Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act case - in which three separate appeals
were filed - leaving the same case pending before two different
judges in the same district and asking them to "sort out" how the
cases should proceed in the case of Rodriguez v. Hirshberg
Acceptance Corp., et al.
The plaintiff filed a class-action suit against the defendant,
alleging it violated the FDCPA when it miscalculated the amount
owed on a debt. As the case was progressing through discovery, both
sides realized that another case before the Sixth Circuit -
VanderKodde. Mary Jane Elliott, P.C. - would resolve most of the
issues in their case. So both sides requested a stay. Rather than
stay the case, the District Court judge chose to administratively
close the case, instructing that either side could move to reopen
the case within 14 days of a decision being rendered in
VanderKodde.
In June 2020, four months after a ruling in VanderKodde was issued,
the plaintiff moved to reopen this case. She said her counsel had
mistakenly confused the deadline and the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic had thrown things for a loop. The District Court judge
denied the motion. The plaintiff filed an appeal, but did so more
than 30 days after the denial was issued.
Before filing her appeal, the plaintiff also sought clarification
of the June 2020 order, and appealed that clarification as well,
giving her two appeals before the Sixth Circuit.
The third appeal came after she filed a new complaint in Michigan
state court, which the defendant removed to federal court - and was
assigned to a different judge. The judge dismissed the case, ruling
the dispute had already been settled on the first go-round. So the
plaintiff appealed that ruling, too.
Ultimately, the District Court judge abused his discretion when he
denied the plaintiff's motion to reopen the case. If the judge
"believed the proper remedy was to dismiss" the motion, it needed
to do so in a different way then he did, the Appeals Court ruled.
[GN]
HOME DEPOT: Swarts Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASON SWARTS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 23CV410599, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Santa Clara to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
March 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00995 to the proceeding.
The complaint was filed on January 30, 2023 asserting violations of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, on behalf of the Plaintiff, and putative
Nationwide and California classes. The Complaint alleges that Home
Depot violated the ECPA and CIPA by impermissibly recording
electronic conversations with United States [and California]
residents via the chat feature on Defendant's website" without
their consent and "allows, aids, and abets a third party to
intercept and eavesdrop on the electronic conversations."
Home Depot, often simply referred to as Home Depot, is an American
multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools,
construction products, appliances, and services, including fuel and
transportation rentals.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Anne M. Voigts, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
601 South California Avenue, Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 422-6700
E-mail: avoigts@kslaw.com
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Martin Files Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
BONITA MARTIN, BILL ROBERTS AND PAMELA GARZA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOWARD
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and JOHN DOE INSURANCE CARRIER, Defendants, Case
No. 4:23-cv-04030-SOH (Ark. Cir., Howard Cty., March 7, 2023)
alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory
judgment and seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the
Defendants' adoption of reasonably sufficient practices to
safeguard personally identifying information and protected health
information arising from alleged data breach.
On December 29,2022, Howard Memorial posted a notice on its'
website that PII and PHI stored on its systems had been accessed
and exfiltrated by an unauthorized third-party. An unauthorized
third-party accessed and removed patient PII and PHI around
November 14, 2022 through December 4, 2022.
Based on the public statements of Howard Memorial to date, a wide
variety of PII and PHI was implicated in the data breach, including
but not limited to patient and employee names, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, driver's license/government identification
numbers, financial account information, medical record/patient
account number(s), medical diagnosis/treatment information, medical
provider name(s), lab results, prescription information, and health
insurance information. As a direct and proximate result of Howard
Memorial's failure to implement and follow basic security
procedures, Plaintiffs' and other patients' PII and PHI is now in
the hands of cybercriminals, says the suit.
Howard Memorial Hospital is a healthcare system that operates both
in- and out-patient facilities in Howard County, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
Courtney E. Ross, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7rt Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
cross@cbplaw.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Claims in Daniels v. Jeffreys and IDOC
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICE DANIELS, et al., Plaintiff v. DIRECTOR ROB
JEFFREYS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 07-1298 (C.D. Ill.), Judge
Michael M. Mihm of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of Illinois, Peoria Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The case has been ongoing since 2007 with the Plaintiffs
challenging the adequacy of the delivery of mental health services
to mentally ill prisoners in the physical custody and control of
the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC" or Department). The
Plaintiffs are individuals incarcerated by IDOC and bring a class
action claim on behalf of similarly situated individuals.
For many years, the parties operated under the Third Amended
Complaint which alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment of the
United States Constitution; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 794, against various IDOC officials. The Plaintiffs
have now amended their Complaint to add the Governor as a
defendant, an Equal Protection claim alleging that the class
members of color are treated differently than similarly situated
white counterparts, and a due process claim.
The relevant background facts began in August 2015 when the Court
certified a class for purposes of litigation, pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defined the
class as persons in custody of IDOC who "are identified or should
have been identified by the IDOC's mental health professionals as
in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association."
On Dec. 17, 2015, the parties announced they had entered into a
comprehensive settlement agreement resolving the action set forth
in the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. This agreement was the
result of years of negotiation. The Court found the agreement to be
fair and reasonable over objections from class members. The parties
modified the agreement and operated under the Second Amended
Settlement Agreement for some time.
In October 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Enforcement of
the Settlement Agreement. After additional motions practice and
evidentiary hearings, the Court ultimately issued a preliminary
injunction to enforce the settlement agreement and later converted
the preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction. The
Defendants' lack of adequate mental health staff was an important
consideration in the Court's decision.
The Court entered an injunction outlining certain staffing
standards and other measurable standards Defendants needed to meet.
On Jan. 12, 2022, the Seventh Circuit vacated the Court's decision,
finding that the Defendants had made reasonable efforts to mitigate
the harm. In that opinion, the Seventh Circuit stated that the
agreement was more accurately described as a Consent Decree.
After the case was remanded from the Seventh Circuit, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to have the Court extend
jurisdiction over the settlement agreement due to the Defendants'
non-compliance. Pursuant to the Seventh Circuit's statement and
other relevant case law, the Court was compelled to agree with the
Defendants' assertion that the agreement was a consent decree and
that it could not approve relief unless, in accordance with the
Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), "the court finds that such
relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to
correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
right." Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion
because they did not attempt to argue that the PLRA findings were
met, particularly in light of the Seventh Circuit's recent decision
vacating the Court's injunction. The Court thus operated as though
there was no longer an agreement and returned the case to the
active docket for scheduling.
The Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint realleging their
prior claims and also adding the Governor as a Defendant, alleging
Equal Protection and due process violations. The Defendants have
moved to dismiss all the Plaintiffs' claims except for their Eighth
Amendment claims. The Plaintiffs have responded and the Defendants
have replied. The Court also held an oral argument on the motion.
First, in Counts IV and V, the Plaintiffs assert claims of
discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. They paint a
bleak picture of life inside IDOC for individuals with serious
mental illness. They assert that the Defendants are subjecting
class member to discipline and punishment, both formal and
informal, because of their mental illness. The Defendants appear to
base their motion to dismiss on the assertion that class members
are not being discriminated against or denied access to programs
based on that disability.
Judge Mihm opines that the Plaintiffs adequately plead the
Defendants are violating the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. He says
the Complaint sufficiently alleges that the Plaintiffs have
qualifying disabilities and have been excluded from programs and
subject to discrimination sufficient to allege ADA and 504
Rehabilitation Act claims.
Second, the Plaintiffs add the Governor of Illinois as a Defendant
to their Fourth Amended Complaint. In the Complaint, the
Plaintiffs' basis for the Governor's inclusion is his role as the
State's chief executive with ultimate authority for ensuring that
all executive agencies, including the IDOC, function in compliance
with state and federal law. The Defendants argue that this claim is
barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
As pleaded, Judge Mihm opines that the Governor is not an
appropriate party to the litigation. He says the Plaintiffs did not
plead the necessary facts in their Complaint and the Court may not
take judicial notice of newspaper articles over the Defendants'
objection. The Plaintiffs need to plead that the Governor is a
"renegade" personally responsible for violation of federal law.
They need to cite to particular actions, beyond generally being
responsible for the enforcement of all laws, that this Governor
took or failed to take that would subject him to liability.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Governor as a
party is granted and Judge Mihm agrees with the Plaintiffs that
they should be given the opportunity to replead this cause of
action.
Third, the Plaintiffs allege that "class members of color, and
particularly those who are Black" are treated differently from
their White counterparts. However, the Defendants point out that
the Plaintiffs do not allege specific facts about the named
Plaintiffs.
Judge Mihm opines that the Plaintiffs must include additional
information to support their Equal Protection claims. He says it is
important that the class representatives have suffered the same
injury as the class members they seek to represent. Accordingly, he
gives them the opportunity to do so, and the Plaintiffs are granted
the opportunity to amend their complaint to plead additional facts
specific to the named Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs have the opportunity to amend their complaint and
make more specific allegations regarding staff's use of racially
degrading language, which Judge Mihm agrees are so vague as to
possibly fall on the side of a conclusory statement, particularly
given the extensive discovery that has already occurred. The
Plaintiffs should provide more specific allegations in their
Amended Complaint.
Lastly, the Defendants argue that Count III of the Fourth Amended
Complaint is a substantive due process claim, subsumed by the
Plaintiffs' Eight Amendment claim, and thus, must be dismissed. The
Plaintiffs assert that Count III is a procedural due process claim
and that the claim is about the Defendants' failure to adequately
account for class members mental illness in the disciplinary
process and placement of individuals in segregation.
As Defendants point out, Judge Mihm opines that the Plaintiffs do
not indicate what process is due under the circumstances. The
Plaintiffs also do not specifically mention procedural due process
in the Amended Complaint at all. Based upon the statements in the
Complaint, Judge Mihm is unable to decipher whether the Plaintiffs
are making a substantive or procedural due process claim. The
Plaintiffs did not put the Defendants on notice of the claim
against them and the Defendants' assumption that the Plaintiffs
were bringing a substantive due process claim was a reasonable
interpretation given the dearth on information in the Complaint
about this claim. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion is granted on
this issue and the Plaintiffs have the opportunity to amend this
portion of their Complaint as well.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Mihm grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. He denies the Defendants'
Motion as to the Plaintiffs' ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims and
grants as to the claims against the Governor, the Equal Protection
Claims, and the Due Process claims. The Plaintiffs will have 21
days from the entry of the Opinion to file an Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5v6d9u from Leagle.com.
INVITATION HOMES: Stone Appeals Decision to Minn. Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA STONE is appealing to the Supreme Court of Minnesota a court
order entered in the lawsuit entitled Lisa Stone, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Petitioner, v.
Invitation Homes, Inc., et al., Respondents, THR Property
Management, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-21-8758, in
the Civil Division of Hennepin County District Court.
The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Invitation
Homes, Inc. (IH) based on an unlawful lease agreement which
required her to perform maintenance without compensation.
The district court denied IH's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
IH appealed the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals
in Minnesota.
The Appeals Court affirmed in part the district court's
determination that the amended complaint alleges sufficient facts
to show Stone's standing to sue IH. But the Court concluded that
the amended complaint does not allege sufficient facts to show
Stone's standing to sue L.P. subsidiaries, and thus, it reversed in
part. The Court did not address the district court's ruling on the
public-benefit issue, and remanded the case back to the district
court for a ruling on IH's motion to dismiss the claims for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
The appellate case is captioned Lisa Stone, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Petitioner, vs. Invitation
Homes, Inc., et al., Respondents, THR Property Management, L.P., et
al., Defendants, Case No. A22-0928, in the Supreme Court of
Minnesota, filed on March 8, 2023. [BN]
JONKER TRUCKER: Added as One of the Defendants in Protest Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the lawyers representing Ottawa residents in
the proposed $300 million class-action lawsuit against organizers
of the convoy protest last year have added new defendants and
expanded the "occupation zone," the geographic area encompassing
the plaintiff classes.
Fundraising platform GiveSendGo, New Brunswick donor Brad Howland
and Harold Jonker of Jonker Trucking Inc., have been added as named
defendants.
None of the defendants added to the claim were immediately
available for comment.
The area in Ottawa containing the plaintiff classes -- residents,
businesses and employees -- has been expanded after a "large
number" of residents came forward, said Paul Champ, the lawyer
behind the proposed class action suit.
The zone now extends west past Bronson Avenue to Booth Street to
include residential buildings on a developed section of LeBreton
Flats.
In the ByWard Market, it now includes the area north of St. Patrick
Street all the way to Boteler Street.
Champ estimates the expanded zone adds about 3,000 people to the
plaintiff class, bringing the number to around 15,000.
He said he expects "the damages will end up going up" because the
number of plaintiffs has increased.
According to Champ, everyone in the zone is automatically part of
the class and doesn't need to provide their names. In the event of
a settlement or an award in the case, his firm will contact people
and advertise.
Gaelle Muderi, project co-ordinator for the Ottawa People's
Commission, said they heard testimony from residents of the newly
added area during their inquiry into the protests.
"The impact of the convoy extended beyond the red zone, from
Lowertown to Vanier to Overbrook. So people in those communities
experienced trauma, loss and harm," she said.
"These communities were deeply affected, and I think this is a move
in recognition of that."
Muderi said the expanded class reflects the scope of issues
residents had to deal with during the protests.
"People lost income because they couldn't get to their jobs or they
had to spend in different ways to access basic necessities," she
said.
"In that sense, it includes more folks. It opens up the opportunity
for more folks to be heard."
Champ said his team will be ready to argue for certification in the
case by the end of the year, calling those motions "a significant
point in the litigation."
"The vast majority of class actions are fought over the
certification and if the class action is certified, you will often
see defendants settle," he said.
Champ said his team has spoken with about 1,000 people.
"We've got really all the information and evidence that we need to
establish damages and establish the harm that was caused."
Champ said this is another step in vindicating his clients.
"It seems like the convoy occupation protesters thought that they
only caused people an inconvenience without recognizing that they,
you know, seriously disrupted the lives of people who were really
just innocent bystanders," he said. [GN]
JRN INC: E.D. Kentucky Denies Bid to Dismiss Spencer ADA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN SPENCER, Plaintiff v. JRN, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00024-GFVT (E.D. Ky.), Judge Gregory
F. Van Tatenhove of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort, denies Defendant
JRN's Motion to Dismiss.
Mr. 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. JRN now moves to dismiss Mr. Spencer's claims
relating to JRN locations he has not personally visited because he
lacks standing to assert claims relating to these other locations.
It also moves to strike Mr. Spencer's class allegations because the
complaint does not sufficiently plead a viable class.
Mr. Spencer has a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair. The
complaint alleges that he 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. He contends that the excessive slopes increase his
risk of harm and deter him from returning. The KFC was one of 160
that JRN owns or operates. It is also the only JRN location that
Mr. Spencer has visited.
The complaint alleges that JRN uses a confidential operating manual
that provides mandatory standards and specifications related to
each KFC location's physical facilities. Specifically, JRN
maintains restaurant buildings, drivethrus, parking lots, and
landscaped areas at each location in conformance with the
specifications set forth in the operating manual. Its franchise
agreements require locations to comply with all applicable laws and
regulations and to designate an individual to supervise
restaurants' compliance with JRN's centralized policies, practices,
or procedures concerning obligations to maintain, repair, and
replace features in its parking areas. The policies in the
operating manual, the complaint alleges, create the excessive
sloping conditions.
Mr. Spencer employed investigators to examine 14 other JRN
locations for excessive sloping conditions. He alleges that the
investigators found sloping accessibility barriers in the parking
spaces, accessible routes, and curb ramps of all 14 other
locations. In all, Mr. Spencer alleges that he found conditions at
JRN locations that constitute one to two violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act: one violation at 13 locations and
two violations at two locations. The alleged violations include
curb ramp landing slopes exceeding 2.1%, entrance curb ramp slopes
exceeding 8.33%, parking surface and access isle slopes exceeding
2.1%, clearance area slopes exceeding 2.1%, curb ramps projecting
into access isles, and a curb ramp flare exceeding 10%.
Mr. Spencer brings the action against JRN and unknown defendants
under the ADA. He seeks claims for injunctive relief against all
JRN locations on behalf of a class of all similarly situated
individuals. JRN now moves to dismiss Mr. Spencer's claims against
locations he has not visited and his class allegations.
First, JRN moves to dismiss Mr. Spencer's claims relating to KFC
locations that he has never visited for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Judge Van Tatenhove opines that the complaint sufficiently
establishes Mr. Spencer's standing to challenge all JRN locations.
He finds that Mr. Spencer meets the additional requirement to
challenge JRN's conduct at all KFC locations. Mr. Spencer
sufficiently pleads a common design or policy to confer class
standing because the investigated facilities share similar
violations and he alleges that the violations stem from a
centralized facility maintenance policy. Mr. Spencer alleges that
centralized facility specifications -- —stemming from an
operating manual -- create sloping conditions in violation of the
ADA. Thus, the complaint sufficiently establishes Mr. Spencer's
standing to challenge all JRN locations.
Second, JRN argues that the Court should dismiss the class
allegations because Mr. Spencer fails to plead a viable class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). It argues that the Court
should strike Mr. Spencer's class allegations because the complaint
fails to show that there are questions of law or fact common to the
class.
Judge Van Tatenhove opines that the allegations sufficiently plead
that there are questions of law or fact common to the class. He
defers a more searching inquiry until Mr. Spencer presents a motion
for class certification.
Lastly, JRN alleges that Mr. Spencer lacks standing to bring class
claims and that the complaint insufficiently pleads commonality.
However, taken as true, Judge Van Tatenhove opines that the
complaint alleges a common design or policy and that there are
questions of law or fact common to the potential class.
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye25z8m4 from
Leagle.com.
JUUL LABS: Local Schools Await Monetary Awards in Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
WQKT reports that as part of a class action lawsuit against Juul
Labs by Ohio and nearly three dozen other states, several area
school districts are now awaiting their monetary awards. To settle
the case, the electronic cigarette company agreed to pay out $438
million and stop marketing its vaping products to kids. Among the
school districts in Wayne County getting money, Green Local,
Norwayne, Northwestern, Rittman, Orrville and Southeast Local will
all receive between $20,000 and $30,000. Wooster will get over
$50,000, while the amount Triway will receive has yet to be
released. The schools will get half the money this fall, with the
remainder paid out over the next four years. [GN]
KILGORE ISD: Class Suit Over Homestead Exemption Reaches Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KLTV Digital Media Staff reports that residents living within the
boundaries of Kilgore ISD now have the chance to claim their
portion of a refund granted by a years-long class-action lawsuit.
A Gregg County judge has recently approved a settlement in a
class-action lawsuit brought nearly a decade ago by area tax payers
against Kilgore ISD. Originally filed by 13 plaintiffs on September
29, 2016, the lawsuit asserted that Kilgore ISD overstepped its
authority when removing a local optional homestead exemption in
2015. The suit also asserted that Kilgore ISD "illegally assessed
and collected taxes that are subject to this exemption." The
plaintiffs sought to reinstate the exemption, as well as receive a
refund of "illegally collected taxes" which were paid to the school
district "as a result of duress."
According to Kilgore ISD attorney Dennis Eichelbaum, district
residents were given the option of a local homestead exemption of
about $10-15,000, that would cut back taxes collected by the
district. In 2015, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 1 which
gave property owners a similar option. But if a school district had
already granted an exemption, as was the case with Kilgore ISD,
they had to honor it.
"The legislature added some language that said that if you gave a
local optional homestead exemption the previous year, you would
have to continue giving that amount of local optional homestead
exemption the following year," said Eichelbaum.
He said that essentially doubled the exemption amount from 2015 to
2019.
"We can't afford to make it a $35,000 (exemption) because that's
going to take too many taxes away from us for being able to serve
the students," said Eichelbaum.
He said the Kilgore ISD board, like other districts in the state,
voted to withdraw the local homestead exemption, but he said there
was a delay in making the state homestead exemption law.
"It was signed into law by Governor Abbott on June 15, but it
didn't become law until the state had an election in November
approving it," said Eichelbaum.
Eichelbaum said Kilgore ISD withdrew the local homestead exemption
option during the lag time. A group of attorneys and the Texas
Attorney General filed suit against school districts who removed
the local homestead exemption.
"The attorney general was not joining the lawsuit in order to get
taxes back. His purpose was to say, 'You're not following the law,
and I'm intervening to enforce the law, '" said Eichelbaum.
He said the higher taxes paid to the district amounted to $20-1,500
dollars a year, depending on property value. The case went to the
Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court. Before it went
farther KISD decided to settle.
"This suit has been pending for six years. It is now resolved, and
people have until May 1 to sign up and participate," said
Eichelbaum.
The settlement, which includes the awarding of attorneys' fees,
promises to refund up to $2,970,967.56 to Gregg County and Rusk
County taxpayers residing within the boundaries of Kilgore
Independent School District who claimed a homestead exemption and
make a timely, valid claim for a refund. Class Counsel is seeking
an attorneys' fee award of one-third of the settlement amount,
$990,223.49.
For more information, or to submit a claim, visit the following
website: https://kilgoresettlement.com/. If you have questions
pertaining to the suit, call call 304-362-9663. [GN]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Lowe Product Liability Suit Removed to D.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JARED LOWE, individually, and as personal
representative of the ESTATE OF JACKIE REUBEN LOWE, Plaintiff v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS
HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC; Defendants,
Case No. 2023CP0100028, was removed from the South Carolina Court
of Common Pleas for Abbeville County to the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on March 8, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 8:23-cv-00969-MDL to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that Philips manufactures, markets, imports,
sells, and distributes a variety of defective Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure devices for
patients with obstructive sleep apnea. The complaint includes
multiple causes of action, including claims for strict products
liability; negligence; fraud; civil conspiracy; unjust enrichment;
breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; and
violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Koninklijke Philips NV is a diversified technology company that
develops and manufactures medical systems and consumer electronics
products.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel R. Fuerst, Esq.
Joseph D. Thompson, III, Esq.
HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C.
111 Coleman Blvd, Suite 301
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 720-3460
Facsimile: (843) 720-3458
E-mail: dfuerst@hallboothsmith.com
jthompson@hallboothsmith.com
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Isaacs Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA ISAACS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LANDMARK RECOVERY OF LOUISVILLE, LLC Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00210 (M.D. Tenn., March 9, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for collective failure to pay employees
overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.
Named Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately May
2021 until December 2021. Specifically, the Plaintiff was employed
by Defendant as an hourly patient engagement specialist at its
Praxis of Louisville by Landmark Recovery location in Louisville,
Kentucky.
Landmark Recovery of Louisville currently owns, operates, and
manages a collection of addiction treatment centers throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
LCMC HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Sharing Sensitive Patients' Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Herman Herman Katz reports that two of the largest hospital
networks in Louisiana have been using a tracking code embedded deep
in their websites that shares sensitive patient data without the
patients' knowledge or consent, according to class-action lawsuits
filed by Herman Herman & Katz trial lawyers.
Known as Meta Pixel, the computer code created by the company that
owns Facebook and Instagram potentially analyzed, gathered and
shared the sensitive medical data of hundreds of thousands of
patients, the hospital meta pixel lawsuits allege. These victims
were patients within the LCMC Health Systems network of hospitals
in the New Orleans area and Willis-Knighton Health System
facilities in northwest Louisiana, according to the lawsuits.
"We are learning more and more about this shocking breach of trust
as our investigation continues," said Herman Herman & Katz partner
Stephen Herman. "This was a gross invasion of privacy that we
believe went on for years."
The Meta Pixel code was created by Meta (NASDAQ: META) to narrowly
target users with digital advertisements. When website visitors
clicked the "schedule an appointment" button, the code captured
sensitive health information like medical conditions,
prescriptions, doctors' names, and previous appointments and sent
it to Facebook. In one case, for example, a woman received targeted
ads about heart disease and joint pain shortly after entering her
information into one of the hospital websites.
According to the lawsuits, use of the Meta Pixel in healthcare
settings violates various provisions of Louisiana law which
generally prohibit the sharing of personal health information with
a third party without patient consent.
LCMC Health Systems is a network of New Orleans-area hospitals and
medical facilities, including Children's Hospital, East Jefferson
General Hospital, New Orleans East Hospital, Touro, University
Medical Center New Orleans, and West Jefferson Medical Center.
Willis-Knighton Health System is the largest healthcare provider in
northwest Louisiana and includes Willis-Knighton Medical Center,
Willis-Knighton South & the Center for Women's Health, WK Bossier
Health Center, WK Pierremont Health Center, and WK Rehabilitation
Institute.
HHK is working with AZA Law in Houston and Kelly & Townsend LLC in
Natchitoches, La., on the litigation.
Herman Herman & Katz is dedicated to achieving justice for our
clients. We excel in a wide range of practice areas throughout
Louisiana, and our personal attention, experience and commitment
achieve the results our clients deserve. Our Louisiana personal
injury lawyers are here to aggressively pursue justice on your
behalf and help you get back on your feet. To learn more, visit:
https://hhklawfirm.com/. [GN]
LIVING ALTERNATIVES: Turner Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIVING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00233-PLM-RSK (W.D.
Mich., March 7, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
against the Defendant seeking to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other
relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly employee from
April 2021 until December 2022. She asserts that Defendant failed
to include shift differentials and/or other remuneration paid to
her and the Class members in calculating their correct overtime
premiums as required by the FLSA. Instead, Defendant only paid them
an overtime premium calculated from their base hourly rates, says
the Plaintiff.
Living Alternatives for the Developmentally Disabled provides
staffing support services for individuals with physical and mental
disabilities at numerous locations throughout Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
Facsimile: (269) 250-7503
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: aasciutto@sommerspc.com
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Hughley Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRELL HUGHLEY, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00889-RMG
(D.S.C., March 3, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer by exposure to
AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges.
The Hughley case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Hunt Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON HUNT, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00888-RMG
(D.S.C., March 3, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer by exposure to
AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges.
The Hunt case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Led to Death, Marquart Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA A. MARQUART as, Personal Representative/Administrator/
Executor of the Estate of CHARLES EDWARD YEATER, deceased,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE
SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00952-RMG (D.S.C., March 8, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
Charles Edward Yeater was, at the time of death, an adult resident
and citizen of Wheeling, West Virginia. The Decedent regularly
used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products. Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his
death, the suit alleges.
Plaintiff Lisa A. Marquart is an adult resident of the State of
West Virginia. The Plaintiff is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Charles
Edward Yeater.
The Marquart case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Led to Death, Schoenbeck Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA SCHOENBECK as, Personal Representative/Administrator/
Executor of the Estate of ANTHONY MICHAEL SCHOENBECK, deceased,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE
SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00948-RMG (D.S.C., March 8, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
Anthony Michael Schoenbeck was, at the time of death, an adult
resident and citizen of Pinehill, New Jersey. The Decedent
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was
diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products. Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or
contributed to his death, the suit alleges.
Plaintiff Anita Schoenbeck is an adult resident of the State of New
Jersey. The Plaintiff is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Anthony
Michael Schoenbeck.
The Schoenbeck case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Led to Death, Villars Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON F. VILLARS as, Personal Representative/Administrator/
Executor of the Estate of FREDERICK MICHAEL VILLARS SR., deceased,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE
SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00949-RMG (D.S.C., March 8, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
Frederick Michael Villars Sr. was, at the time of death, an adult
resident and citizen of Carriere, Mississippi. The Decedent
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was
diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or
contributed to his death, the suit alleges.
Plaintiff Sharon F. Villars is an adult resident of the State of
Mississippi. The Plaintiff is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Frederick
Michael Villars Sr.
The Villars case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Led to Death, Warner Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ALLISON JILL WARNER as, Personal Representative/Administrator/
Executor of the Estate of DAVID M. WARNER, deceased, Plaintiff v.
3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00950-RMG (D.S.C., March 8, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
David M. Warner was, at the time of death, an adult resident and
citizen of Cedartown, Georgia. The Decedent regularly used, and was
thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death, the
suit alleges.
Plaintiff Allison Jill Warner is an adult resident of the State of
Georgia. The Plaintiff is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of David M.
Warner.
The Warner case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Fitzgerald Estate Sues Over Death Due to PFAS Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD J. FITZGERALD as, Personal Representative/Administrator/
Executor of the Estate of EDWARD THOMAS FITZGERALD, deceased,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE
SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00946-RMG (D.S.C., March 8, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
Edward Thomas Fitzgerald was, at the time of death, an adult
resident and citizen of Danbury, Connecticut. The Decedent
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was
diagnosed with prostate cancer and liver cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis
caused and/or contributed to his death, says the suit.
Plaintiff Edward J. Fitzgerald is an adult resident of the State of
Connecticut. The Plaintiff is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Edward
Thomas Fitzgerald.
The Fitzgerald case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Gibbs Claims Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
WESLEY GIBBS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00887-RMG
(D.S.C., March 3, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer by exposure to
AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges.
The Gibbs case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Jones Estate Sues Over Death Due to Toxic PFAS Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BETTY JONES as, Personal Representative/Administrator/ Executor of
the Estate of CHARLES MICHAEL JONES, deceased, Plaintiff v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00958-RMG (D.S.C., March 8, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
Charles Michael Jones was, at the time of death, an adult resident
and citizen of Wetumpka, Alabama. Decedent regularly used, and was
thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was diagnosed with liver
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death, the
suit alleges.
Plaintiff Betty Jones is an adult resident of the State of Alabama.
Plaintiff is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Charles
Michael Jones.
The Jones case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Kirkpatrick Estate Sues Over Death Due to PFAS Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONDA KAY KIRKPATRICK as, Personal Representative/Administrator/
Executor of the Estate of JON LANE KIRKPATRICK, deceased, Plaintiff
v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company;
AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00947-RMG (D.S.C., March 8, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
Jon Lane Kirkpatrick was, at the time of death, an adult resident
and citizen of Glen Rose, Texas. The Decedent regularly used, and
was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death, says
the suit.
Plaintiff Ronda Kay Kirkpatrick is an adult resident of the State
of Texas. The Plaintiff is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Jon Lane
Kirkpatrick
The Kirkpatrick case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Malitos File PI Suit Over Exposure to Toxic PFAS
----------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH MALITO and ROSEANNE MALITO, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00891-RMG
(D.S.C., March 3, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. Plaintiff Kenneth Malito used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
the Plaintiff Kenneth Malito was diagnosed with prostate cancer by
exposure to AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges.
Plaintiff Kenneth Malito regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish active fires during
his working career as a civilian firefighter.
Plaintiff Roseanne Malito brings this action for the loss of
consortium and services directly resulting from her husband's
injuries and damages sustained as a result of his exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Malito case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MEADOWBROOK FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class Suit Over TCPA Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reverse Mortgage Daily reports that Meadowbrook, a multi-channel
lender offering reverse mortgages, has failed to convince a federal
judge in Pennsylvania that a proposed class in a class-action suit
over telemarketing calls should not be certified, according to
Bloomberg Law and court documents related to the case.
"In November 2022, Meadowbrook filed the instant motion challenging
the sufficiency of the class allegations and therefore asking the
Court to dismiss the complaint," Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote
in his ruling.
The ruling stems from a case that plaintiff Gerard Jackson filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
which alleges that Meadowbrook Financial Mortgage Bankers Corp.
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by repeatedly
targeting him for the company's reverse mortgage services.
Jackson's phone number was included in the National Do Not Call
Registry, a government-maintained database for people who have
opted out of being contacted by telemarketers. In the suit, Jackson
is seeking to certify a class of other Do Not Call registrants who
were contacted by Meadowbrook more than once within a certain time
frame.
Meadowbrook is seeking dismissal of the lawsuit on two grounds:
that the proposed class is impermissible, and that the facts at
hand do not justify the class under federal rules.
"Neither argument justifies the relief Meadowbrook requests," Chief
Judge Brann wrote. "The former is without merit, whereas the
latter, while potentially meritorious, is premature."
Product marketing practices are a consistent source of debate, both
outside and in the reverse mortgage industry.
"I tell you, ever since I turned to the eligible age, I get more
junk [mail] regarding reverse mortgages [than anything else],"
HomeChex President Mark Browning said at a 2022 reverse mortgage
industry conference." It sets a perception instantly. [I feel] that
lead generators have cheapened the product tremendously. Customers
come in, and their families or financial advisors have [immediate]
perceptions."
According to Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) endorsement
data compiled by Reverse Market Insight (RMI), Meadowbrook
Financial recorded four endorsements in 2022, and has recorded two
so far in 2023, coming out to number 93 on RMI's ranking of the top
100 lenders year to date. [GN]
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Court Orders Garnere to Clarify Citizenship
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHAN GARNERE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 23 CV 1592 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vincent L.
Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York orders the Plaintiff to submit a letter clarifying the
Defendant's citizenship.
The Plaintiff brings the action invoking subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d).
Judge Briccetti explains that to invoke subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), a plaintiff must show any member
of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from
any defendant. A limited partnership has the citizenship of each of
its general and limited partners.
The complaint alleges the Defendant is an Illinois limited
partnership with a principal place of business in Northfield,
Illinois. However, state of formation and principal place of
business are irrelevant to the citizenship of a limited
partnership, and the complaint does not identify the citizenship of
each of the Defendant's general and limited partners.
Accordingly, Judge Briccetti orders the Plaintiff to submit a
letter clarifying the Defendant's citizenship so the Court can
determine whether there is the requisite diversity in the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr3kxkch from Leagle.com.
META PLATFORMS: Dutch Court Found Facebook Guilty of Misused Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Sterling, edited by Toby Chopra, Mark Potter and Kirsten
Donovan of Reuters reports that a Dutch court hearing a class
action lawsuit on March 15, 2023 found that a European subsidiary
of Meta (META.O), Facebook Ireland, improperly used personal data
of Dutch citizens between 2010 and 2020, saying the company had
"violated the law".
"Personal information was processed for the purposes of advertising
when in this case that is not allowed," a summary of the Amsterdam
court ruling said.
"Personal information was given to third parties without Facebook
users being informed and without there being a legal basis to do
so."
The decision was directed at Facebook Ireland because it is the
part of the company that oversees the processing of Dutch user
data. The case has not yet progressed to the phase where any
damages could be claimed.
A spokesperson for Meta said the company was "pleased" with parts
of the decision but would appeal others, noting that some of the
claims date back more than a decade.
"We know that privacy is important to our Dutch users and we want
them to have control over how their data is used," the person
said.
A spokesperson for the plaintiff, Data Privacy Stichting, said the
group now hopes to sit down with Facebook to negotiate a
settlement.
It's "a pretty big decision and we're obviously very glad," said
spokesperson Gerard Spierenburg."
"We think this is a very strong signal not only to Facebook but to
all companies that are unrightfully using their users' data."
The Data Privacy group was launched in 2020 as a partnership
between a group of law firms and the Dutch Consumers' Association
to try to seek damages.
Spierenburg said 190,000 had signed up for the initiative, but any
of the roughly 10 million Dutch people who used Facebook during the
relevant period can join if the case moves to a damages phase. [GN]
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over Ransom Attacks
-----------------------------------------------------
David Jones of CyberSecurity Dive reports that the company, a
supplier to the semiconductor industry, has begun to recover its
production capabilities and is working to upgrade its cyber
defenses.
MKS Instruments is facing a class action lawsuit in California in
connection with a February ransomware attack that forced the
company to suspend part of its manufacturing capacity, according to
the company's annual 10-K filed March 14, 2023 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
The lawsuit was filed March 3 in the Orange County Superior Court
in California seeking unspecified damages. The company said it
plans a vigorous defense.
MKS late last month warned the attack, which disrupted its
photonics and vacuum solutions divisions, would result in more than
a $200 million hit to quarterly revenue during the first quarter.
The company was previously expecting to reach $1 billion in revenue
for the period.
A Moody's analyst said the ransomware attack is credit negative for
the company, which is a key supplier to the semiconductor
industry.
"The financial ramifications, temporary manufacturing delays and
the class-action lawsuit underscore the potential cascading impacts
of any cyber incident and the need to bolster cybersecurity across
the industry," Terry Dennehy, VP and senior credit officer at
Moody's, said in a statement.
Moody's officials said the comment should not be considered an
official ratings downgrade of the company, but more of an
assessment of the financial impact.
MKS said an investigation shows ransomware actors encrypted some of
its systems by deploying malware, according to the regulatory
filing. The company has since restored many of its IT systems and
reopened certain manufacturing and service operations.
The company retained security specialists to help assess and
remediate the company's IT controls, and is strengthening access
requirements and threat detection capabilities.
MKS is also implementing procedures to facilitate a more timely
restoration of its financial reporting capabilities. The company
delayed release of its quarterly earnings report following the
attack.
MKS has cybersecurity risk insurance coverage, but the coverage may
not cover all of the costs related to the attack, the company said.
[GN]
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Bid to Transfer Venue in Lopez Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS LOPEZ and AMBIORIS JIMENEZ, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC.,
and NFI INTERACTIVE LOGISTICS, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1844-S
(N.D. Tex.), Judge Karen Gren Scholer of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, denies the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Transfer Venue.
Plaintiffs Lopez and Jimenez filed the putative class action
against Defendants National Freight, Inc., and NFI Interactive
Logistics, LLC (collectively, "NFI") on Augu. 19, 2022. Compl. The
Plaintiffs are truck drivers who contracted with NFI to deliver
goods from an NFI facility in Nazareth, Pennsylvania, to Trader
Joe's grocery stores located along the East Coast.
The Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated drivers, claims for improper pay deductions and unpaid
wages under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
("PWPCL"), 43 P.S. Sections 260.1, et seq., breach of contract, and
unjust enrichment. The parties dispute whether the Plaintiffs were
properly classified as independent contractors by NFI, which would
exclude them from the PWPCL's protections, or whether the
Plaintiffs should have been classified as employees.
In the Motion, the Plaintiffs argue that the case should be
transferred to the District of New Jersey because two related cases
(collectively, "New Jersey Actions"), presided over by Judge Joseph
H. Rodriguez, are pending in that court. The first case is Portillo
v. National Freight, Inc., No. 15-CV-7908-JHR-MJS (D.N.J.), a class
action brought against NFI in 2015 by truck drivers for violations
of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiffs in the present
case are also class members in Portillo. The second case is Kolev
v. National Freight, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-15107 (D.N.J.), a putative
class action brought against NFI in 2021 by truck drivers for
violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act.
Despite the Plaintiffs' wish to litigate this case in New Jersey,
they filed suit in the present Court because of a forum-selection
clause contained within the most recent contracts they signed with
NFI. Prior to 2019, contracts between NFI and its drivers
("Pre-2019 Operating Agreements") contained New Jersey
choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses. In 2019, NFI circulated
a new version of their standard contract ("Texas Operating
Agreement"), which replaced the New Jersey choice-of-law and
forum-selection clauses with the above-quoted Texas choice-of-law
and forum-selection clauses. NFI required their drivers to sign the
Texas Operating Agreement to continue doing business with them. The
Plaintiffs, who both contracted with and delivered for NFI prior to
2019, signed the new Texas Operating Agreements in 2020.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to transfer the case in spite of the
Texas forum-selection clause, arguing that it is unenforceable due
to fraud, overreaching, and fundamental unfairness. According to
them, NFI's addition of the Texas forum-selection clause was a
"unilateral" and "ex parte" attempt to "limit the scope of the
Portillo class outside the supervision of the court."
In Portillo, NFI argued that the Texas forum-selection clause
should preclude all class members who signed Texas Operating
Agreements from litigating their claims in the District of New
Jersey because, in NFI's view, the Texas forum-selection clause
superseded all previous forum designations. The court disagreed,
defining the Portillo class such that "drivers who signed one or
more New Jersey Pre-2019 Operating Agreements and one or more Texas
Operating Agreements -- and who otherwise satisfy the criteria for
class membership -- are class members eligible to recover for
injuries sustained under New Jersey law before the drivers signed a
Texas Operating Agreement." However, the Portillo class does not
encompass the claims that are the subject of this lawsuit because
they arose after Plaintiffs signed the Texas Operating Agreements.
The Portillo court also found that NFI's failure to alert the
drivers, opposing counsel, or the court that the changes to the
Pre-2019 Operating Agreement could affect the drivers' rights as
potential class members was "misleading and coercive and threatened
the fairness of this litigation." It went on to express skepticism
at NFI's explanation that they included the Texas choice-of-law and
forum-selection clauses in the Texas Operating Agreement "as part
of a routine update," noting that the update occurred just months
after the court's ruling that New Jersey law would govern the
Portillo plaintiffs' claims and that many of the signatory drivers
had "no apparent connection to Texas."
In the instant case, however, NFI maintains that they have a
regional headquarters located in Irving, Texas, and that more of
their employees and owner-operators are based out of Texas than New
Jersey, which is why they changed the choice-of-law and forum
selection clauses in the driver contracts.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Texas forum-selection clause is
unenforceable and thus should not affect the transfer analysis.
Their unenforceability arguments boil down to two main points: (1)
the forum-selection clause is fraudulent because NFI "unilaterally
changed" the forum provisions without notifying "anyone," and (2)
the forum selection clause is "unjust" because "Texas has
absolutely no connection to this case."
However, Judge Scholer opines that the Texas forum-selection clause
is enforceable for two reasons. First, the Plaintiffs fail to meet
their burden to show that the circumstances surrounding the
incorporation of the Texas forum selection clause constituted fraud
or overreaching. Second, even assuming the Plaintiffs' particular
claims are not directly connected to Texas and there are related
issues already being litigated in New Jersey, it does not follow
that enforcement of the Texas forum-selection clause would be
unreasonable.
Given that none of the Section 1404(a) public interest factors
weigh in favor of transfer to the District of New Jersey, Judge
Scholer concludes that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
show that the case is one of the "unusual" and "most exceptional"
cases that warrant transfer despite the presence of a valid forum
selection clause. Accordingly, she denies the Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion to Transfer Venue.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/dp78m4m7 from
Leagle.com.
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Owen Fraud Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVEN OWEN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE HEALTHCARE
NUTRITION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02855, was transferred
from the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 6, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-01018-TSH to the proceeding.
This is a proposed class action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of
classes of similarly situated individuals, against Defendant for
breach of warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment,
and violations of New Jersey consumer protection laws.
The Defendant's prominent and systematic mislabeling of its
Nestle's BOOST-brand Glucose Control over-the-counter drinks and
its false and deceptive advertising form a pattern of unlawful and
unfair business practices that harms the public and, if unstopped,
could continue to lead to substantial harm, says the suit.
Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. is a food and drink processing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 Third Ave, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
E-mail: jstrauss@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Ross B. Rothenberg, Esq.
ROTHENBERG LAW FIRM, LLP
450 7th Avenue, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 563-0100
Facsimile: (212) 629-6813
E-mail: ross@injurylawyer.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy William Loose, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7746
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com
NEW JERSEY: Marrara Appeals Rulings in Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs MICHAEL MARRARA, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's February 3, 2023 Opinion and Order, entered in the
lawsuit entitled MICHAEL MARRARA and MICHAEL DOTRO, Plaintiffs v.
PHILIP D. MURPHY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-22-cv-02056, in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the State of New Jersey
enacted the Public Health Emergency Credits Act. PHECA grants up to
244 days of credit to inmates in state custody who are scheduled to
be released within 365 days during a declared public health
emergency arising from communicable or infectious disease and
resulting in substantial modifications to department-wide
correctional facility operations.
Plaintiffs are two inmates who do not qualify under PHECA for
credit because their remaining sentences exceed 365 days, and,
further, because Plaintiff Dotro is serving a sentence for murder.
As such, Plaintiffs initiated this action based on their
ineligibility under PHECA, asserting equal protection, due process,
double jeopardy, and ex post facto claims under the New Jersey
Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Administrative Procedure Act
against Defendants the State of New Jersey, New Jersey Governor
Philip D. Murphy, former New Jersey Senate President Stephen
Sweeney, New Jersey General Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, and
other unnamed state officials for their alleged roles in enacting
PHECA, which Plaintiffs claim wrongly denies them credit. The
Plaintiffs further seek an award of credits and a court order
directing state officials to amend PHECA to remove its exclusions.
Plaintiffs Michael Marrara and Michael Dotro, inmates at East
Jersey State Prison in Rahway, New Jersey, are proceeding pro se
with a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
and state law. They initiated this action on October 25, 2021, by
filing a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County. On April 8, 2022, Defendants removed
the matter to the District of New Jersey.
On April 29, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. Rather than file a response to the motion, on July 7,
2022, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, attaching a copy of the Amended Complaint, along with a
motion for class certification. The Court granted Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file an amended complaint and terminated
Defendants' initial motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Court
also deferred ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
pending Defendants' response to the Amended Complaint.
On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. On
August 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to
the Amended Complaint, which is fully briefed.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Esther Salas entered an order on February 3, 2023:
1. granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss;
2. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent
that it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' federal Section
1983 claims;
3. dismissing the Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against the
Defendants with prejudice for failure to state a claim for
relief;
4. remanding the Plaintiffs' state law claims to the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,
Docket Number MID-L-6279-21; and
5. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
motion to appoint Pro Bono Counsel as moot and without
prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to so move in state
court.
The appellate case is captioned as Michael Marrara, et al. v.
Philip D. Murphy, et al., Case No. 23-1379, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 2,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL MARRARA and MICHAEL DOTRO, on behalf
of themselves and all those similarly situated, appear pro se.
Defendants-Appellees PHILIP DUNTON MURPHY; STEPHEN M. SWEENEY;
CRAIG J. COUGHLIN; STATE OF NEW JERSEY, in its official capacity,
are represented by:
Eric M. Intriago, Esq.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
25 Market Street
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
Trenton, NJ 08625
Telephone: (856) 558-8096
NISSAN NORTH: Pascal Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN PASCAL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Cristian Pascal, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nissan
North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00492-JLS-JDE, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the California Superior Court, Orange Cty.,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
was filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant for alleged
violations of the California Legal Remedies Act by failing to
disclose and actively conceal the Nissan vehicles' defects;
marketing the Nissan vehicles as safe when they are not; and
advertising the Nissan vehicles with the intent not to sell or
lease them as advertised.
On June 22, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended
Complaint after the Court granted in part Nissan's motions to
dismiss their Second Amended Complaint and Fourth Amended Complaint
on July 8, 2021 and June 8, 2022, respectively.
On Dec. 21, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
exclude Plaintiffs' expert testimony, denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, and denied as moot the Defendant's motion
to strike Plaintiffs' expert declarations.
On January 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's December 21, 2022 ruling.
On February 21, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.
The appellate case is captioned Cristian Pascal, et al. v. Nissan
North America, Inc., Case No. 23-80021, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 9, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners CRISTIAN PASCAL, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Leslie A. Brueckner, Esq.
Todd Alan Walburg, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
Defendant-Respondent NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented by:
Andrew J. Detherage, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
11 South Meridian
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 236-1313
NURSING CORPS: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Nurses' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE GONZALEZ, Plaintiff v. NURSING CORPS, INC.; CLAYCO
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV04970 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 6, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated aggrieved employees,
arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California
Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to compensate for all
hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to give rest
breaks; failure to give meal breaks; failure to reimburse for
business expenses; sexual harassment and retaliation in violation
of FEHA; failure to prevent harassment and retaliation; retaliation
in violation of Labor Code; negligent retention and supervision;
wrongful termination in violation of Public Policy; intentional
infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional
distress; and unfair competition.
The Plaintiff's employment as a nurse with Nursing Corps ended
around March 2022. She was classified as an hourly, non-exempt
employee.
Nursing Corps, Inc. is an onsite medical service provider,
providing services such as onsite nurses, drug testing, and medical
surveillance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
NUVE MIGUEL: $450K Class Deal in Santos Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MARGARITO HERNANDEZ SANTOS, on behalf of himself,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. NUVE MIGUEL
CORP. d/b/a KEY FOODS, LUIS H. URGILES, KLEVER URGILES, and ANA
URGILES, Defendants, Case Nos. 22-CV-899, 21-CV-1335 (S.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York grants:
1. the Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of the Settlement
Class, Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement and
Approval of the FLSA Settlement;
2. the Plaintiff's Motions for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Expenses; and
3. the Plaintiff's Motions for a Service Award.
The Parties entered into a final settlement totaling $450,000 on
May 12, 2022 in a Class Settlement Agreement and the Plaintiff
filed for preliminary approval of the settlement on June 3, 2022,
which, for settlement purposes only, the Defendants did not
oppose.
On Aug. 25, 2022, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement on behalf of the Rule 23 class and FLSA
collective set forth therein, conditionally certifying the
settlement class, appointing Lee Litigation Group, PLLC as the
Class Counsel, appointing Arden Claims Service LLC as the
Settlement Administrator, and authorizing notice to all the Class
Members.
On Feb. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Final
Approval, which for settlement purposes only, the Defendants did
not oppose. That same day, the Plaintiff also filed Motions for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees and for a Service Award. The motions
were unopposed and Defendants did not object to the requests for
attorneys' fees, costs, or service payments.
The Court held a fairness hearing on Feb. 27, 2023. No Class Member
appeared or objected to the settlement at the hearing.
Having considered the Motion for Final Approval, the Motion for
Attorneys' Fees Costs and Expenses, the Motion for Service Award,
and the supporting declarations, the oral argument presented at the
Feb. 27, 2023 fairness hearing, and the complete record in the
matter, Judge Lehrburger confirms as final the certification of the
Class for settlement purposes.
Pursuant to 29 Section U.S.C. 216(b), he approves the FLSA
Settlement and certifies the collective class under the FLSA. He
confirms as final the appointment of Santos, as representative of
the Class, both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b). He likewise confirms as final the
appointment of C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC as the Class
Counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 and for individuals who opted into the Litigation pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), Judge Lehrburger grants the Motion for
Final Approval and finally approves the settlement as set forth
therein. He also grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and awards the Class Counsel their requested fees of $150,000,
one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus additional costs and
expenses of 9,346.88.
Judge Lehrburger approves and finds reasonable the service award of
$10,000 to the Named Plaintiff, in recognition of the services he
rendered on behalf of the class. The amount will be paid from the
Settlement Fund, subject to the terms of the Parties' Settlement
Agreement.
Judge Lehrburger also approves and finds reasonable the payment of
the Settlement Administrator's fees to Arden Claims Service in the
amount of $25,000, which will be paid by or on behalf of the
Defendants, out of the Settlement Fund, according to the terms of
the Parties' Settlement Agreement.
The Parties entered into the Settlement Agreement solely for the
purpose of compromising and settling disputed claims. The
Defendants in no way admit any violation of law or any liability
whatsoever to the Plaintiff and the Class, individually or
collectively, all such liability being expressly denied by the
Defendants.
The Court retains jurisdiction over the action for the purpose of
enforcing the Settlement Agreement and overseeing the distribution
of settlement funds. The Parties will abide by all terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Order.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate all
motions and close these cases.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/m2ywukj5 from Leagle.com.
OLYMPIAN LABS INC: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olympian Labs, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Olympian Labs, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02094 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Olympian Labs -- https://www.olympianlabs.com/ -- provides high
quality nutritional supplements and proteins that are the very best
in quality, purity, and efficacy.[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
OMV MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Fraser Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DALEEN FRASER, Plaintiff v. OMV MEDICAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22cv713-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James
Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denies the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.
In this putative class action alleging wages and hours violations
of California Labor Code, the Defendant moved to compel
arbitration. The Plaintiff filed an opposition, and the Defendant
replied. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted
without oral argument.
The Defendant offers medical staffing services to hospitals and
medical facilities, including the Naval Hospital at Camp Pendleton
in San Diego, California. The Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant as a non-exempt employee for approximately two years.
Throughout that time, she was placed at the Naval Hospital as a
full-time registered nurse in the emergency room.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to fully compensate
her and other employees by requiring them to work while clocked
out, failing to properly account for incentive compensation,
failing to provide uninterrupted meal and break periods or to
properly compensate for work during such periods, and failing to
provide complete and accurate itemized wage statements, among other
things.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint in the California Superior Court on
her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class. The Defendant
removed the action to the Court alleging that the Plaintiff's
claims arise out of her employment on a federal enclave.
Following removal, the Defendant moved pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. ("FAA"), to compel
arbitration based on the arbitration clause included in the
Plaintiff's offer of employment. The FAA mandates that district
courts will direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues
as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.
The Plaintiff contends that the arbitration agreement in her offer
letter is not valid. Section 2 of the FAA provides that an
arbitration agreement "shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract."
The Plaintiff argues that the arbitration clause is unconscionable.
The Defendant disagrees but, alternatively, offers to waive any
unconscionable provisions within the arbitration clause and
requests the Court to sever them.
To prevail, the Plaintiff must show that the arbitration clause is
both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
In the case, Judge Lorenz finds that the arbitration clause was
drafted by the Plaintiff's prospective employer and included in the
offer letter as a condition of employment. he says although the
Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has not shown any attempt to
negotiate the terms of the arbitration clause, a complaining party
need not show it tried to negotiate standardized contract terms to
establish procedural unconscionability. Moreover, the arbitration
clause was a condition of employment, implying that it was not
subject to negotiation. Accordingly, the Defendant's arbitration
clause was a contract of adhesion containing a sufficient degree of
procedural unconscionability to warrant examination of its
substantive fairness.
Judge Lorenz also finds that the Defendant's argument that the
reference to the AAA Rules in the arbitration clause negates any
unconscionability is unavailing. He says lowering the arbitration
expenses to make them more affordable does not negate substantive
unconscionability. Further, the AAA Rules "still impose an
impermissible risk" on the Plaintiff that the arbitrator would not
agree with her regarding "any material inconsistency" between the
arbitration agreement and the AAA Rules.
Lastly, Judge Lorenz holds that the severance is not appropriate
given the Defendant's inclusion of a fee-splitting provision that
has been impermissible under Armendariz for more than two decades.
For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4c5sn3mf from Leagle.com.
P. GRAHAM DUNN: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P. Graham Dunn, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. P. Graham Dunn, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02059 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
P. Graham Dunn -- https://www.pgrahamdunn.com/ -- manufactures
inspirational art, gifts, and home decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
PERRY ONAH: Vazquez Sues Over Construction Flaggers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGIE VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERRY ONAH ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a
SEC-CURITY, J. ANTHONY ENTERPRISES, INC, CAC INDUSTRIES, INC.,
TULLY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and ABC BONDING COMPANIES,
Defendants, Case No. 152084/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., March
6, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
the putative class, pursuant to New York Labor Law to recover
unpaid prevailing wages and/or supplemental benefits and unpaid
overtime wages which they are statutorily and contractually
entitled to receive for their services performed in connection with
the Defendants' Public Works Projects.
Named Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Sec-curity from
approximately 2018 to December 2022 at the sites of the Public
Works Projects. He performed construction work, including but not
limited to, flagging, shoveling, setting up and breaking down
barricades, moving construction barrels, taping, burning asphalt,
directing construction vehicles and equipment into and out of the
construction site, directing pedestrians and other related work.
Perry Onah Enterprises, Inc. acts as general contractor and/or
construction manager pursuant to contracts entered into the City or
State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
PICTSWEET COMPANY: Anciola Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESSE ANCIOLA, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PICTSWEET COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 22CV05170, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Barbara to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
March 8, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01754 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against
Defendant on behalf of himself and the putative class: (1) failure
to pay minimum and straight time wages; (2) failure to pay overtime
wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay wages
at termination; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; (7) failure to indemnify employees for expenditures;
and (8) unfair business practices.
The Pictsweet Company manufactures pre-packaged frozen food
products.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
Amelia Alvarez, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614-7276
Telephone: (949) 223-7000
Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
E-mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
amelia.alvarez@bclplaw.com
- and -
Robert E. Boone III, Esq.
Quincy J. Chuck, Esq.
MASCHOFF BRENNAN GILMORE & ISRAELSEN, PLLC
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 202-1900
Facsimile: (949) 453-1104
E-mail: rboone@mabr.com
qchuck@mabr.com
PIH HEALTH: Ahimbisibwe Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
DENIS AHIMBISIBWE, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. PIH HEALTH GOOD SAMARITAN
HOSPITAL, a nonprofit corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Case No. 23STCV04357 (Cal. Super., Los Angele Cty., March 6, 2023)
is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all other
nonexempt employees, arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
labor policies and practices.
The Plaintiff brings this suit for meal break violations; rest
break violations; failure to pay all wages owed; wage statement
penalty; waiting time penalties; violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law; race/color/national origin discrimination in
violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act;
hostile work environment in violation of FEHA; failure to take all
reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment
from occurring; retaliation in violation of FEHA; wrongful
termination in violation of the California Labor Code; and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a security
specialist from approximately September 13, 2021 through August 4,
2022, when they constructively terminated him.
PIH Health Good Samaritan Hospital is a hospital in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Gross, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, #2074
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
E-mail: Joseph@frontierlawcenter.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Reese Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA REESE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jessica Reese, et al., on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-10539-AD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Jessica Reese and David
Moncada bring suit against the Defendant, alleging breach of
contract, violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 176D, Section 3(9)(c), (d), (f), and (n), and requesting
declaratory judgment.
On Oct. 24, 2019, Reese's vehicle was damaged in a collision with
one of Defendant's insureds. Following the accident, the Defendant
determined that its insured's insurance policy (the "2016 Standard
Policy"), covered the loss. Subsequently, on Sept. 28, 2020,
Moncada's vehicle was involved in a separate motor vehicle
collision, which was caused by the negligence of another of the
Defendant's insureds. After the crash, the Defendant again
determined that the insured's policy, also the 2016 Standard
Policy, covered the loss.
The Defendant made payments to the Plaintiffs under Part 4 of the
Policy but did not pay them for the inherent diminished value
("IDV") of their vehicles as a result of the accidents. IDV
accounts for the fact that a vehicle that has been involved in a
collision and suffered damage is worth less on the resale market
than a comparable vehicle that has not suffered damage, even after
that damage is repaired. Reese and Moncada thereafter filed
requests for their vehicles' IDV on, respectively, March 2 and
March 22, 2021, which the Defendant denied.
Reese filed the initial complaint in Essex County Superior Court on
March 10, 2022, and the Defendant removed the case to the District
Court on April 12, 2022. On June 17, 2022, Reese and Moncada filed
the amended complaint, which added Moncada as a plaintiff and
brought additional claims. The Defendant moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on Aug. 26, 2022, and the Plaintiffs opposed the
motion on Sept. 9, 2022.
On Feb. 10, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint through an Order entered
by Judge Allison D. Burroughs. Applying that legal framework to the
pending claims, Judge Burroughs finds that because the Defendant's
interpretation of the Policy was not only plausible, but also
correct, failure to cover the Plaintiffs' claims for IDV damages
does not rise to the level of an unfair or deceptive act under 93A.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs have failed to point to any evidence of
bad faith or ulterior motives for the rejection of the IDV claims,
ruled the court.
The appellate case is captioned Reese, et al. v. Progressive Direct
Insurance Company, Case No. 23-1200, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on March 9, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing Statement and Appearance form are due on March 23,
2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JESSICA REESE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Robert J. Hartigan, Esq.
Kevin John McCullough, Esq.
MAZOW MCCULLOUGH PC
10 Derby Sq., 4th Fl.
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 744-8000
Defendant-Appellee PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Andrew R. Dennington, Esq.
CONN KAVANAUGH ROSENTHAL PEISCH & FORD LLP
1 Federal St., 15th Fl.
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 482-8200
- and -
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 389-5000
PROUD SOURCE WATER: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proud Source Water,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Proud Source Water,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02098-VSB (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Proud Source Water -- https://proudsourcewater.com/ -- provides
consumers with a better-for-you product that has naturally
occurring minerals and electrolytes.[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
RED BARN: Court Certifies Class Action Over Washroom Voyeurism
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Welch of Capital Daily reports that former Red Barn Market
assistant manager Matthew Schwabe secretly planted a camera in the
Mattick's Farm location women's bathroom and took recordings
between June 2012 and May 2014. A BC judge has now certified a
class action claim brought against him, and against Red Barn for
negligence and vicarious liability. Anyone surreptitiously
videotaped or photographed by Schwabe at that location's bathroom
or staff room can now join the suit brought by Jennifer Madill and
Mallory Fulmore.
The judgment allowing the suit also reveals further allegations
including that Schwabe exposed himself, that a manager dismissed
complaints about it, and that an owner directed advances and sexual
comments at teenagers.
Schwabe, now in his mid-30s, was sentenced in Nov. 2021 to 15
months for unlawfully observing and recording victims where they
would likely be nude, and publishing the images without consent.
Years of taking images of women and girls
Schwabe published the photos on a Russian porn site between Dec.
2015 and June 2016, at times pairing them with the subjects' names
or Facebook photos. A three-year investigation began in 2016 after
one person found explicit images of herself online.
The sentencing established that Schwabe's nine victims included
five recorded at Red Barn, one recorded at his home, and two
coworkers whose phones he stole photos from. Three were under 18 at
the time. The class-action application states that there are six
known workplace victims and seven others that Saanich Police have
images of.
A class-action effort has been ongoing for years; it was stayed in
spring 2018 when Schwabe filed for bankruptcy over just $4,484 in
debt, but a judge overturned that stay in early 2019.
Depositions allege sexual inappropriateness by Schwabe, his father,
and the workplace generally
The judgment released on March 13, 2023 includes allegations made
in depositions that paint a picture of a pattern of unchecked
sexual misbehaviour by Schwabe. That included sexual comments,
romantic advances (and antagonization of those who refused them),
and exposing himself.
A delicatessen employee, "C.J." in the document, deposed that
Schwabe exposed himself to her and prevented her from leaving, and
that the manager she reported it to not only dismissed it as "boys
will be boys" but gave her phone number to Schwabe, who called her
and pressured her not to report. C.J. alleged that that manager
threatened to penalize C.J. for further complaints, and that
escalating the issue to the GM only got C.J. reduced hours that
eventually dwindled to zero.
Other deposed staff spoke of a "locker room" environment, and there
were allegations that one owner commented lecherously about a
16-year-old employee. K.B. deposed that Sam Schwabe, one of four
owners and the father of Matthew, made "lewd comments about younger
girls" and asked for her number when he was late-40s and she was
about 19.
The plaintiffs argue that all of this suggests there was a broader
workplace culture that enabled Matthew -- who they call a
nepotistic hire -- and that this culture and a sense of impunity
from Matthew may have been furthered by his father. They also
question whether the senior Schwabe's 2014 departure was related to
behaviour toward girls and women.
Court was unmoved by Red Barn's objections to class
The plaintiffs sought a class suit against Matthew Schwabe for
violation of privacy, against Red Barn for vicarious liability for
his actions, and against Red Barn for negligence. It was the role
of Justice B.D. MacKenzie to determine if it was "plain and
obvious" that these claims would be doomed to fail in a trial.
After reading submissions from the plaintiffs and from Red Barn
(nothing was submitted by Matthew Schwabe), the Justice found that
this was not the case.
The plaintiffs argued that allowing an environment of sexual
inappropriateness facilitated Schwabe's later crimes; Red Barn
argued it was not vicariously liable because Schwabe's conduct was
unrelated to his duties and "unknown, unauthorized, unforeseen and
unforeseeable." But the judge agreed with the plaintiffs that this
argument by Red Barn was a counter suitable for an actual trial,
not evidence a trial would be unwarranted.
Red Barn's argument that the secret recordings were not
sufficiently similar to the workplace sexual inappropriateness seen
previously was similarly dismissed as a case to be made in trial,
not proof a trial would obviously fail. The plaintiffs also argued
that sexual misconduct of some kind was foreseeable and that the
exact acts need not have been predicted.
Red Barn's case against the class being a class also failed. There
are six identified people certainly affected and potentially seven
more based on images possessed by Saanich Police; the judge was
convinced that a class action was an appropriate way to involve
those seven and that they will later become identifiable rather
than remaining unknowable. [GN]
RICH DOSS INC: Haynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rich Doss, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Damon Haynes, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rich Doss, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2023-00335905-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March
9, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Rich Doss -- http://www.mydoss.com/-- is a logistics provider of
load by road through fast flatbed service solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Bergeron Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nicholas Bergeron, et al., filed an appeal from a
district court decision and order dated February 3, 2023 entered in
their lawsuit entitled NICHOLAS BERGERON and NICK QUATTROCIOCCHI,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Case No. 6:20-cv-06283-CJS-MJP,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York (Rochester).
Plaintiffs Nicholas Bergeron and Nick Quattrociocchi were students
enrolled for the spring semester 2020 in the undergraduate program
at RIT, a private not-for-profit educational institution located in
Monroe County, New York. In March 2020, consistent with emergency
declarations and orders from the state and local governments
regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, RIT shut down all on-campus,
in-person instruction and shifted to a "remote modality" to
instruct and serve its students for the remainder of the semester.
The complaint, filed on May 1, 2020, seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals; injunctive relief including enjoining California State
University from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for
tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals; reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and expenses; prejudgment and post-judgment interest on
any amounts awarded; and such other and further relief as may be
just and proper, plus refunds of all tuition fees paid on a
pro-rata basis, together with other damages resulting from breach
of contract and unjust enrichment.
On September 20, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. On the same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
class.
On October 28, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to preclude the
expert report of Dr. Charles Cowan, Ph.D.
On January 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended complaint.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Charles J. Siragusa entered an order on February 3, 2023 granting
in all respect Defendant RIT's motion for summary judgment.
The Court further ordered that:
-- RIT's motion to preclude Plaintiffs' expert report is denied
as moot;
-- the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as
moot; and
-- the Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint is
dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned as Bergeron, et al. v. Rochester
Institute of Technology, Case No. 23-271, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 2,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants NICHOLAS BERGERON and NICK QUATTROCIOCCHI,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
32 Ann Street, 3rd Floor
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Defendant-Appellee Rochester Institute of Technology is represented
by:
Fernando Santiago, Esq.
SANTIAGO BURGER LLP
2280 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14610
Telephone: (585) 563-7514
- and -
Qian Shen, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3521
ROSITA USA: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosita USA. The case
is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rosita USA, Case No. 1:23-cv-02095
(S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rosita Real Foods -- https://www.rositausa.com/ -- is a family-run
company in Norway that handcrafts the only wild-caught, raw and
unprocessed fish liver oils on the market today.[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
SAVIAN PIZZA: Joseph Sues Over Deliver Workers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosalyn Joseph, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
in this proposed collective action, Plaintiff v. Savian Pizza
Corp., Trinacria Group Staten Island Inc., and Salvatore Lopiccolo,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01960 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2023) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
Plaintiff Joseph was employed as a delivery worker at Defendants'
pizzeria located in Staten Island, New York.
Savian Pizza Corp. is a New York-based pizza restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
SEDUCTION COSMETIC: Adaramaja TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTIANAH ADARAMAJA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEDUCTION COSMETIC
CENTER CORP, Defendant, Case No. 2023-002431-CA-01, was removed
from the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on March 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-20855 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff in this complaint claims that she is entitled to
relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
Seduction Cosmetic Center Corp. is a plastic surgery center located
in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kubs Lalchandani, Esq.
Daniel E. Davis, Esq.
LALCHANDANI SIMON PL
25 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 1020
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 999-5291
Facsimile: (305) 671-9282
E-mail: kubs@lslawpl.com
ddavis@lslawpl.com
SIGNATURE BANK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reports that if you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 15, 2023 in
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Signature Bank (NASDAQ: SBNY, SBNYP) between March 2, 2023 and
March 12, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class includes those who purchased Signature Bank call options
and/or sold put options during the Class Period. The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Signature Bank investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Signature Bank class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12988 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) Signature Bank did not have the
strong fundamentals that it represented itself as having in the
days immediately prior to its takeover, or otherwise took action
that left it susceptible to a takeover by the New York Department
of Financial Services ("DFS"); (2) as a result, it became a target
for regulatory action by the DFS, and (3) 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.
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 15,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12988 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Contacts
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]
SILICON VALLEY: Failed to Disclose Future Interest, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Chapman of AP News reports that a class action lawsuit is
being filed against the parent company of Silicon Valley Bank, its
CEO and its chief financial officer, saying that company didn't
disclose the risks that future interest rate increases would have
on its business.
The lawsuit against SVB Financial Group, CEO Greg Becker and CFO
Daniel Beck was filed in the U.S. district court for the Northern
district of California. It is looking for unspecified damages to be
awarded to those who invested in SVB between June 16, 2021 and
March 10, 2023.
The lawsuit from shareholders led by Chandra Vanipenta says some
quarterly and annual financial reports from SVB didn't fully
account for warnings from the Federal Reserve about interest rate
hikes.
In particular, the lawsuit said that annual reports for 2020
through 2022, "understated the risks posed to the company by not
disclosing that likely interest rate hikes, as outlined by the Fed,
had the potential to cause irrevocable damage to the company," the
lawsuit stated.
It also claims that the company "failed to disclose that, if its
investments were negatively affected by rising interest rates, it
was particularly susceptible to a bank run."
The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank has shaken the technology
industry and worried small businesses and individuals with deposits
at the financial institution. The Biden administration's move
guaranteeing all Silicon Valley Bank's deposits above the insured
limit of $250,000 per account has brought relief to some.
Silicon Valley quickly established itself as the "go-to" spot for
venture capitalists looking for financial partners more open to
unconventional business proposals than its bigger, more established
peers who still didn't have a good grasp of technology.
Venture capitalists set up their accounts at Silicon Valley Bank
just as the tech industry started its boom and then advised the
entrepreneurs that they funded to do the same.
That cozy relationship came to an end when the bank disclosed a
$1.8 billion loss on low-yielding bonds that were purchased before
interest rates began to spike last year, raising alarms among its
financially savvy customer base who used the fruits of technology
to spread warnings that turned into a calamitous run on deposits.
[GN]
SNAP-ON INC: Breach Class Suit Settlement to Be Heard on May 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that the final approval hearing for the
settlement is scheduled for May 22, 2023 in the case-captioned
Carmack, et al. v. Snap-on Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00695-WED, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Snap-on agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims it
failed to prevent a 2022 data breach that compromised associate and
franchisee information.
The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was
compromised in the Snap-on data breach in March 2022.
According to the data breach class action lawsuit, the March 2022
incident occurred because Snap-on failed to implement reasonable
cybersecurity measures on its networks. This allegedly gave
cybercriminals easy access to sensitive associate and franchisee
information.
Snap-on is a tool manufacturer that has franchise locations across
the country. Snap-on Inc. includes a number of brands, such as
Snap-on, Blue-Point, BlackHawk, Cartec, John Bean and more.
Snap-on hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the class action lawsuit allegations.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash
payment based on the expenses they experienced as a result of the
data breach.
Class members who did not experience any instance of identity theft
or fraud can receive up to $750 for documented out-of-pocket
expenses including bank fees, communication charges, travel costs
and lost time at a rate of their actual hourly wage (no less than
$15 per hour but no more than $25 per hour). Class members who have
suffered identity theft or fraud can receive up to $2,500 for
documented data breach-related expenses.
Claimants can claim both payment options, as long as they can
provide documentation of data breach-related expenses in each
category.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 13, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
22, 2023.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 28, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal information was compromised in the
Snap-on data breach in March 2022
Potential Award
$3,250
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of data breach-related expenses
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
05/28/2023
Case Name
Carmack, et al. v. Snap-on Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00695-WED, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Final Hearing
05/22/2023
Settlement Website
SnapOnSecurityIncident.com
Claims Administrator
Snap-on Security Incident Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@SnapOnSecurityIncident.com
855-516-6668
Class Counsel
Nicholas A Migliaccio
Jason Rathod
Tyler Bean
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
Larry A Johnson
HAWKS QUINDEL SC
Defense Counsel
Mark David McPherson
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP [GN]
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA: Comeaux Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. La.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SUSAN COMEAUX, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant, Case No. 2023-505-Div.G, was removed from the 14th
Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Parish of Calcasieu, to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
on March 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00295-DCJ-KK to the proceeding.
This action is the last filed of currently nine putative class
actions pending against Defendant on behalf of a purported class of
individuals whose personal information was allegedly subject to
unauthorized access as a result of the October 2022 data security
incident involving Defendant's computer network.
Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association provides medical and
surgical hospital services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William B. Monk, Esq.
STOCKWELL SIEVERT LAW FIRM
Chase Bank Bldg.
127 W. Broad St., 4th Floor
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 493-7232
Facsimile: (337) 312-2919
- and -
Christopher A. Wiech, Esq.
Chelsea M. Lamb, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30309-7676
Telephone: (404) 946-9814
Facsimile: (404) 459-5734
E-mail: cwiech@bakerlaw.com
clamb@bakerlaw.com
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA: Guillory Breach Suit Removed to W.D. La.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LISA GUILLORY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant, Case No. 2023-000174-Div.F, was removed from the 14th
Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Parish of Calcasieu, to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
on March 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00292-RRS-CBW to the proceeding.
This action is the fifth-filed of currently nine putative class
actions pending against Defendant on behalf of a purported class of
individuals whose personal information was allegedly subject to
unauthorized access as a result of the October 2022 data security
incident involving Defendant's computer network.
Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association provides medical and
surgical hospital services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William B. Monk, Esq.
STOCKWELL SIEVERT LAW FIRM
Chase Bank Bldg.
127 W. Broad St., 4th Floor
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 493-7232
Facsimile: (337) 312-2919
- and -
Christopher A. Wiech, Esq.
Chelsea M. Lamb, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30309-7676
Telephone: (404) 946-9814
Facsimile: (404) 459-5734
E-mail: cwiech@bakerlaw.com
clamb@bakerlaw.com
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA: Manuel Breach Suit Removed to W.D. La.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHANTEL MANUEL AND HARRIET MANUEL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a LAKE CHARLES
MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 2023-000173-Div.G, was
removed from the 14th Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Parish
of Calcasieu, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana on March 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00290-JDC-KK to the proceeding.
This action is the fourth-filed of currently nine putative class
actions pending against Defendant on behalf of a purported class of
individuals whose personal information was allegedly subject to
unauthorized access as a result of the October 2022 data security
incident involving Defendant's computer network.
Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association provides medical and
surgical hospital services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William B. Monk, Esq.
STOCKWELL SIEVERT LAW FIRM
Chase Bank Bldg.
127 W. Broad St., 4th Floor
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 493-7232
Facsimile: (337) 312-2919
- and -
Christopher A. Wiech, Esq.
Chelsea M. Lamb, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30309-7676
Telephone: (404) 946-9814
Facsimile: (404) 459-5734
E-mail: cwiech@bakerlaw.com
clamb@bakerlaw.com
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA: Navarro Breach Suit Removed to W.D. La.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GEORGE NAVARRO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION d/b/a LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case
No. 2023-0218-Div.H, was removed from the 14th Judicial District
Court of Louisiana, Parish of Calcasieu, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on March 3,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00294-JDC-KK to the proceeding.
This action is the seventh-filed of currently nine putative class
actions pending against Defendant on behalf of a purported class of
individuals whose personal information was allegedly subject to
unauthorized access as a result of the October 2022 data security
incident involving Defendant's computer network.
Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association provides medical and
surgical hospital services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William B. Monk, Esq.
STOCKWELL SIEVERT LAW FIRM
Chase Bank Bldg.
127 W. Broad St., 4th Floor
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 493-7232
Facsimile: (337) 312-2919
- and -
Christopher A. Wiech, Esq.
Chelsea M. Lamb, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30309-7676
Telephone: (404) 946-9814
Facsimile: (404) 459-5734
E-mail: cwiech@bakerlaw.com
clamb@bakerlaw.com
SPEACH FAMILY CANDY: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Speach Family Candy
Shoppe, Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Speach Family Candy
Shoppe, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02056 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Speach Family Candy Shoppe, Inc. --
https://www.speachfamilycandy.com/ -- specializes in Handmade
Chocolates, hard-to-find nostalgia, and gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Sullivan Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Mr. Richard W
Sullivan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No.
4:23-cv-00169-GAF (W.D. Mo., March 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of 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 Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & MCCLAIN, PC
221 West Lexington, Suite 400
P. O. Box 900
Independence, MO 64051
Phone: (816) 836-5050
Fax: (816) 836-8966
Email: kbm@hfmlegal.com
jms@hfmlegal.com
STREETTEAM SOFTWARE: Ulmer Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dora L. Irizarry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismisses the case, TAYLER ULMER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STREETTEAM
SOFTWARE, LLC d/b/a POLLEN, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-5662(DLI)(CLP)(E.D.N.Y.), for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
On Sept. 22, 2022, Plaintiff Ulmer filed the action against the
Defendant alleging violations of the New York Labor Law, Sections
191, 193 ("NYLL") asserting the Court's diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). The Plaintiff brought the
action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 alleging that the
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class wages
on a timely basis and for all hours worked in violation of the
NYLL. She requests damages as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.
The Plaintiff brings an action in federal court based on diversity
jurisdiction. She bears the burden of establishing that the
requirements of such jurisdiction have been met. To invoke a
federal court's diversity jurisdiction, a party must establish
that: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of costs or interest; and (2) there exists
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Judge Irizarry finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish
either jurisdictional requirement, requiring dismissal.
First, she finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege facts
sufficient to establish plausibly that the amount in controversy
requirement is met. More fundamentally, none of the facts that are
alleged in the Complaint plausibly support an amount in controversy
beyond $75,000 and, if anything, suggest that it is highly
implausible that the monetary value of the asserted claims would or
could exceed that sum. Judge Irizarry declines to consider the
Plaintiff's requests for punitive damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees in assessing the amount in
controversy because the Complaint similarly is devoid of any
allegations that explain, justify, or attempt to value any of these
other forms of relief sought.
For the foregoing reasons the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the
amount in controversy requirement and, thus, has not established
the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the action, warranting
dismissal.
Judge Irizarry declines to provide the Plaintiff leave to amend the
Complaint because the allegations do not provide "any indication
that she is in possession of facts that would cure the problems
identified in the Memorandum and Order. However, the Plaintiff is
not without remedy. She may file a complaint in state court that
would not be subject to the amount-in-controversy requirement that
applies for diversity actions that are filed in a federal court.
Second, although the Plaintiff's failure to establish the amount in
controversy alone is sufficient to warrant dismissal, Judge
Irizarry notes that the Plaintiff also failed to establish
diversity of citizenship because she did not allege adequately her
own citizenship or that of the Defendant. She finds that the
Complaint is silent as to the Plaintiff's citizenship or domicile.
Thus, the allegations are insufficient to establish her citizenship
for diversity jurisdiction purposes. The Plaintiff also fails to
allege properly the citizenship of the Defendant, which is a
limited liability company.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the diversity of
citizenship requirement to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. As
noted, the Plaintiff is not without remedy as she may file a
complaint in state court.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Irizarry dismisses the action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denies as moot the
Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7ba965 from Leagle.com.
SUMMIT UTILITIES: Seeks to Dissolve TRO in Price Gouging Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Kienlen of KARK.com reports that on March 14, 2023, motions by
Summit were filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas to dissolve
the temporary restraining order. Attorneys maintained that the same
laws which allowed the lawsuit against a public utility to be moved
to federal court meant the restraining order was void until a
hearing is held in the Eastern District court.
The Summit Utilities class-action suit is now in federal court,
putting a hold on a restraining order against the utility filed
March 13, 2023.
The class-action lawsuit was filed on March 2 in Pulaski County
Circuit Court, claiming the utility was price-gouging and was not
providing service. Members of the class were Summit customers.
The next day, on March 3, an email undersigned by Summit CEO Kurt
Adams said among its points that the company would not collect late
fees or disconnect service through the winter, which ends on March
20.
On March 13, 2023, Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge LaTonya
Honorable signed a restraining order that would have prevented
Summit from disconnecting service and charging late or security
fees. The restraining order also allowed Summit customers to refuse
to make payments.
A hearing on the restraining order was scheduled for March 15 in
Honorable's court.
On the same day the restraining order was signed, attorneys for
Summit filed motions for the class action suit to be moved to
federal court in the Eastern District of Arkansas. The motion was
filed minutes before Honorable had signed the restraining order,
according to the filing by Summit attorneys.
On March 14, 2023, motions by Summit were filed in the Eastern
District of Arkansas to dissolve the temporary restraining order.
Attorneys maintained that the same laws which allowed the lawsuit
against a public utility to be moved to federal court meant the
restraining order was void until a hearing is held in the Eastern
District court.
The actions put the restraining order on hold until a hearing is
held in the Eastern District court. [GN]
SUNSHINE IMPORTS: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunshine Imports,
Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Sunshine Imports, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02064 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sunshine Imports, Inc. was founded in 1989. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of women's and
children's clothing and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SURVIVAL GEAR: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Survival Gear, Inc.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Survival Gear, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02034 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Survival Gear -- https://www.survivalgear.us/ -- offers the best
outdoor survival gear, tactical survival equipment, and survival
gadgets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
TARGET CORP: Cortez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUIS CORTEZ, on behalf of himself and other
individuals similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v.
TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2023CH00280, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01435 to the proceeding.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Target failed to pay overtime
and other earned compensation for time spent on premises at the
beginning and end of the workday. The Plaintiff asserts claims on
behalf of a putative class comprised of "current and former hourly
employees of Target who have worked in Target's Illinois
distribution centers in the three-year or ten-year period."
Target Corporation is an American retail corporation headquartered
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael H. Cramer, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 558-1220
Facsimile: (312) 807-3619
E-mail: michael.cramer@ogletree.com
- and -
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
Jessica Barranco, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
700 West 47th Street, Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 410-2226
Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletree.com
jessica.barranco@ogletree.com
TELECON LLC: Shaw Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Ga.
----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Telecon LLC, et al.
The case is captioned as Jermaine Shaw, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Telecon LLC and
Tania Thompson, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00967-ELR (N.D. Ga.,
March 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Telecon LLC provides telecommunications solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
John Lawrence Mays, Esq.
PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 14th St. NE, 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
E-mail: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com
TESLA INC: Faces Two Class Suits Over Monopolizing Repair Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Neukam of The Hill reports that Tesla was hit with two
antitrust class action lawsuits this week, alleging that the
company curbed competition for repairs and replacement of vehicle
parts.
The two suits filed this week in a federal court in San Francisco
argue that the company designed its vehicles and warranty policies
to discourage customers from seeking maintenance from outside
entities, forcing them to wait longer and pay more for repairs.
The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were forced to "pay
supracompetitive prices and suffer exorbitant wait times to
maintain and repair their Tesla vehicles as a result of Tesla's
monopolization, attempted monopolization, exclusionary conduct, and
restraint of the markets for compatible replacement parts and
maintenance and repair services. "
The suits were both filed by California residents, but the class in
both suits would be anyone who bought Tesla parts or paid the
company for repairs beginning in March 2019.
The lawsuits against Tesla come as it has dealt with scrutiny over
the safety of its vehicles in recent months, including a federal
investigation and a number of recalls.
The company found itself under a new federal investigation earlier
this month after a number of reports of steering wheels falling off
in one of their vehicles while driving. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration opened a probe into the company,
according to a filing, saying it was made aware of two instances of
2023 Model Y vehicle steering wheels suffering "complete
detachment" while driving due to the absence of a retaining bolt.
The company recalled more than 360,000 vehicles of the same model
last month as federal regulators said its automated driving
technology may increase risks of crashes.
The Hill has reached out to Tesla for comment. [GN]
TESLA INC: Taylor Sues Over Failure to Provide Complete Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHARONDA TAYLOR, TATIANNA SMITH, ZENOBIA MILLIGAN, and SHAKA GREEN,
individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees,
Representative Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC. doing business in
California as TESLA MOTORS, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, Case No. 23CV028922 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., March
7, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code, by
failing to provide current and former employees with complete
personnel records, time and pay records, and signed instruments
upon the request of the current or former employee.
The Representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of the State of
California, represent aggrieved employees who worked for Defendant
as direct hires or through staffing agencies, in the state of
California from February 9, 2021 to the present, and who requested
but were not provided timely and/or complete personnel records,
including but not limited to time and pay records, signed
arbitration agreements, and documents concerning grievances.
Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean
energy company headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
180 Grand Ave, Suite 1380
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 444-9300
Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
- and -
Lawrence Organ, Esq.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP
332 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Telephone: (415) 453-4740
Facsimile: (415) 785-7352
E-mail: larry@civilrightsca.com
TOMMY BAHAMA: Sherman Sues Over Overcharge Tax Monies
-----------------------------------------------------
Craig Sherman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., TOMMY BAHAMA R&R HOLDINGS,
INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00290 (E.D. Mo., March 9, 2023), is brought
on behalf of a proposed class of Missouri residents who purchased
products for personal, family, or household use from Tommy Bahama
through remote sales channels, including its internet website which
contained erroneously overcharge tax monies.
Missouri state law mandates that retailers charge a "use tax" on
sales of their products through remote means, including an internet
website, telephone, catalog or other remote communications system
(collectively, "remote sales channel(s)"), to Missouri purchasers
that are shipped from an out-of-state facility. The state use tax
rate for these sales is 4.225%. There are also additional local use
taxes that are imposed on sales made through remote sales channels
based on the delivery address of the Missouri purchasers.
The Defendants erroneously overcharge tax monies at a higher tax
rate than the correct applicable use tax rate on products purchased
through remote sales channels, including from Tommy Bahama's
internet website, that are shipped to Missouri customers from an
out-of-state facility, resulting in the overcollection of monies
from Missouri consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased an Azul Fronds Billboard Lux Long-Sleeve
T-Shirt and La Jolla Long-Sleeve Crew shirt from Tommy Bahama's
website.
The Defendant conducts and has conducted business in Missouri
through remote sales channels, including making sales through its
internet website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
- and -
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
Email: sbeck@bursor.com
jwolloch@bursor.com
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Suit Over Dark Chocolate Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Barba of Daily Meal reports that Trader Joe's is facing a
new lawsuit after a December 2022 Consumer Reports investigation
showed that a single ounce of its Dark Chocolate 72% Cacao bar has
192% of the highest amount of lead that is supposed to be in the
product. In addition, the report found that a single ounce of the
Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate Lover's Chocolate 85% Cacao bar has
127% of the maximum amount of lead and 229% of the maximum amount
of cadmium.
Consumer Reports, a nonprofit organization, suggests that these
levels are concerning because taking in even small amounts of these
heavy metals over time can lead to health issues such as cancer,
issues with development and the nervous system, and hypertension.
It can also affect the immune system, kidneys, and reproduction. In
total, Consumer Reports examined 28 chocolate bars from Trader
Joe's, Lindt, Dove, and more. While they all contained lead and
cadmium, 23 of the chocolate bars contained dangerous numbers of
the metals.
Trader Joe's, meanwhile, has defended the chocolate bars. "Trader
Joe's stands by the safety of its products," a lawyer from Trader
Joe's legal counsel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, told Consumer Reports
in February.
According to two of three class-action lawsuits filed against the
company, Trader Joe's has reportedly known about the alleged metals
in its products since 2014 (via Eat This, Not That!). Dawn Sestito,
a partner at O'Melveny & Myers, wrote to Consumer Reports in
February, "Of course Trader Joe's takes this matter seriously --
and in fact, has been working on it for years."
Still, customers are concerned. The Daily Universe at Brigham Young
University reports that McKenzie Cloward, a regular Trader Joe's
customer, said she would like to learn more. "It would definitely
deter me from buying it, a little bit, just until things are kind
of figured out more," she said. The Daily Universe also spoke to
Brock Ellison, who said he is worried about the results. "My friend
gave me a pound of dark chocolate from Trader Joe's. It was just a
gift from him to me and I pounded that in like a day or two, didn't
feel too good afterwards, especially after I found out that there
might be lead in it. That was kind of concerning to find that out,"
he said.
Customers who bought the Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate Bar have been
encouraged to reach out to Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP to talk
about their rights. The firm is looking into why Trader Joe's
didn't let customers know about how much lead and cadmium are in
these products, which may go against local and federal laws. [GN]
TRADER JOE'S: Herd Suit Transferred to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tamakia Herd, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No.
1:23-cv-00065 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on March 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00444-L-KSC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Deceptive Trade
Practices.
Trader Joe's -- https://www.traderjoes.com/ -- is an American chain
of grocery stores headquartered in Monrovia, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max Stuart Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Ave., Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: mroberts@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Danielle Feuer, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Time Square Tower
7 Time Square
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (213) 430-6069
- and -
Dawn Sestito, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
Phone: (213) 430-6000
Email: dsestito@omm.com
TROPICAL RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Solis Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Andrade Solis, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v.
Tropical Restaurant Bar Inc., 88-18 Tropical Restaurante Corp.,
Jaime Antonio Pesantez, and Jaime Illescas (a/k/a Jimmy Illescas),
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01707 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2023) seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, unlawfully deducted
gratuities, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and NYLL's Wage
Theft Prevention Act.
Plaintiff Solis was employed as a non-managerial employee at
Tropical Restaurant from March 2020 through February 28, 2023. He
was ostensibly employed as a waiter, bartender, busboy and general
worker at Defendants' restaurant known as "Tropical Restaurant."
Tropical Restaurant Bar Inc. is a New York-based company that
operates in the restaurants industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
TRULIEVE INC: WARN Class Action Suit Over Mass Layoffs Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
WCTV Staff reports that a class action lawsuit filed in the wake of
dozens of layoffs at Trulieve facilities in Gadsden, Jefferson and
Madison counties has now been dismissed.
Federal court records show the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff's attorney February 28th, and a judge confirmed the
dismissal and closed the file in an order dated March 1st.
Ranjill O'Neal filed suit against the medical marijuana company in
December 2022 claiming she and another 50-plus employees had been
laid off "without cause on or about November 29." O'Neal and the
other workers were suing for unpaid wages, holiday pay, bonuses and
more.
O'Neal's attorney, Tiffany Cruz, telling WCTV, "The case was
dismissed as the matter was resolved between the parties." WCTV has
reached out to try to clarify how the case was resolved.
Trulieve spokesman Steve Vancore said, "It is our understanding
that the lawsuit was withdrawn by the plaintiff lawyer because it
was clear that Trulieve did not violate the WARN Act."
Trulieve never specified how many employees had been laid off and
attributed the job cuts to achieving "greater efficiencies" and
"consolidating redundant positions" in the wake of a 2021 merger
with Harvest Health and Recreation.
The federal lawsuit was dismissed "without prejudice," meaning
there was no decision on its merits. [GN]
UNITED PARCEL: Thistlewaite Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHEN THISTLEWAITE, individually, and on behalf
of a Class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio corporation; ROBBIE GAZE, an
individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2022-01298622-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
March 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01597 to the proceeding.
The action asserts allegations for: (i) failure to pay all minimum
and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
California Labor Code; (ii) failure to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof under the California Labor Code; (iii)
failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof
under the California Labor Code; (iv) failure to timely pay wages
due at termination under the California Labor Code; (v) failure to
provide accurate wage statements under the California Labor Code;
(vi) failure to pay wages due and payable twice each month under
the California Labor Code; (vii) failure to reimburse business
expenses under the California Labor Code; and (viii) unlawful
competition in violation of the California Business & Professions
Code.
United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational shipping &
receiving and supply chain management company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
Amanda M. Osowski, Esq.
GBG LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 358-2810
Facsimile: (213) 995-6382
E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
amandaosowski@gbgllp.com
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP: Mansor Files Suit in W.D. Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. The case is styled as
Fayez Mansor, Eclesiaste Coissy, Cabdi Ibrahim Xareed, Shukria
Zafari, on behalf of themselves as individuals and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, United States
Department of Homeland Security; Ur M Jaddou, Director, United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Case No. 2:23-cv-00347
(W.D. Wash., March 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Immigration Actions for the
Administrative Procedure Act.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services --
https://www.uscis.gov/ -- is responsible for processing immigration
and naturalization applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matt Adams, Esq.
Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
Glenda M Aldana Madrid, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA)
615 2nd Ave., Ste. 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 957-8611
Email: matt@nwirp.org
aaron@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org
UNITED STATES: Murphy Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAUREEN MURPHY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Maureen Murphy, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gina Raimondo, in her
official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05377-DGE, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.
The Plaintiffs bring this suit challenging the constitutionality of
the Census Bureau's ability to compel Americans' responses to the
American Community Survey ("ACS"). The Plaintiffs seek declaratory
relief and injunctive relief to ensure they are not compelled to
answer the ACS. They claim the Census Bureau's actions are ultra
vires, the statutes that authorize the Census Bureau to conduct the
ACS violate the non-delegation doctrine, and that the ACS compels
speech in violation of the First Amendment and invades the
Plaintiffs' rights to privacy.
On June 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.
On July 26, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. The Plaintiffs filed a cross motion on Aug. 26, 2022.
On Jan. 3, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment through an Order entered by Judge David G.
Estudillo. The Plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment was
denied. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class was also denied as
moot. The Court held that the Plaintiffs' claims are too remote to
justify the exercise of jurisdiction and are not ripe for
resolution at this time. The Court concluded that the Defendants
are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
The appellate case is captioned Maureen Murphy, et al. v. Gina
Raimondo, et al., Case No. 23-35166, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 9, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants John Huddleston and Maureen Murphy Mediation
Questionnaire was due on March 16, 2023;
-- Appellants John Huddleston and Maureen Murphy opening brief
is due on May 10, 2023;
-- Appellees Gina Raimondo, Robert Santos, United States Census
Bureau and United States Department of Commerce answering brief is
due on June 12, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MAUREEN MURPHY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Aditya Dynar, Esq.
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
3100 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1000
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (916) 419-7111
- and -
Brian T. Hodges, Esq.
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
1425 Broadway, Suite 429
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (425) 576-0484
Defendants-Appellees GINA RAIMONDO, in her official capacity as
Secretary of Commerce, et al. are represented by:
John Robinson, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1100 L. Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 616-8489
UROLOGY OF GREATER ATLANTA: Kreider Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urology of Greater
Atlanta, LLC. The case is styled as Cathy Kreider, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Urology of
Greater Atlanta, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01011-MHC (N.D. Ga., March
9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Urology of Greater Atlanta -- https://ugatl.com/ -- offers the
residents of Atlanta a team of top quality Urologists and surgeons
experienced in every aspect of urology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Hale Van Horn, Esq.
BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
3475 Piedmont Road Northeast, Suite 1640
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 261-7711
Fax: (404) 233-1943
Email: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Gibbs Labor Suit Removed to N.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICHARD GIBBS, on behalf of himself, RICHARD GIBBS,
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., and any other affiliated entities that
employed Plaintiff and members of the putative class, Defendant,
Case No. EFCA2023-000162, was removed from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Oneida, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York on March 6, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of New York assigned
Case No. 6:23-cv-00300-DNH-ATB to the proceeding.
In the complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for violations of the New
York Labor Law and the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and
for disability discrimination and retaliation under the New York
State Human Rights Law and New York Executive Law.
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is an American multinational retail
corporation.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Gomez-Sanchez, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 247-4713
Facsimile: (631) 824-9249
E-mail: dsgomez@littler.com
- and -
William Anthony, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-3298
Telephone: (212) 471-4404
E-mail: wanthony@littler.com
WALMART INC: Opposition to Class Certification Due March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR GUZMAN and JAMES
MARSHALL, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART STORES, INC., a
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-09133-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nanthanel M. Cousins
entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue class the
plaintiff, certification briefing and. hearing dates.
Event Deadline
Opposition to Class Certification March 31, 2023
Reply Motion for Class Certification April 14, 2023
Hearing on Motion for Class May 3, 2023, at
Certification 11:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 5
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZYoTOT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com
- and -
B. James Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Laura Franklin, Esq.
FITZPATRICK & SWANSTON
555 S. Main Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Telephone: (831) 755-1311
Facsimile: (831) 755-1319
E-mail: bjfitzpatrick@fandslegal.com
lfranklin@fandslegal.com
- and -
Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
HYUN LEGAL, APC
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
Alis M. Moon, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
Alis.moon@ogletree.com
WALMART INC: Weinberg Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrew Weinberg, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02023-5248-CU-BT-CTL was removed from the
Superior Court, San Diego County, California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on March 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00454-LL-BLM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the
United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
James T. Hannink, Esq.
Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
DOSTART HANNINK LLP
4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 623-4230
Fax: (858) 623-4299
Email: jhannink@sdlaw.com
zdostart@sdlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Shawn Rieko Obi, Esq.
WINSTON & STAWN LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 615-1819
Fax: (213) 615-1750
Email: sobi@winston.com
WENDELL AUGUST FORGE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wendell August Forge
Incorporated. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Wendell August Forge
Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-02072 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wendell August Forge, Inc. -- https://www.wendellaugust.com/ --
manufactures hand-wrought ornamental metalware and giftware
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
WESTWEGO, LA: Patton Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WESLEY PATTON is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing his lawsuit entitled John Wesley Patton, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Westwego
City, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-3408, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of prisoners' civil
rights.
The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Ivan L.R.
Lemelle on Feb. 13, 2023. The motion to dismiss filed by Jon A.
Gegenheimer and Cherise Foret was granted and the Plaintiff's
claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against those
Defendants were dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff's claims
brought against the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center, the
Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, and the Jefferson Parish
Sheriff's Office/Internal Management Bureau were dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A. The Plaintiff's claims
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the New Orleans
Family Justice Center and Martin Regan were dismissed without
prejudice. Any claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
against any other remaining defendants were dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The appellate case is captioned Patton v. Westwego City, Case No.
23-30138, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on March 10, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN WESLEY PATTON, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees WESTWEGO CITY, et al. are represented by:
Craig Robert Watson, Esq.
Guice Anthony Giambrone, III, Esq.
BLUE WILLIAMS, L.L.C.
3421 N. Causeway Boulevard
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 831-4091
- and -
Darren Anthony Allemand, Esq.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053
Telephone: (504) 361-2629
- and -
Deborah A. Villio, Esq.
LEBLANC FANTACI VILLIO, L.L.C.
3421 N. Causeway Boulevard
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 828-1010
- and -
Jacqueline Bordelon Wilson, Esq.
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1885 N. 3rd Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 326-6362
- and -
Carey Buckland Daste, Esq.
JEFFERSON PARISH CLERK OF COURT
200 Derbigny Avenue
General Government Building
Gretna, LA 70053
Telephone: (504) 364-2910
- and -
Richard C. Stanley, Esq.
STANLEY, REUTER, THORNTON & ALFORD, L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 523-1580
- and -
John Courtney Wilson, Esq.
1510 Veterans Memorial Boulevard
Metairie, LA 70005
Telephone: (504) 832-0585
- and -
Ralph Roger Alexis, III, Esq.
PORTEOUS, HAINKEL & JOHNSON, L.L.P.
704 Carondelet Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
WHAT IF HOLDINGS: Williams Appeals Denied Bid to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORETTA WILLIAMS is taking an appeal from a court order denying her
motion for leave to file first amended class action complaint in
the lawsuit entitled Loretta Williams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. What If Holdings,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03780-WHA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought to obtain redress for, and to put an end to, the
Defendants' serial wiretapping of the electronic communications of
visitors to C4R Media's websites, including
claim.foundmoneyguide.com, in violation of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act ("CIPA").
The wiretaps are embedded in the computer code on C4R Media's
websites and are used by Defendants to covertly observe and record
visitors' keystrokes and clicks in real time. Such actions violated
the CIPA and invaded the Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy
rights.
On Sept. 12, 2022, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge William Alsup on Dec. 22, 2022.
On Jan. 5, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
first amended class action complaint, which the Court denied on
Feb. 13, 2023. Judge Alsup held that the proposed amendments add no
additional facts regarding the actual alleged violations.
The appellate case is captioned Loretta Williams v. What If
Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-15337, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 9, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Loretta Williams Mediation Questionnaire was due on
March 16, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on May 8, 2023;
-- Appellant Loretta Williams opening brief is due on June 15,
2023;
-- Appellees ActiveProspect Inc. and What If Holdings, LLC
answering brief is due on July 17, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LORETTA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq.
Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0676
(720) 213-0675
Defendants-Appellees WHAT IF HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. are represented
by:
Lauri Anne Mazzuchetti, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telephone: (212) 808-7800
- and -
Becca Wahlquist, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 547-4916
WHOLE FOODS: Foster Appeals Fraud Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Julian Foster filed an appeal from a district court
memorandum & order dated February 3, 2023, entered in the lawsuit
entitled JULIAN FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-01240-ERK-RML, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.
Plaintiff Foster filed this action on March 7, 2022 against
Defendant WFM, principally alleging that the front label of WFM's
branded Fish Oil softgel product is false and deceptive because it
suggests to a reasonable consumer that the Product contains 1000mg
of two types of Omega-3s -- Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA) and
Docosahexanoiac Acid (DHA) -- per capsule, when in fact the Product
contains only 300mg of Omega-3s per capsule.
On April 15, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On July 29, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Edward R. Korman entered an order on February 3, 2023 granting
WFM's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with
prejudice. The court held that the Plaintiff requests leave to
amend his complaint in the event that WFM's motion is granted, but
does not offer any explanation of what new allegations might be
added that would cure the first amended complaint's pleading
deficiencies regarding how the Product's label is materially
misleading to a reasonable consumer.
The appellate case is captioned as Foster v. Whole Foods Market
Group, Inc., Case No. 23-285, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on March 3, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Julian Foster, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
Defendant-Appellee Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. is represented
by:
Brian Richard Blackman, Esq.
BLAXTER BLACKMAN LLP
601 California Streetm Suite 1505
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-7705
XCENTRIC VENTURES: Selker Suit Remanded to San Diego Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK SELKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC; and DOES
1 through 300, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00393-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T. Benitez of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California:
(1) grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and grants in part
his Request for Attorneys' Fees; and
(2) denies as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and
Compel Arbitration.
Selker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
brings the action against Xcentric, doing business as Ripoff
Report, for violations of California law. The Plaintiff is a
citizen and resident of San Diego County and the state of
California. He runs a fine art business.
The Defendant is a resident of both Arizona and Nevada. It runs a
website called Ripoff Report, where users can submit negative
reviews online about persons or businesses. The reviews/complaints
are considered "Reports." Ripoff requires users to create an
account before posting a Report but does not verify the identity of
the users, and users can submit reports 'anonymously,' or under a
fake name. Its reports frequently appear on popular search engines,
like www.google.com, when certain key terms are used.
Ripoff has terms of service that limit or prohibit certain subject
matter in Reports. Users cannot post anything with the sole
intention to harass or bully any particular individual. Ripoff also
reserves the right to remove private personal information, and
unsubstantiated allegations of serious criminal acts. However, no
matter the circumstances, once a Report is submitted, Ripoff will
not take it down and instead, only offers the victim -- the subject
of the Report -- an opportunity to submit a rebuttal refuting all
or a portion thereof. By refusing to remove Reports, Ripoff extorts
money from the victims of false Reports by requiring them to pay
exorbitant penalty payments.
Ripoff promotes a so-called 'VIP Arbitration Program' to mitigate
the impact of a Report, and VIP stands for "Voluntary, Impartial,
and Private." It charges a non-refundable $2,000, per challenged
Report, to initiate the VIP Arbitration Program -- Ripoff receives
$1,000 and the arbitrator receives $1,000. There is also a
nonrefundable $250 fee for each additional comment resulting from
that Report. The full cost must be paid before the VIP Arbitration
Program can commence. If the author of the Report defaults, does
not respond, or the complainant's evidence refuting the validity of
the Report goes unchallenged, no portion of the $2,000 fee is
reimbursed.
The victim must also sign a standard form entitled "Ripoff Report
VIP Arbitration Agreement." By signing, the victim agrees to
arbitration, and (among other things) agrees not to challenge the
Agreement as a contract of adhesion or violative of any consumer
protection or similar laws. The Agreement also contains a choice of
law and forum selection clause, both of which name the state of
Arizona. Ripoff appoints the arbitrator in its sole discretion, and
assigns cases to Arbitrators in Ripoff Report's pool of
professional Arbitrators, and prohibits the victim from making any
contact with the Arbitrator. Ripoff also has additional fees that
people and businesses can pay in exchange for its promise that it
will mitigate the impact of a negative review.
On Oct. 17, 2017, an individual by the name of 'boba' from
Encinitas posted an anonymous Report about the Plaintiff and his
business. The author of the Report also provided a link to the
Plaintiff's business website and placed the report under the
"Questionable Activities" and "Sex Offender" categories. The
Plaintiff does not know a 'boba,' and never rented a room, a
residence, or had a landlord by the name of a 'boba' or anything
similar sounding. He alleges the Report insinuated that he may have
committed a crime against a minor, which was defamatory, false, and
made with malice. He also alleges that the Report was made solely
for purposes of harassment and perceived cyberharassment,
cyberstalking, and a form of a 'revenge post.'
The Plaintiff alleges a number of harms that occurred after the
Report was posted and as a result of the report, including but not
limited to: (1) issues entering into leases with prospective
tenants who were interested in renting rooms at the Rancho Sante Fe
home he was residing in; (2) a decline in business sales to the
point where the Plaintiff was forced to change the name of his
business and setup a new website and email; (3) the termination of
his role at Alpha Strategem (a company that helps businesses
increase sales and online presence), as well as a 28% reduction in
his equity position there; and (4) issues in his personal life,
especially with persons he met after the Report was posted. When he
used certain search terms using his name, the Report would always
appear as the very first result in popular search engines.
The Plaintiff attempted to get the Report removed, but Ripoff
demanded that he pay a fee and sign the Arbitration Agreement, or
pay for a service entitled 'NoIndex' at a cost of $5,500 to
'de-index' his Report from online search engines. On Jan. 22, 2018,
the Plaintiff's attorney requested Ripoff to remove the "Sex
Offender" category.
Around January and February 2022, Ripoff offered the NoIndex
service to the Plaintiff for a discounted fee of $2,500. The
Plaintiff paid the fee and although the Report was de-indexed, it
was allowed to remain on Ripoff's website. Because the only way to
remove the Report was to join in the VIP Arbitration Program, the
Plaintiff wanted to participate.
Ripoff required that the Plaintiff sign the Arbitration Agreement
before initiating the VIP process to clear his name. When the
Plaintiff attempted to strike out certain onerous or unconscionable
terms, Ripoff would not permit any negotiation of its Arbitration
Agreement, forcing the Plaintiff to sign a 'take-it or leave-it'
contract instead. Not wanting to be bound by the terms, the
Plaintiff did not sign the Agreement. He alleges that he "continues
to be harmed to this day" and makes numerous class allegations.
The Plaintiff initially filed his Class Action Complaint for
Damages in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
alleging: (1) Unfair Business Practices in violation of Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; and (2) Breach of the
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The Defendant
removed the case to the Court on March 24, 2022, on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction, arguing that the Plaintiff's state
law claims are completely preempted by the Communications Decency
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1). Shortly thereafter, the Defendant
filed the instant Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. The
Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant Motion to Remand. The
Defendant timely filed an Opposition and the Plaintiff replied.
Judge Benitez examines the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The
Plaintiff argues the case should be remanded because there is no
federal question jurisdiction as set forth in the Defendant's
Notice of Removal. The Defendant responds that federal question
jurisdiction exists through the artful pleading doctrine, and that
diversity jurisdiction forms a second basis for removal. The
Plaintiff replies that the Defendant did not originally remove the
case based on diversity jurisdiction, nor did it amend its Notice
of Removal. The Plaintiff further argues that the Defendant failed
to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. He
also moves for attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1447(c).
First, Judge Benitez finds that the Defendant's Notice of Removal
argues that the Communications Decency Act (the "CDA") completely
preempts the claims brought by the Plaintiff. However, Judge
Benitez finds that the complete preemption exception to the
well-pleaded complaint rule is narrow and because it is clear that
the CDA does not completely preempt state law, the exception does
not apply. Because the Plaintiff's claim is not completely
preempted by the CDA, the court lacks federal question
jurisdiction.
Second, Judge Benitez finds that the burden is on the Defendant to
establish that remand is proper, and he will not supply arguments
for the Defendant to defeat the Plaintiff's Motion. He says the
Plaintiff's state law claims may implicate certain aspects of the
CDA with respect to the Report but again, if any immunity or
partial preemption defenses are available, those defenses cannot be
asserted as bases for removal. The Defendant has not met its burden
of proving an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule for
purposes of remand, and Judge Benitez cannot find federal question
jurisdiction.
Third, the Defendant also waived any right to assert diversity
jurisdiction by failing to effectively preserve that right in its
Notice of Removal. And, even if assertions in the Defendant's
Opposition were to be construed as amendments to its Notice of
Removal, Judge Benitez would remain unpersuaded.
Lastly, because the Defendant never asserted diversity jurisdiction
as grounds for removal and never moved to amend its Notice of
Removal to add this ground, the Plaintiff was not on notice that
the Defendant would argue for diversity jurisdiction in its
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. With respect to
jurisdictional discovery, the Defendant has given the Court no
reason to grant this request. There are also no facts to
controvert, because the Defendant provided no substantive arguments
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Therefore, because the Defendant has failed to establish federal
jurisdiction, Judge Benitez grants the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand. The case is remanded to the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego.
Next, Judge Benitez examines the Plaintiff's Request for Attorneys'
Fees. The Plaintiff requests that the Court awards attorneys' fees
in the amount of $21,387.50 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).
He asserts that attorney Jeffrey L. Hogue worked at an hourly rate
of $725 and spent 15.2 hours on the Motion, billing a total of
$11,020. He requests an additional $8,950. The Plaintiff asserts
that attorney Tyler J. Belong billed at an hourly rate of $725 and
spent 10.2 hours on the briefing. He further states that Mr. Hogue
billed at an hourly rate of $725 and spent roughly four additional
hours on the Reply.
The Defendant argues that attorneys' fees are not appropriate but
makes no arguments respecting the reasonableness of the Plaintiff's
requested sum.
Judge Benitez cannot say the quality of representation supports a
downward multiplier of the hourly rate, but the cited cases do not
indicate that $725 is a reasonable rate for a motion to remand
involving fairly straightforward issues. As such, he exercises
discretion and decreases the hourly rate to $575. This reduction is
based on the Plaintiff's failure to sufficiently justify its $725
hourly rate, as well as cases in this district finding lower rates
reasonable.
As to the number of hours Mr. Belong billed, Judge Benitez finds
that Mr. Belong drafted the Reply but both attorneys spent time
analyzing the Opposition and revising the Reply. The declaration
fails to distinguish between the tasks performed by each attorney
with respect to the analytical and revisionary work. Judge Benitez
thus finds Mr. Hogue's analysis of the Opposition and revisions to
the Reply duplicative, in light of Mr. Belong performing the same
tasks.
Judge Benitez grants in part the Plaintiff's request for fees.
Applying his reduced $575 hourly rate to 25.4 total hours expended,
the fees amount to $14,605. Accordingly, he grants in part the
Plaintiff's request and awards the Plaintiff attorneys' fees in the
amount of $14,605.
Because he remands the case to California Superior Court, the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration are now moot
and, therefore, denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ndmm8jhf from Leagle.com.
XEROX CORP: Court Vacated $185M Attorney's Fees Award in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. of JD Supra reports that the Ninth
Circuit held Xerox waived its right to compel arbitration against
putative class members when it acted inconsistently with its right
to arbitrate prior to class certification in litigation against a
named representative to which it unquestionably could not request
arbitration.
The Federal Circuit vacated an $185 million award of attorneys'
fees in a class action settlement. The Federal Circuit vacated the
award for three reasons.
First, the Claims Court failed to perform a lodestar cross-check as
expressly guaranteed in the court-approved class notices.
Second, the declaration submitted by Class Counsel indicated the
lodestar amount would be no more than $10 million, and the $185
million award was approximately 18 to 19 times more. The Federal
Circuit noted that a number of courts have awarded multipliers in
the range of 1 to 4 but a multiplier of 18 or 19 "is far outside
the evidence relevant norm and so would require exception
justification."
Third, the Federal Circuit held the Claims Court "misconceived its
task as one in which the request for fees was presumptively to be
granted, subject only to challengers' demonstration that the
request is outside the range of reasonableness and must be
reduced." [GN]
ZEN BEVERAGE LLC: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zen Beverage, LLC.
The case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Zen Beverage, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02099 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zen Beverage -- https://zenwtr.com/ -- offers Zenwtr, a vapor
distilled alkaline water bottled in recyclable ocean-bound
plastic.[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
*********
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 ***