/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230324.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 24, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 61
Headlines
2791 BROADWAY RESTAURANT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
3M COMPANY: Gallegos Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Hayes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Matthews Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ADIDAS AMERICA: Tribble Sues Over Misleading Representation
AERIES SOFTWARE: Court Dismisses Gupta Class Suit With Prejudice
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Kusnier Class Suit
ALLIED SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss or Strike in Alltru Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Dismisses Hamilton Suit Over Unpaid HIP
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Duke Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
AMERICAN HEALTH: Violates FMLA, Mayo Class Action Suit Alleges
APPLE INC: Lucero Files Suit in N.D. California
ARTS AND SCIENCES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Alleges
ASSURE MEDIA: Hastings Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
AUTO CLUB FAMILY: Helis Files Suit in M.D. Louisiana
BAHCHE INC: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in Salazar Labor Suit
BIT DIGITAL: $540K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Given in Securities Suit
BIT DIGITAL: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Class Suit
CELEBRITY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Entertainers' Wages Under FLSA
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Grantz Sues Over COVID-19 Religious Discrimination
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Martinez Sues Over Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination
COLONIAL PENN: Kelley Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
CONTEXLOGIC INC: Plaintiffs Given 30 Days to Amend Complaint
CORNERSTONE NATIONAL: Johnson Suit Consolidated with Reynolds Actio
CORSAIR MEMORY: CRCM Frontier Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
DNC PARKS: Seeks More Time to File Opposition to Class Cert. Bid
DONOTPAY INC: Faces Millerking Suit for Unauthorized Law Practice
DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Dismisses Derivative Action Without Prejudice
DRAFTKINGS INC: Dufoe Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
DRAGONETTI BROS: Stanton Gets 180 Days More to File Class Cert. Bid
ELITE H. HIGH CLASS: Lage Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
EMBROKER INSURANCE: Wang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Data, Lynch Suit Says
FAMILY HOME: Denial to Renew Arbitration Bid in Teshabaeva Upheld
FASHION NOVA: Stipulated Notice of Class Certification Approved
FOLKWEAR LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FONBUENA LAW FIRM: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
FORTRA LLC: Zahid Files Suit in D. Minnesota
FORTY NINERS: Brent Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
GAMMA ENTERTAINMENT: Klein Sues Over Video Privacy Violations
GEMINI TRUST: Moeller-Bertram Securities Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
GRUBHUB INC: Court Dismisses Micheli's Claims Against Postmates
LIVE NATION: Mismanages 401(K) Retirement Plan, Avecilla Suit Says
LOS CASTILLOS: Rosario Seeks Shopkeepers' Minimum, OT Wages
MADISON REED: Goodell Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
MCKESSON MEDICAL: Maldonado Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
NORDIC NATURALS: Martin Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Kurtz Sues Over Contamination of Toxic Chemicals
NORFOLK, VA: $8.7K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Roper Class Suit
PLURALSIGHT INC: Public School Teachers File Class Cert. Bid
POINTSBET USA: Seeks to Junk First Amended Class Action Complaint
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
PRISMA LABS: Faces Brantley Suit Over Biometric Privacy Violations
QUANTUM HEALTH: Court Extends Tracy Case Schedule by 120 Days
RAVI ZACHARIAS: Bid to Strike Carrier Class Allegations OK'd
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Arreola Alleges
STARDUST DINERS: Danowski Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages of Waiters
SUNRISE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Devi Suit Alleges
TESLA INC: Lambrix Sues Over Repair Parts' Supracompetitive Prices
TESLA INC: Orendain Sues Over Repair Parts' Supracompetitive Prices
TIMEC SERVICES: Wilson Has Until April 7 to Oppose Dismissal Bid
TRANS UNION: Discovery & Case Deadlines Stayed in Bartley Suit
TRANS UNION: Discovery & Case Deadlines Stayed in Breen Suit
TRANS UNION: Stamey Case Deadlines Stayed Pending Ruling in Coffey
VANTAGE POINT: Seeks Abeyance of Class Certification Briefing
VANTAGE POINT: Weister Robocall Suit Seeks to Certify Class
VUORI INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Buchanan Suit Alleges
YOUTUBE LLC: Seeks to File Under Seal Harold Declaration
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Int'l. Receives A&E Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 45 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Faces Various Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ceridian HCM Defends Asbestos Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Defends Exposure Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Records $607MM A&E Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp.'s Subsidiaries Faces Numerous PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Still Receives A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Defends 1,048 PI Lawsuits as of Jan. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,224 Pending PI Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Has 247 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Records $320MM Claims Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Faces 109 Exposure Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Defends 537 Product Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 238 Lawsuits as of Dec. 31
*********
2791 BROADWAY RESTAURANT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2791 Broadway
Restaurant Group, LLC. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 2791
Broadway Restaurant Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02050 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
2791 Broadway Restaurant Group, LLC is a full-service restaurant in
New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
3M COMPANY: Gallegos Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Gallegos, and other similarly situated 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; 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.); Case No. 2:23-cv-00414-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 30,
2023), is brought for 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"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff 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 and was diagnosed with
colorectal cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[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
Phone: 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
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Hayes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Hayes, and other similarly situated 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; 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.); Case No. 2:23-cv-00415-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 30,
2023), is brought for 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"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff 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 and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[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
Phone: 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
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Matthews Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
William Matthews, Jr., and other similarly situated 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; 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.); Case No. 2:23-cv-00416-RMG
(D.S.C., Jan. 30, 2023), is brought for 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"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff 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 and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[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
Phone: 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
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ADIDAS AMERICA: Tribble Sues Over Misleading Representation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Tribble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Adidas America, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02060-CSB-EIL
(C.D. Ill., March 18, 2023), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading
representation of its NHL (National Hockey League) jerseys
represented as "authentic" under the Adidas brand (the "Product").
Consumers purchasing NHL jerseys marketed as "authentic" by the
company which makes the jerseys worn by NHL teams will expect they
are purchasing jerseys identical to those worn on the ice by NHL
players. On its website and in digital, print, radio and/or
television marketing, Defendant promotes the jerseys as "The
Official Home Game Jersey of the Winnipeg Jets," telling hockey
fans it is an "authentic home game jersey," "Imported" and
"Officially licensed by the NHL."
The Defendant authorizes third-parties, such as Fanatics.com,
official team stores, and the NHL to sell its jerseys and provides
them with specific language to use in its marketing. At its
instructions and directions, third-party stores and websites such
as fanatics.com identify these jerseys as "authentic" by labeling
them with names such as "Authentic Pro Player Jersey."
However, despite the representations as "authentic," the jerseys
are not those worn on-ice by NHL players. The jerseys have more in
common with what is commonly described as "replica" or even
counterfeit authentic jerseys than those worn by players on the ice
during games. The representation of the Product as "authentic" is
misleading, because they are more accurately described as
"replicas." The Defendant has been aware that eagle-eyed consumers
have discovered the differences between its authentic jerseys and
those worn by players on the ice.
The Plaintiff bought the Product because he expected it was
authentic, and the same jersey that NHL players wear during hockey
games, from the fight strap to the dimples to the stitching and the
fit, because that is what the representations said and implied. As
a result of the false and misleading representations, the Adidas
"authentic" jerseys are sold at premium prices, approximately not
less than $150, excluding tax and sales. The Plaintiff relied on
the words, descriptions, layout, tags, images, and website
descriptions on Defendant's site and those of its third party
partners, about its authentic jerseys. The Plaintiff was
disappointed because he believed the Product was authentic,
understood as being identical to that worn on the ice by NHL
players during games, even though it was not the same jersey worn
by members of the Winnipeg Jets and other NHL players, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Adidas authentic NHL jerseys including
the Winnipeg Jets White Reverse Retro 2.0 Authentic Jersey.
Adidas manufactures uniforms, including jerseys, for the National
Hockey League.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
AERIES SOFTWARE: Court Dismisses Gupta Class Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California enters Judgment in the case, ANURAG GUPTA,
et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AERIES SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
SA CV 20-0995 FMO (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.).
Pursuant to the Court's Order Re: Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, filed contemporaneously with the filing of the instant
Judgment, Judge Olguin orders that, in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement and the Order, (i) Plaintiff Melinda Tomes
will be paid a service payment of $2,500; (ii) the Class counsel
will be paid $437,500 in attorney's fees and $15,780.88 in costs;
and (iii) the settlement administrator, JND, will be paid its fees
and expenses in an amount not to exceed $200,000.
The Court further orders that all class members who did not validly
and timely request exclusion from the settlement have released
their claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, against any
of the released parties. Lastly, except as to any class members who
have validly and timely requested exclusion, the action is
dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees
and costs except as set forth therein and in the prior orders of
the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2023 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2e6srdk4 from Leagle.com.
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Kusnier Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California appoints Mark Kusnier as the Lead Plaintiff
and Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel in the case, MARK KUSNIER,
Plaintiff v. AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-07770-WHO (N.D. Cal.).
Having reviewed the unopposed motion and accompanying memoranda of
points and authorities submitted by Kusnier, Judge Orrick holds
that Kusnier satisfies the requirements for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Kusnier has selected and
retained Pomerantz as the Lead Counsel.
No motion, request for discovery, or other pretrial proceedings
will be initiated or filed by any Plaintiffs without the approval
of the Lead Counsel, to prevent duplicative pleadings or discovery
by the Plaintiffs. No settlement negotiations will be conducted
without the approval of the Lead Counsel.
Every pleading in this Action, and any related action that is
consolidated with this Action, will hereafter bear the following
caption: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE Case No. 3:22-cv-07770-WHO
AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC. CLASS ACTION SECURITIES LITIGATION [TITLE OF
DOCUMENT] THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:"
When the document being filed pertains to all actions, the phrase
"All Actions" will appear immediately after the phrase "This
Document Relates To:." When the document applies to some, but not
all, of the actions, the document will list, immediately after the
phrase "This Document Relates To:," the docket number for each
individual action to which the document applies, along with the
name of the first-listed plaintiff in said action.
The counsel in any related action that is consolidated with the
Action will be bound by the organization of the Plaintiffs'
counsel. The Lead Counsel will be the contact between the
Plaintiffs' counsel, and will direct and coordinate the activities
of the Plaintiffs' counsel.
The Defendants will effect service of papers on the Plaintiffs by
serving a copy of same on the Lead Counsel by overnight mail
service, electronic or hand delivery. The Plaintiffs will effect
service of papers on the Defendants by serving a copy of same on
the Defendants' counsel by overnight mail service, electronic or
hand delivery.
During the pendency of the litigation, or until further order of
the Court, the parties will take reasonable steps to preserve all
documents within their possession, custody, or control, containing
information which is relevant or which may lead to the discovery of
information relevant to the subject matter of the pending
litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3fk6nbx7 from Leagle.com.
ALLIED SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss or Strike in Alltru Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALLTRU FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, f/k/a 1st FINANCIAL
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Plaintiff v. ALLIED SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-819-MTS (E.D. Mo.), Judge Matthew T.
Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Petition or in the alternative, Motion to
Strike Plaintiff's Requests for Attorneys' Fees and Pre-Judgment
Interest pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
The case concerns claims by the Plaintiff, a credit union, against
its insurance broker, the Defendant, for failing to procure
professional liability insurance for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
brings claims for negligence (Count I) and breach of fiduciary duty
(Count II) against the Defendant based on allegations that the
Defendant breached the duty of care it owed to the Plaintiff by
failing to recommend the appropriate type of coverage with
sufficient limits to protect against consumer class action
litigation.
The Plaintiff alleged it specifically hired Defendant to evaluate
its insurance needs, determine the types of coverage and limits
needed, and to obtain sufficient insurance coverage to insure
against the risks facing its financial services business. Based on
the Defendant's "expertise" and assessment of the risks associated
with the Plaintiff's business, the Defendant recommended and
obtained insurance coverage for the Plaintiff, but never informed
it the recommended coverage would not afford protection against one
of the biggest risks of loss to its business -- a consumer class
action lawsuit. The Plaintiff later found itself faced with a
class-action lawsuit arising out of faulty consumer notices, and it
was denied insurance coverage for that dispute.
In the instant Motion, the Defendant seeks to dismiss the entire
action against it for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, strike some of
the Plaintiff's requested relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f).
In support of its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant argues the
Plaintiff merely alleges conclusions, without any factual support,
that the Defendant owed an expanded duty to the Plaintiff beyond
the ordinary duty of insurance brokers to procure requested
insurance.
Judge Schelp disagrees. He says insurance brokers do not have a
duty to advise the insured on its insurance needs or on the
availability of particular coverage, unless the broker specifically
agrees to do so. The Petition also plausibly shows the Defendant
took an expanded role in procuring insurance coverage for the
Plaintiff. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Alternatively, the Defendant seeks to strike, with prejudice, the
Plaintiff's requests for attorneys' fees and pre-judgment interest
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
At this point in the litigation, Judge Schelp does not find the
Plaintiff's requested relief is redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous. Therefore, he denies the Defendant's Motion to
Strike.
In view of the foregoing, Judge Schelp denies the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3b52t583 from Leagle.com.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Dismisses Hamilton Suit Over Unpaid HIP
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAN HAMILTON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-cv-00434-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), Judge
Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado grants Amazon's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Individual
and Class Action Complaint.
The case focuses on how Amazon calculates overtime pay for its
hourly employees. Amazon owns and operates at least five warehouses
in Colorado as part of its nationwide fulfillment network. It
employs "hundreds or even thousands of hourly employees" at these
warehouses, including Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Hamilton was offered various "incentive payment structures"
throughout his employment with Amazon designed to encourage him to
work additional shifts or to stay late after his scheduled shifts.
These incentives included Holiday Incentive Pay ("HIP"), consisting
of 1.5 times the usual hourly pay rate, for working on designated
company holidays, such as Labor Day or Thanksgiving Day.
Mr. Hamilton's complaint focuses on Amazon's treatment of HIP for
purposes of calculating the rate of overtime pay. Colorado law
requires employers to pay overtime at a rate of one and one-half
times the regular rate of pay. The "regular rate" of pay is the
"hourly rate actually paid to employees," which is determined by
dividing the total compensation an employee was paid in a given
week by the number of hours that the employee worked. The resulting
regular rate of pay is multiplied by 1.5 to determine the amount of
additional overtime pay that an employee should receive for every
overtime hour worked.
According to the complaint, Amazon improperly excluded HIP from its
calculation of Mr. Hamilton's regular rate. Amazon did not include
HIP when adding up the total compensation that Mr. Hamilton was
paid in a week, resulting in a lower regular rate of pay than if
Amazon had included HIP. Because a worker's regular rate of pay
determines the amount of overtime pay that the worker receives, Mr.
Hamilton claims that Amazon's failure to include HIP in his regular
rate of pay prevented Amazon from paying him all of the overtime he
earned. He alleges three specific instances where he claims to have
been underpaid as a result of Amazon's policies regarding HIP: the
week of Nov. 24, 2019, the week of Sept. 6, 2020, and the week of
Nov. 22, 2020.
Mr. Hamilton alleges that Amazon's practice of excluding HIP from
the calculation of his regular rate violated Colorado wage law.
Furthermore, he claims that Amazon's pay policies were uniform with
respect to U.S. non-exempt hourly employees working throughout
Colorado. Because the policies were uniform, Mr. Hamilton seeks to
certify a class claim against Amazon on behalf of all non-exempt
hourly employees in Colorado who were subject to the policy and
worked on a company holiday.
Mr. Hamilton brings his case solely on the basis of Colorado state
law. Although the Colorado legislature sets the rate of overtime
pay, it delegates the authority to prescribe the "conditions and
rules" governing overtime compensation to the director of the
Division of Labor. Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 8-6-111(4). The
Division of Labor promulgates orders each year that, among other
things, define the regular rate of pay and describe the types of
pay that employers must include when calculating the regular rate
of pay.
The order in effect during the first week that Mr. Hamilton alleges
he was underpaid, the week of Nov. 24, 2019, was Colorado Minimum
Wage Order # 35, 7 Colo. Code Regs. Section 1103-1 (Jan. 1, 2019).
The order in effect during the other occasions that Mr. Hamilton
alleges he was underpaid, the weeks of Sept. 6 and Nov. 22, 2020,
was Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order # 36, 7 Colo.
Code Regs. Section 1103-1 (July 15, 2020).
Amazon asks the Court to dismiss Mr. Hamilton's complaint on the
grounds that he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted as a matter of law because Colorado law does not require
that holiday pay, and thus HIP, to be included in the regular rate.
Mr. Hamilton claims that Amazon's practice of excluding HIP from
its calculation of the regular rate of pay violates Colorado
statutory and regulatory law.
Judge Brimmer finds that Mr. Hamilton has not identified any
Colorado statute, regulation, or controlling caselaw that requires
Amazon to include HIP in its calculation of his regular rate of
pay, nor is it his position that such a statute, regulation, or
controlling legal precedent exists. HIP is not "holiday pay" within
the meaning of the Orders because HIP is compensation for hours
worked on company holidays.
Moreover, the FLSA permits employers to exclude premiums for
working on holidays from the calculation of a worker's regular rate
of pay, so long as the holiday premium is at least 1.5 times the
worker's rate of pay for non-overtime hours on other days. Amazon's
exclusion of HIP from the regular rate of pay complies with the
FLSA, since HIP is 1.5 times a worker's usual hourly rate of pay.
Because Colorado law is silent on the topic of holiday premium pay,
Amazon's practice of following the FLSA is not a violation of
Colorado law.
Judge Brimmer finds that Colorado law is silent on whether Amazon
was required to include HIP when calculating Mr. Hamilton's regular
rate of pay. Therefore, Mr. Hamilton has failed to state a claim
that Amazon violated Colorado law.
For these reasons, Judge Brimmer grants Amazon's Motion to Dismiss.
He denies as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class Action
and Motion for Order Certifying Determinative Question of Colorado
Law to the Colorado Supreme Court. He dismisses the Plaintiff's
first claim with prejudice. The case is closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/38j36kns from Leagle.com.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Duke Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Express
Company. The case is styled as Debra Duke, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Express
Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00125-LCK (D. Ariz., March 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
American Express Company -- http://www.americanexpress.com/-- is
an American multinational financial services corporation
specialized in payment cards headquartered in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq.
Brown Patent Law
15100 N 78th Way, Ste. 203
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: (602) 529-3474
Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com
AMERICAN HEALTH: Violates FMLA, Mayo Class Action Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANY MAYO, v. AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM SOLUTIONS, LLC. d/b/a AMERICAN
HEALTH MARKET PLACE,, Case No. 0:23-cv-60484 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 15,
2023) sues the Defendant for its violation of the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993.
The Plaintiff's minor child has been diagnosed with Crohn's
Disease. Crohn's Disease is a severe physical disorder and is
considered a disability and a serious medical condition under the
FMLA. On November 2022, the Plaintiff requested intermittent FMLA
leave from the Defendant, but this was denied apparently because
the Defendant believe that no such leave existed. The Plaintiff
insisted on requesting FMLA leave because her minor child could not
safely live without the care and attention of the Plaintiff, the
lawsuit claims.
Finally, on January 27, 2023, the Defendant granted Plaintiff FMLA
leave. Ms. Wright became very upset because she was unable to
thwart the Plaintiff's unwavering efforts to take care of her minor
child via FMLA leave. Since the intermittent FMLA leave was
granted, Plaintiff became the subject of micromanagement by Ms.
Cruz and by Ms. Wright, the lawsuit adds.
On March 2, 2023, after the Plaintiff had completed a whole day
worth of work, she received a call from Ms. Wright to advised
Plaintiff not to clock in the next day.
On March 3, 2023, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was entitled to the FMLA leave because she had an
FMLA-qualifying reason. Specifically, the Plaintiff had the care of
a child who has a serious health condition, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as contracting and
licensing specialist from October 5, 2021, until her wrongful
termination on March 3, 2023.
American Health is in the business of selling health
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max Horowitz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: max@saenzanderson.com
APPLE INC: Lucero Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc. The case
is styled as Anthony Lucero, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00901-EJD
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Contract Dispute.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
WESTERMAN LAW CORP
16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 685
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (213) 505-3090
Fax: (310) 775-9777
Email: jwesterman@jswlegal.com
- and -
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Phone: (877) 500-8780
Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
ARTS AND SCIENCES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
E. MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARTS AND SCIENCES DEPARTMENT, LLC; MAL F.
WARD; MARC MARRIE; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01912 (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2023)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as crewmember.
ARTS AND SCIENCES DEPARTMENT, LLC is in the video production
business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
Priya Mohan, Esq.
Min Ji Gal, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
pmohan@harrisandruble.com
mgal@harrisandruble.com
ASSURE MEDIA: Hastings Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assure Media LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Stan Hastings, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Assure Media LLC, Callcore Media
Inc, Case No. 4:23-cv-00202-JM (E.D. Ark., March 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Assure Media is a performance marketing agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq.
Zach Ryburn, Esq.
RYBURN LAW FIRM
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 228-8100
Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com
zach@ryburnlawfirm.com
AUTO CLUB FAMILY: Helis Files Suit in M.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Auto Club Family
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Nancy Helis, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Auto Club Family
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00147-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La., Feb.
28, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Insurance
Contract.
Auto Club Family Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Garner, Esq.
Stuart Daniel Kottle, Esq.
SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC
909 Poydras Street, Ste. 28th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 299-2100
Email: jgarner@shergarner.com
skottle@shergarner.com
BAHCHE INC: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in Salazar Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLENN SALAZAR, MARIO JUAREZ AGUILAR, BRIANNE FLOOD,
and PETER GARCIA, Plaintiffs v. THE BAHCHE, INC. d/b/a Bison &
Bourbon, MEHMET VURGUN, YEHOSHUA SHAGALOV, SHNEUR MINSKY, and LIOR
HACHMON, Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 5257 (AMD) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions and their related request for leave to notify all
employees of The Bache, Inc., of the purported invalidity of their
arbitration agreements.
The Plaintiffs moved for sanctions pursuant to the Court's inherent
power to sanction and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 in relation to the
actions of Individual Defendants Mehmet Vurgun and Yehoshua
Shagalov, along with their former counsel (collectively with
Individual Defendants, the "Defense"), in informing the Plaintiffs
of arbitration agreements purportedly covering their claims and
allegedly failing to pay a portion of the arbitration fees.
On Sept. 21, 2021, the Plaintiffs instituted the action against
Defendants The Bache, Inc. d/b/a Bison & Bourbon ("B&B") and
Individual Defendants (collectively, "Defendants"), asserting
claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), and violations of the New York Labor
Law, N.Y. Lab. Law Sections 1 et seq. ("NYLL"). The complaint is
styled as an FLSA collective action and an NYLL class action.
On Dec. 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs informed the Court of their
intention to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice, as
the Individual Defendants had apprised them of executed arbitration
agreements covering the asserted claims. Mr. Salazar and Mr. Juarez
Aguilar filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice on Dec. 30,
2021, along with copies of the Plaintiffs' four arbitration
agreements.
Upon the District Court's Order on Jan. 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs
filed an amended notice of dismissal without prejudice, adding Ms.
Flood and Mr. Garcia. The District Court so-ordered the amended
notice of dismissal without prejudice on Jan. 6, 2022. The Clerk of
Court effectuated the termination of the action on Jan. 13, 2022.
On March 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the
case, as the arbitration proceedings were closed purportedly due to
the Individual Defendants' non-payment of their portion of the
filing fees. The District Court referred the motion to Judge
Scanlon.
The Court ordered the Plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants to
confer regarding the Plaintiffs' motion and to file a joint letter
certifying their compliance with the Order; stating whether the
parties reached an agreement as to a planned course of action in
arbitration or litigation; and, if no agreement was reached,
providing the parties' respective positions as to whether
Individual Defendants waived the right to arbitrate.
The parties' filed a responsive letter that, among other things,
certified their compliance with the Order, stated that the parties
had agreed to reopen the case, and contained the Plaintiffs'
request for a pre-motion conference pertaining to a motion for
sanctions. The Court granted the motion to reopen the case and
urged counsel to confer in good faith regarding the planned motion
for sanctions and set a briefing schedule.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against the Defense. In
view of the Former Counsel's pending motion to withdraw as counsel,
the Court stayed, among other things, the deadline for Individual
Defendants to oppose the motion through the July 7, 2022 hearing on
the motion to withdraw as counsel.
The Former Counsel filed an opposition to the motion for sanctions
on his own behalf and reserved the right to file an opposition on
behalf of Individual Defendants as well in the event of the denial
of his motion to withdraw as counsel. The Plaintiffs replied. The
Court subsequently granted Former Counsel's motion to withdraw as
counsel. The Individual Defendants have not opposed the motion for
sanctions, although the Court notes they have not retained new
counsel and have represented themselves on the merits of the
action. The Plaintiffs supplemented their motion with billing
records.
The Plaintiffs seek sanctions against the Defense pursuant to the
Court's inherent power to sanction and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927. To
impose sanctions under either framework, the Court must find that
clear evidence proves that the conduct complained of (1) was
entirely without color and (2) was motivated by improper purposes.
Judge Scanlon concludes that the Plaintiffs have not proffered
clear evidence that the conduct of the Defense was undertaken in
bad faith and motivated by improper purposes. She says it is worth
noting that the record does not show the Plaintiffs attempted to
initiate arbitration against the corporate entity, which the
arbitration agreements charge with paying most of the filing fees.
Even if Individual Defendants had defaulted on an obligation to pay
a certain portion of the arbitration fees, which is questionable
given the language of the arbitration agreements, such a default
would not rise to the level of bad faith of the Defense.
For these reasons, Judge Scanlon denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions. She denies the Plaintiffs related request for leave to
notify all B&B employees of the purported invalidity of their
arbitration agreements as the request is without merit because the
case continues to be a single plaintiff case, and there is no
evidence that the arbitration agreements are invalid. The Former
Counsel's request for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(c)(2) is denied as the request fails to comply with the Rule's
procedural requirements.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hhpmh6ha from Leagle.com.
BIT DIGITAL: $540K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Given in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BIT DIGITAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This
document relates to: All Actions, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-00515-ALC
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York grants the motion of the Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and an award
to the Lead Plaintiff.
The matter came before the Court on Feb. 3, 2023, on the motion of
the Lead Counsel.
Judge Carter awards attorneys' fees of $525,000, which is equal to
25% of the Settlement Amount, plus expenses in the amount of
$14,941.79, together with the interest earned on both amounts for
the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the
Settlement Fund until paid.
The awarded attorneys' fees and expenses and interest earned
thereon, will be paid to the Lead Counsel immediately upon
execution of the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice and the present Order and subject to the terms,
conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation.
Judge Carter also awards $5,000 to the Lead Plaintiff for the time
he spent directly related to his representation of the Class.
Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval
regarding the Fee Motion will in no way disturb or affect the
finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement.
In the event that the Settlement is terminated or does not become
Final or the Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the
terms of the Stipulation, the Order will be rendered null and void
to the extent provided in the Stipulation and will be vacated in
accordance with the Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/murr38ee from Leagle.com.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Jeffrey C. Block -- jake@blockleviton.com --
Jacob A. Walker -- jeff@blockleviton.com -- pro hac vice Sarah E.
Delaney -- sarah@blockleviton.com -- Boston, MA, Attorneys for the
Lead Plaintiff and the Class.
BIT DIGITAL: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York enters Final Judgment in the case, IN
RE: BIT DIGITAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This document relates
to: All Actions, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-00515-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).
The matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Authorizing Dissemination of
Notice to the Class dated Nov. 22, 2022, on the application of the
parties for approval of the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation
of Class Action Settlement dated Oct. 12, 2022.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Carter affirms the Court's determination in the Preliminary
Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the
Settlement only, a Class defined as: all Persons who purchased Bit
Digital common stock between Dec. 21, 2020 and Jan. 11, 2021,
inclusive.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Judge Carter
approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation. Accordingly,
he authorizes and directs implementation and performance of all the
terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as well as the terms and
provisions of the Final Judgment. He dismisses the Litigation and
all claims asserted therein with prejudice. The Settling Parties
are to bear their own costs, except as and to the extent provided
in the Stipulation and herein.
Upon the Effective Date, and as provided in the Stipulation, the
Lead Plaintiff shall, and each of the Class Members will be deemed
to have, and by operation of the Judgment will have, fully,
finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all
Released Claims (including Unknown Claims) against the Released
Defendant Parties, whether or not such Class Member executes and
delivers the Proof of Claim and Release form or shares in the Net
Settlement Fund. The claims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation
or any order of the Court in the Litigation are not released.
Upon the Effective Date, and as provided in the Stipulation, all
Class Members and anyone claiming through or on behalf of any of
them, will be forever barred and enjoined from commencing,
instituting, prosecuting, or continuing to prosecute any action or
other proceeding in any court of law or equity, arbitration
tribunal, or administrative forum, asserting any of the Released
Claims against any of the Released Defendant Parties.
Upon the Effective Date, and as provided in the Stipulation, each
of the Released Defendant Parties will be deemed to have, and by
operation of this Judgment will have, fully, finally, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Defendants'
Claims (including Unknown Claims) against the Lead Plaintiff, each
and all of the Class Members, and the Lead Counsel. The claims to
enforce the terms of the Stipulation or any order of the Court in
the Litigation are not released.
All Class Members are bound by the Judgment.
Any Plan of Allocation submitted by the Lead Counsel or any order
entered regarding any attorneys' fee and expense application will
in no way disturb or affect the Judgment and will be considered
separate from it.
Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of
the Settlement and any award or distribution of the Settlement
Fund, including interest earned thereon; (b) disposition of the
Settlement Fund; (c) hearing and determining applications for
attorneys' fees, expenses, and interest in the Litigation; and (d)
all parties herein for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and
administering the Stipulation.
In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in
accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, or the Effective Date
does not occur, or in the event that the Settlement Fund, or any
portion thereof, is returned to the Defendants or their insurers,
then the Judgment will be rendered null and void to the extent
provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation and will be
vacated and, in such event, all orders entered and releases
delivered in connection therewith will be null and void to the
extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation, and the
Settling Parties will restored to their respective positions in the
Litigation as of Aug. 12, 2022, as provided in the Stipulation.
Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree
to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions
of the Stipulation.
Judge Carter directs immediate entry of the Judgment by the Clerk
of Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 7, 2023 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2t8mexmm from Leagle.com.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Jeffrey C. Block -- jeff@blockleviton.com --
Jacob A. Walker -- jake@blockleviton.com -- pro hac vice Sarah E.
Delaney Boston, MA, Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff and the Class.
CELEBRITY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Entertainers' Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TYANA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CELEBRITY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, and NICHOLAS FARANSO,
Case No. 2:23-cv-10601-BAF-EAS (E.D. Mich., Mar. 14, 2023) seeks to
recover minimum wage and overtime provisions pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage
Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants did not pay her and
other Entertainers any wage at all. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and
other Entertainers were required to share their tips with the
Defendants, the DJ, the bouncer, the "house mom," and other
employees who did not "customarily and regularly receive tips"
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 203(m). The Defendants
allegedly retained tips earned by the Plaintiff and other
Entertainers by requiring them to pay fees directly to the club
from their tips. Each shift, the Plaintiff and other Entertainers
were required to pay the Defendants $80 or more to perform any
dances.
The Defendants also regularly "fined" Plaintiff and other
Entertainers for various "offenses," such as missing a stage set or
a stage review. When the Plaintiff worked as a Waitress, she was
paid solely in tips. The tips which the Plaintiff and other
Entertainers were allowed to keep constituted the entirety of their
pay, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendants' policy and
practice of failing to pay proper minimum wage and overtime
compensation under the FLSA and WOWA.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an Entertainer from
September of 2020 until January of 2022 and as a Waitress from
January of 2022 until July of 2022.
Celebrity Management owns and operates an adult entertainment club
that does business as Tycoon's Executive Club.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Grantz Sues Over COVID-19 Religious Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Grantz, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Case No.
1:23-cv-01632 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 15, 2023) alleges that CTA failed to
provide Ms. Grantz a religious exemption/accommodation.
Ms. Grantz seeks to represent a class of all CTA employees who 1)
have requested or will request religious exemptions/accommodations
related to the mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy and 2) who
have had those requests denied.
On February 13, 2013, Ms. Grantz began working for the CTA as a Bus
Operator. During her employment with the CTA, Ms. Grantz was a
dedicated employee who met or exceeded the CTA's legitimate
employment expectations.
On September 16, 2021, Ms. Grantz completed and submitted her
request for a religious exemption/accommodation. Along with her
request, Ms. Grantz provided the CTA with a letter stating her
religious beliefs, as well as literature from the Michigan
Department of Health about the link between COVID-19 vaccines and
fetal cell lines.
On May 5, 2022, the CTA denied Grantz's request for an
exemption/accommodation, claiming that the accommodation she had
requested somehow infringed on the rights of other employees and
compromised workplace safety. Despite this claim, the CTA granted
exemptions/allowed accommodations for other employees, due to their
religious beliefs. Despite this claim, the CTA allowed some
unvaccinated employees to continue working.
On June 9, 2022, Grantz met with management to discuss her ongoing
inability to become vaccinated against COVID-19. She explained that
receiving a vaccine would violate her religious beliefs and that
she could not in good conscience do so.
On July 21, 2022, the CTA terminated Ms. Grantz for failing to
become vaccinated against COVID-19.
Upon information and belief, the CTA has allowed other employees to
continue working even though they are not vaccinated against
COVID-and have not been granted exemptions/accommodations related
to the policy. As a result of the CTA's actions, Grantz and
hundreds of other similarly situated employees have sustained
damages including lost income, lost bonuses, lost insurance, lost
company benefits, and emotional distress, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff Grantz is a former CTA bus operator.
CTA is an independent governmental agency which operates in Chicago
and 35 surrounding suburbs and is the nation's second largest
public transportation system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julie Herrera, Esq.
Steve Molitor, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JULIE O. HERRERA
159 N. Sangamon St., Ste. 200
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 479-3014
Facsimile: (708) 843-5802
E-mail: jherrera@julieherreralaw.com
smolitor@julieherreralaw.com
- and -
Sorin A. Leahu, Esq.
LEAHU LAW GROUP, LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1527
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (847)-529-7221
E-mail: sleahu@leahulaw.com
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Martinez Sues Over Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfredo Martinez Jr., on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Case
No. 1:23-cv-01637 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 15, 2023) is a class action suit
on behalf of Martinez and hundreds of other similarly situated
employees who have sustained damages including lost income, lost
bonuses, lost insurance, lost company benefits, and emotional
distress as a result of the CTA's actions that all CTA employees
were required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
On November 1, 2021, the CTA confirmed receipt of Mr. Martinez's
request and asked him to provide additional information within 7
days.
On November 7, 2021, in response to the CTA's request for
additional information, Mr. Martinez wrote, "I respectfully request
an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement as it
violates my sincerely held religious beliefs, practice, and
observance." Martinez cited two Bible verses in support of his
beliefs. Mr. Martinez also informed the CTA that he would, as an
accommodation, agree to be tested weekly for COVID-19 and wear a
mask when on CTA property.
In September of 2022, the CTA met with Martinez about his failure
to become vaccinated against COVID-19. During that meeting, the CTA
informed Martinez that his exemption/accommodation request had been
denied, that he was going to be removed from service and given 5
weeks (without pay) to become vaccinated against COVID-19, and that
he would be terminated at the end of those 5 weeks (if he was still
unvaccinated at that time). Mr. Martinez, who could not and cannot
receive a COVID-19 vaccine due to his religious beliefs, chose to
resign that day, the suit claims.
Upon information and belief, the CTA has granted exemptions/allowed
accommodations for other employees, due to their religious beliefs,
and has allowed them to continue working even though they are not
vaccinated against COVID-19., the suit alleges.
Mr. Martinez is a former CTA bus operator.
CTA is an independent governmental agency which operates in Chicago
and surrounding suburbs and is the nation's second largest public
transportation system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julie Herrera, Esq.
Steve Molitor, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JULIE O. HERRERA
159 N. Sangamon St., Ste. 200
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 479-3014
Facsimile: (708) 843-5802
E-mail: jherrera@julieherreralaw.com
smolitor@julieherreralaw.com
- and -
Sorin A. Leahu, Esq.
LEAHU LAW GROUP, LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1527
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (847)-529-7221
E-mail: sleahu@leahulaw.com
COLONIAL PENN: Kelley Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THURMA J. KELLEY, v.
COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03348-FLA-E
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an
order granting the plaintiff's application for leave to file under
seal.
On February 24, 2023, the Plaintiff Kelley filed an Application for
Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal. The Plaintiff requests the court
grant leave to file under seal the unredacted versions of the
following exhibits (Proposed Sealed Materials):
1. Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Craig Nicholas in support
of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, BATES
labeled "CP 02552.XLSX."
2. Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Craig Nicholas in support
of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, BATES
labeled "CP 02553.XLSX."
Specifically, the Defendant states the Proposed Sealed Materials
include personally identifiable information of thousands of policy
owners and insureds, including: the policy owners' name, address,
and phone number; the insured's name, address, phone number, and
date of birth; their respective policy numbers, policy status,
policy type, policy effective date, policy lapse date, premium
dollar amounts, underwriting basis, age of issuance, ultimate death
benefit dollar amount; and a record of all mailings sent to
insureds.
Having considered the Application and Declaration, the court finds
compelling reasons to seal the Proposed Sealed Materials, which
overcomes the strong presumption of public access in civil cases.
Colonial Penn is an American life insurance company based in
Philadelphia.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LsICm2 at no extra charge.[CC]
CONTEXLOGIC INC: Plaintiffs Given 30 Days to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
ContextLogic Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2023, that the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California gave
plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint in the IPO-related
class suits after the court granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice.
Beginning in May 2021, four putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters named in its initial public offering
("IPO") registration statement alleging violations of securities
laws based on statements made in its registration statement on Form
S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with its IPO and seeking
monetary damages.
One of these cases has since been dismissed by the plaintiff and
the remaining three have been coordinated and consolidated.
In May 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, who subsequently
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint pursuant to
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.
A hearing was held in January 2023 on the Company’s motion to
dismiss and, on March 10, 2023, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs 30 days to amend
their complaint.
ContextLogic Inc. is a mobile electronic commerce company. The
Company provides a discovery-based shopping platform, which
connects merchants' products to users based on user preferences.
The company is based in San Francisco, California.
CORNERSTONE NATIONAL: Johnson Suit Consolidated with Reynolds Actio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM JOHNSON, and
JOSHUA KIRK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CORNERSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-04135-WJE (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Willie J. Epps, Jr.
entered an order granting the motion for consolidation and
appointment of interim leadership counsel.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that Johnson et al. v. Cornerstone
National Insurance Company, No. 22-CV-04135-WJE is consolidated
with Toni Reynolds v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company, Case
No. 22-CV-04140-WJE (the "Reynolds Action").
The Court further ordered that Johnson et al. v. Cornerstone
National Insurance Company, No. 22-CV-04135-WJE is designated as
the lead case and all future filings should be made in the lead
case.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Rachele
R. Byrd of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP are also
appointed as interim co-lead class counsel.
The Court said, "This is one of two cases where Cornerstone's
customers, including Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kirk, allege that
unauthorized third parties accessed their personal information in
November 2021. On September 14, 2022, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kirk
filed a putative class action lawsuit, which includes a nationwide
class and California and Tennessee subclasses, against Cornerstone,
alleging that Cornerstone failed to provide adequate security
measures to protect their personal information (the "Johnson
Action")."
They assert claims for violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection
Act, negligence, negligence per se, violation of the California
Consumer Privacy Act, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law. Separately, on September 16, 2022, Ms. Toni
Reynolds filed a putative class action lawsuit, which includes a
nationwide class and California subclass, against Cornerstone in
the case the "Reynolds Action".
The Reynolds Action also involves allegations of a November 2021
data breach where unauthorized third parties accessed Cornerstone's
customers' personal information. Ms. Reynolds asserts claims for
violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, negligence,
negligence per se, violation of the California Consumer Privacy
Act, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
Cornerstone operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers auto
insurance and flood coverages.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LmhRj4 at no extra charge.[CC]
CORSAIR MEMORY: CRCM Frontier Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Joshua Hilton and
Corsair Memory, Inc. The case is captioned as CRCM FRONTIER
TECHNOLOGY FUND I, LP, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated former stockholders, Plaintiff v. JOSHUA HILTON AND
CORSAIR MEMORY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2023-0296 (Del. Ch.,
March 9, 2023).
The suit is brought over Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duties.
Corsair Memory, Inc. is an American computer peripherals and
hardware company headquartered in Milpitas, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jaclyn Levy, Esq.
Justin Hymes, Esq.
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
1313 N Market St Fl 6
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-6000
Facsimile: (302) 658-1192
E-mail: jlevy@potteranderson.com
DNC PARKS: Seeks More Time to File Opposition to Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID PEREZ, and
individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DNC
PARKS & RESORTS AT ASILOMAR, INC., a California Corporation; DNC
PARKS & RESORTS AT SEQUOIA, a California Corporation; DNC PARKS &
RESORTS AT YOSEMITE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; DELAWARE NORTH
COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT
KING'S CANYON, INC., a California Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS
AT TENAYA INC., a Delaware Corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES
PARKS & RESORTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the
Defendants file ex parte application to:
(1) extend the deadline to file their opposition to the
plaintiff's motion for class certification to allow time
for depositions of putative class members who submitted
declarations in support of the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification;
(2) for leave to take the depositions of the witnesses who
submitted declarations in support of the plaintiff's
motion for class certification; and
(3) for an order providing that the declarations will be
stricken if the declarants are not produced for
deposition within 60 days.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZXFJOB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jon D. Meer, Esq.
Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
jbrophy@seyfarth.com
bpelliconi@seyfarth.com
DONOTPAY INC: Faces Millerking Suit for Unauthorized Law Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MILLERKING, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. DONOTPAY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00863 (S.D. Ill., Mar.
15, 2023) seeks relief for DoNotPay's violations of the Lanham Act
and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and all
remedies available for the unauthorized practice of law.
DoNotPay holds itself out as a "robot lawyer" and an "artificially
intelligent robot attorney." But DoNotPay is not a licensed
attorney or law firm employing licensed attorneys. Despite numerous
warnings from state bar associations that DoNotPay is improperly
practicing law, and despite promises by DoNotPay months ago that it
would "immediately" remove its legal services, DoNotPay continues
to advertise and engage in the unauthorized practice of law. In its
advertising and promotion, DoNotPay holds itself out as "The
World's First Robot Lawyer." DoNotPay represents to potential
consumers that it allows people to "[f]ight corporations, beat
bureaucracy and sue anyone at the press of a button," says the
suit.
DoNotPay likewise advertises that "[s]ince lawyers are too
expensive," its robot lawyer can draft a "personalized" durable
power of attorney "according to your state laws and personal
requirements." Accordingly, DoNotPay is a subscription service,
whereby the customer must provide bank account or credit card
information to pay a fixed price (currently $36 for two months of
service), which automatically renews. Several consumers who have
used DoNotPay have posted accounts of their poor experience online.
For example, one customer who used the service to dispute two
parking tickets explained that no one actually responded to his
tickets and his fines increased, the suit alleges.
Other public examples of inadequate legal documents and services by
DoNotPay include demand letters that go undelivered and which do
not actually contain demands, and other contracts that have basic
information, such as the names of the parties, printed
inaccurately. DoNotPay disregards the law's licensure requirements,
which are intended to protect the public from potential injury
resulting from laypersons performing acts that require the
training, knowledge, and responsibility of a licensed attorney, the
suit further asserts.
The Plaintiff and the Class have been or are likely to be injured
as a result of the Representations and confusing, mistaken, and/or
deceptive affiliation, connection, association, sponsorship, or
approval, either by direct diversion of clients from themselves to
the Defendant or by a lessening of the goodwill associated with
their goods and services.
MillerKing is a law firm that has six attorneys licensed in
Illinois. The firm advertises its services online and provides
legal services across various practice areas including personal
injury, wrongful death, family law, divorce law, child custody,
criminal law, traffic law, estate planning, probate, workers'
compensation, business law, municipal law, and mediation.
DoNotPay is a subscription service that purports to utilize
artificial intelligence to provide a variety of legal services to
its customers, including appealing parking tickets, drafting
contracts, drafting demand letters, preparing estate planning
documents, registering trademarks, preparing and filing lawsuits,
and providing scripts to read in court.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Kevin P. Green, Esq.
Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq.
Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
GOLDENBERG HELLER
& ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
2227 South State Route 157
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-5150
E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com
kevin@ghalaw.com
thorscroft@ghalaw.com
daniel@ghalaw.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Dismisses Derivative Action Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada dismisses the case, IN RE DRAFTKINGS INC. DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: Lead ALL ACTIONS, Case No.
3:21-cv-00453-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), in its entirety without
prejudice.
On July 2, 2021, a putative federal securities class action,
captioned In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
1:21-cv-05739, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Federal Court"), asserting
claims under federal securities laws against DraftKings and certain
of its current and former officers and directors (the "Securities
Class Action");
On Oct. 21, 2021, and Jan. 6, 2022, two factually related
stockholder derivative actions were filed in this Court by
Plaintiffs Jordan John Walk and Jiahan Yu (together, "Plaintiffs"),
on behalf of DraftKings, which actions were subsequently
consolidated on Feb. 18, 2022, under the caption In re DraftKings
Inc. Derivative Litigation (Lead Case No. 3:21-cv-00453-MMD-CLB)
(the "Derivative Action");
The Plaintiffs in the Derivative Action assert breach of fiduciary
duty and related claims on behalf of DraftKings, as a nominal
defendant, against certain of the Company's current and/or former
directors and officers (collectively, "Defendants," and, together
with Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), based on allegations that overlap
with the facts and circumstances alleged in the Securities Class
Action, including the relevance of many of the same documents and
witnesses.
In the interest of judicial efficiency and given the important
implications that the then-pending motion to dismiss in the
Securities Class Action could have for the Derivative Action, the
Parties stipulated to stay the Derivative Action until either the
Securities Class Action had been dismissed with prejudice and any
and all appeals thereto have been exhausted or the motion to
dismiss was denied in whole or in part (April 21, 2022 Stipulation
and Order to Stay the Derivative Action).
On Jan. 10, 2023, the Federal Court entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action in its
entirety, dismissing the case with prejudice and entering judgment
in the Defendants' favor. The plaintiffs in the Securities Class
Action did not file an appeal from the dismissal order.
Following the dismissal of the Securities Class Action, and in
accordance with the Stay Order, the Parties met and conferred
regarding the impact of the dismissal and further proceedings in
this Derivative Action. They now stipulate to the voluntary
dismissal of the Derivative Action without prejudice, with each
side to bear its own costs and fees.
The Parties submit that notice of said dismissal under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.1(c) is unnecessary to protect the interests
of the Company's stockholders because: (i) the dismissal is sought
without prejudice; (ii) there has been no settlement or compromise
between the Parties nor attempts to seek such; (iii) there has been
no collusion among the Parties; (iv) neither the Plaintiffs nor
their counsel have received or will receive any consideration from
Defendants for the dismissal; and (v) the Defendants will not
suffer any prejudice as they do not oppose this voluntary
dismissal.
The Parties, through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rules
23.1 and 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and subject
to Court approval, stipulate and agree as follows:
1. The Derivative Action is dismissed in its entirety without
prejudice;
2. Each party will bear its own costs, fees, and expenses,
including attorneys' fees; and
3. For the reasons noted, notice of this dismissal to
DraftKings stockholders is not required.
Judge Du so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2ebzshnu from Leagle.com.
Matthew L. Sharp, MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD., Las Vegas, NV, Counsel
for the Plaintiffs.
Patrick R. Leverty, LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD, Reno, NV,
Co-Liaison Counsel for the Plaintiffs.
Thomas J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- GAINEY McKENNA &
EGLESTON, New York, NY. Phillip Kim, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A., New
York, NY, Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs.
J. Stephen Peek -- speek@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART LLP, Las
Vegas, NV, Counsel for the Defendants.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Dufoe Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUSTIN DUFOE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS INC., JASON D. ROBINS,
JASON K. PARK, and MATTHEW KALISH, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-10524-DJC (D. Mass., March 9, 2023) is a federal securities
class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired DraftKings' non-fungible tokens (NFTs) between
August 11, 2021 and the present, seeking recission and damages
caused by Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Mass. Gen. Laws.
The NFTs are a form of digital assets that can be bought, sold, and
exchanged on proprietary trading platforms. In this case, Plaintiff
and the Class bought DraftKing's NFTs in DraftKing's initial public
offerings of the NFTs, with the expectation that the DraftKing's
NFT platform would allow them to realize profits on their NFTs. The
profits would be realized when Plaintiffs and the Class would sell
their NFTs on the secondary market platform that DraftKings solely
owned and managed, with DraftKings receiving exchange-like fees and
commissions from the purchases and sales on its secondary market
platform.
According to the complaint, the Defendants had actual knowledge of
facts indicating that the NFTs they promoted and sold were
"securities" under federal and state securities laws and further
that they had failed to register their NFTs as securities. The
Defendants reaped, or will reap, hundreds of millions of dollars in
profits from their unregistered securities sales. In addition,
Individual Defendants Jason D. Robins, Jason K. Park, and Matthew
Kalish had control of DraftKings and used that control to avoid
scrutiny and facilitate this scheme, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged conduct, they are liable to
Plaintiffs and the Class members for damages and/or recission, as
well as costs, attorneys' fees, and interest.
DraftKings Inc. is an American daily fantasy sports contest and
sports betting company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
Justin N. Saif, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com
jsaif@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 767-5180
E-mail: afata@kmllp.com
- and -
Blake T. Hannafan, Esq.
HANNAFAN & HANNAFAN, LTD.
161 North Clark Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 527-0055
E-mail: bth@hannafanlaw.com
DRAGONETTI BROS: Stanton Gets 180 Days More to File Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN STANTON, KELLIANNE HILLOCKS, JEFFREY HUMPHREY,
Plaintiff v. DRAGONETTI BROTHERS LANDSCAPING NURSERY & FLORIST
INC., D.B. DEMOLITION, INC., NICHOLAS DRAGONETTI, VITO DRAGONETTI,
INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Index No.
651480/2022, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Lyle E. Frank
of the Supreme Court of New York County:
a. denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the class claims
in the action; and
b. grants the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for an extension of
time to move for class certification.
The Plaintiffs brought the action to recover on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of all persons employed by
Defendants Dragonetti Brothers Landscaping Nursery & Florist Inc.
("DBLNF") or D.B. Demolition Inc. who worked as non-union flaggers
on Public Works Projects in the State of New York during the
relevant period. Throughout their respective employment periods
with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs claim they were not paid the
applicable prevailing rate of wages or supplemental benefits for
labor they furnished on the Public Works Projects.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover for prevailing wages, daily overtime
and supplemental benefits they say were contractually and
statutorily entitled to receive for work, including weekend,
evening and holiday work, they performed on the sites of the Public
Works Projects. In addition, they seek to recover unpaid overtime
premium wages and wage notification violations pursuant to the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL") Sections 190 et seq. on behalf of
themselves and a CPLR Section 901 class of all persons employed by
Defendants at any time since Aug. 14, 22015, who worked as
non-union flaggers on Public Works Projects in the State of New
York.
The Plaintiffs say they have at all times intended to pursue their
claims on behalf of the Putative Class and were under the
good-faith assumption that a pre-certification discovery schedule
would be set by the Court to permit necessary discovery prior to
the Plaintiffs having to move for class certification. The counsel
of the Plaintiffs' requested a preliminary conference with the
Court prior to the deadline set forth in CPLR Section 902. The
Plaintiffs contend that they need to conduct discovery to determine
whether the prerequisites of a class action set forth in CPLR
Section 901(a) may be satisfied.
While the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' cannot get an
extension on the motion due to the original deadline passing, Judge
Frank states that CPLR Section 2004 specifically permits
applications "after the expiration of the time fixed." Under CPLR
Section 2004, the Court may extend the time fixed by any statute,
rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and
upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is
made before or after the expiration of the time fixed.
Judge Frank finds that the Plaintiffs' motion was made
expeditiously, following the Plaintiffs' good faith attempts to
avoid burdening the Court by requesting the Defendants stipulate to
the extension and holding a meet-and-confer on the issue, which
International apparently refused. He further finds that the
Plaintiffs have successfully demonstrated good cause under CPLR
Section 2004 for their failure to move for class certification
within the required 60-day time frame. In addition, he finds that
the Defendants have not suffered any undue prejudice by this delay
in the initial proceedings of this litigation.
Thus, Judge Frank grants the Plaintiffs' cross motion to extend
their time to move for class certification under CPLR Section 2004.
The Plaintiffs will have an additional 180 days to move for class
certification.
Judge Frank denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint's class allegations.
The parties were directed to appear for a preliminary conference on
March 21 at 11 a.m. via Microsoft Teams.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2023 Decision + Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdea4xk5 from Leagle.com.
ELITE H. HIGH CLASS: Lage Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elite H. High Class
VP LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alberto Lage, and other
similarly situated individuals v. Elite H. High Class VP LLC, Ruben
Rafael Rumbos, Case No. 1:23-cv-20769-BB (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Elite H. High Class VP LLC is a Florida Domestic Limited-Liability
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EMBROKER INSURANCE: Wang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Embroker Insurance
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Chen Wang, individually
and on behlaf of all others similarly situated v. Embroker
Insurance Services, LLC, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
CGC23604161 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 23, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Embroker -- https://www.embroker.com/ -- is the radically simple
destination for industry tailored commercial insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2930
Phone: 310-590-3927
Fax: 310-943-1455
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Data, Lynch Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN LYNCH, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, Case No.
4:23-cv-01170-JCS (N.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2023) sues the Defendant for
unauthorized interception and connection to the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' electronic communications through the use of
Facebook Pixel spyware that allowed the Defendant to read, learn
the contents of, and make reports on thee Plaintiff's and Class
Members' interactions on Defendant's website, EXPRESS-SCRIPTS.COM,
in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion
of Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action for every violation of the Wiretap
Act which provides for statutory damages of the greater of $10,000
or $100 per day for each violation. The Plaintiff also brings this
action for every violation of California Penal Code section 631
which provides for statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation,
pursuant to the California Penal Code section 631(a).
Accordingly, the Defendant utilized Facebook Pixel spyware to
intercept the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' electronic
computer-to-computer data communications, including how Plaintiff
and Class Members interacted with the website, mouse movements and
clicks, keystrokes, search items, information inputted into the
website, and pages and content viewed while visiting the website.
The Facebook Pixel spyware utilized by Defendant is a sophisticated
computer software that allows the Defendant to contemporaneously
intercept, capture, read, observe, re-route, forward, redirect, and
receive the Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other
Americans whose privacy has been violated by the Defendant's use of
the Facebook's Pixel tracking tool.
The Plaintiff is a California resident, Facebook user, and a
customer of Defendant's website which was used to communicate
confidential information to Defendant.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS is a pharmacy benefits manager serving over 100
million Americans. It is also an online pharmacy that handles
millions of prescriptions each year through the Express Scripts
Pharmacy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
FAMILY HOME: Denial to Renew Arbitration Bid in Teshabaeva Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAKTUMMA TESHABAEVA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents v.
FAMILY HOME CARE SERVICES OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants, Index No. 158949/17, Appeal No. 17461-17462,
Case Nos. 2022-02375, 2022-02378 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department,
unanimously affirms the order of Judge Alexander M. Tisch of the
Supreme Court, New York County, entered Dec. 10, 2021:
a. denying the Defendants' motion for leave to renew their
prior cross-motion to compel arbitration;
b. granting the Plaintiffs' request for legal fees expended in
opposing the motion; and
b. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Defendants'
answer as a discovery sanction, without costs.
Plaintiffs Maktumma Teshabaeva and Jian Hua Deng worked as home
health aids for the Defendants from, respectively, February 2012
through approximately June 2012 and November 2009 through May 2014.
In October 2017, the Plaintiffs commenced the putative
wage-and-hour class action, asserting Labor Law and breach of
contract claims, alleging that they were underpaid for their
24-hour shifts and weekly overtime.
In 2015, the Plaintiffs' union and, inter alia, the Defendants
executed a memorandum of agreement (2015 MOA), amending the
parties' 2012 collective bargaining agreement, which set forth a
mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedure for unresolved
claims arising out certain Labor Law and wage-hour statutes. In
January 2019, the Union submitted a class-action grievance pursuant
to the 2015 MOA, which ultimately led to arbitration, raising the
same or similar claims asserted in the instant action.
In an interim award, the arbitrator found, in relevant part, that
the wage-and-hour claims of workers who left employment before the
2015 MOA was in effect were required to pursue arbitration. The
arbitrator also held that the arbitration proceeding will not be
binding upon those individual Plaintiffs whose claims have been
held not subject to arbitration by state or federal court(s). The
interim award was confirmed (1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers
East v PSC Community Services, 520 F.Supp.3d 588 [SD NY 2021]) (the
Confirmation Order).
Meanwhile, prior to the Confirmation Order, the Plaintiffs moved to
permanently enjoin arbitration and the Defendants cross-moved to
compel. The Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion and denied
the Defendants' cross-motion, holding that the 2015 MOA arbitration
provision did not apply to the Plaintiffs because their employment
terminated before it came into effect.
After the issuance of the Confirmation Order, the Defendants moved
to renew their cross motion. The Plaintiffs opposed and sought
sanctions and, subsequently moved to strike the Defendants' answer
based on their consistent failure to respond to discovery demands
and deadlines.
The Appellate Division holds that the Supreme Court properly denied
leave to renew. It finds that the Confirmation Order does not
constitute new facts warranting renewal. The District Court did not
change applicable law, but instead applied existing law to the
facts presented by the petition of the Plaintiffs' union.
The Appellate Division again rejects the Petitioner's contention
that the Confirmation Order bars the action under the doctrine of
res judicata. As it has already concluded, the federal court made
no findings that affect the merits of the issues raised by the
Plaintiffs and the federal proceeding and the present state court
action do not involve the same parties.
As for the sanction of legal fees for frivolous conduct, the
Appellate Division finds no clear abuse of discretion. It says the
law is clear that legal pronouncements from lower federal courts
are not binding precedent in state court actions, and thus, they do
not effect a change in the law. The Defendants' contentions to the
contrary cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an
extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
The Defendants reliance on the Confirmation Order as a change in
the law, under the guise of mandating a "highly deferential"
standard of review is unavailing. Virtually the same arguments were
made in support of their initial motion to compel arbitration and
the interim award was already considered by the Court. As such,
they sought in substance to reargue, well after the 30-day period
to move for reargument had expired.
Similarly, the Appellate Division holds that the Supreme Court did
not abuse its discretion in striking the Defendants' answer based
on a pattern of disobeying court orders and failing to provide
discovery". It says the Plaintiffs commenced the action in October
2017, yet the Defendants failed to comply with two court-ordered
deadlines for discovery responses in 2018 and failed to comply with
three additional deadlines in 2019 -- all before they moved to
compel arbitration. The Defendants then failed to meet three more
deadlines in 2020 and they again failed to produce responses by the
May 15, 2021 deadline. Hence, their conduct indicates that the
failure to comply was willful, contumacious, and in bad faith.
The Appellate Division has considered the Defendants' remaining
contentions and finds them unavailing.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckr7hu8 from Leagle.com.
Ford Harrison LLP, New York (Richard Bahrenburg --
rbahrenburg@fordharrison.com -- of counsel), for the Appellants.
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna M. Lusher --
llusher@vandallp.com -- of counsel), for the Respondents.
FASHION NOVA: Stipulated Notice of Class Certification Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ALCAZAR, individually
and 11 on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FASHION NOVA,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 4:20-cv-01434-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's administrative motion to
approve the stipulated notice of class certification, notice
administrator, and class notice plan.
The Court, by Order dated September 6, 2021, certified the Action
to proceed as a class action.
The Court certified the following class definitions as follows:
-- Nationwide
"All legally blind individuals who have attempted to
access the Defendant's website by the use of a screen
reading software during the applicable limitations
period up to and including final judgment in this
action.
-- California
"All legally blind individuals in the State of
California who have attempted to access the Defendant's
website by the use of a screen reading software during
the applicable limitations period up to and including
final judgment in this action.
The Court approves the retention of KCC Class Action
Services as Notice Administrator in this class action. The Notice
Administrator shall cause the Notice Plan to be executed
as of March 27, 2023.
Fashion Nova is an American fast fashion retail company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/405sOcO at no extra charge.[CC]
FOLKWEAR LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Folkwear, LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Folkwear, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02130-RA
(S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Folkwear -- https://www.folkwear.com/ -- has provided sewing
patterns for over 40 years that are based on authentic historic and
folk garments from around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FONBUENA LAW FIRM: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fonbuena Law Firm,
PLLC. The case is styled as Gerard Jackson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fonbuena Law Firm, PLLC
doing business as: Accident Attorneys of America, Case No.
4:23-cv-00438-MWB (M.D. Pa., March 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Fonbuena Law Firm -- https://fonbuenalaw.com/ -- is the only
Filipino attorney firm in Vegas, and with thousands of clients
served, we believe in transparency and fighting tirelessly for
you.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Fax: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Bower, Esq.
BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
State College, PA 16801
Phone: (814) 234-2626
Fax: (814) 237-8700
Email: jbower@bower-law.com
FORTRA LLC: Zahid Files Suit in D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortra LLC. The case
is styled as Muhammed Zahid, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Fortra LLC, Case No.
0:23-cv-00615-JRT-JFD (D. Minn., March 13, 2023).
The nature of suit stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Fortra -- https://www.fortra.com/ -- is a cybersecurity
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Joseph Nelson, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Mpls, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Fax: (612) 339-6622
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
jnelson@gustafsongluek.com
FORTY NINERS: Brent Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Davis Brent, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL COMPANY LLC, Case No.
5:23-cv-00333-SVK (N.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' personally identifiable information stored within
Defendant's information network, including, without limitation,
including, without limitation, names, dates of birth, and Social
Security numbers (these types of information, inter alia, being
thereafter referred to, collectively, "personally identifiable
information" or "PII").
The Plaintiff seek to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and approximately
20,000 others similarly situated persons in the massive and
preventable cyberattack that occurred between February 6, 2022 and
February 11, 2022 by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly
sensitive PII and financial information belonging to both adults
and children, which was being kept unprotected (the "Data
Breach").
While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach no later than
August 9, 2022 Defendant did not begin informing victims of the
Data Breach until September 2022 and failed to inform victims when
or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the Plaintiff and
Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they
received letters from the Defendant informing them of it. The
Defendant acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff' and Class
Members' PII and/or financial information. Therefore, the Defendant
knew, or should have known, that the Plaintiff and Class Members
would use the Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive
data, including highly confidential PII.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff' and Class Members' PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized
disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and
appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit
off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members
in the future. the Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing
interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe,
and they are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
The Defendant operates a professional football franchise in the
National Football League.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
Email: sec@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.com
cab@colevannote.com
Web: www.colevannote.com
GAMMA ENTERTAINMENT: Klein Sues Over Video Privacy Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KLEIN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. GAMMA ENTERTAINMENT INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01890 (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2023) alleges violation of
the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that using website tracking
technology, the Defendant tracks its consumers' personally
identifiable information ("PII"), including information which
identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video
material from the Defendant, and knowingly discloses this
information to third parties without the consent of the consumer.
Because the Defendant's consumers are not informed about the
disclosure and dissemination of their PII while using the
Defendant's adult websites, they have not been provided an
opportunity to consent to such disclosures. Meanwhile, the
Defendant has used and continues to use its illegal practices to
profit from targeted advertising, website improvements, and has
obtained other direct benefits related to the dissemination of its
consumers' PII, says the suit.
GAMMA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. provides information technology services.
The Company operates in Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
GEMINI TRUST: Moeller-Bertram Securities Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TOBIAS MOELLER-BERTRAM, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEMINI TRUST
COMPANY, LLC; and DIGITAL CURRENCY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 151710/2023, was removed from the New York State Supreme Court
for New York County to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on March 9, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-02027 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims that Defendants DCG and Gemini Trust
Company, LLC have committed actionable violations of Sections 5, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that DCG was a "control person" of
non-party Genesis Global Capital, LLC under Section 15 of the
Securities Act; and that between February 2021 and November 2022,
Gemini and Genesis Global Capital, LLC offered and sold
unregistered securities through the Gemini Earn program in
violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the Securities Act.
Gemini Trust Company, LLC is a cryptocurrency exchange and
custodian that allows customers to buy, sell, and store digital
assets.[BN]
Defendant Digital Currency Group is represented by:
Jonathan D. Polkes, Esq.
Caroline Hickey Zalka, Esq.
Jessica L. Falk, Esq.
Nicole E. Prunetti, Esq.
Dylan L. Ruffi, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
E-mail: jonathan.polkes@weil.com
caroline.zalka@weil.com
jessica.falk@weil.com
nicole.prunetti@weil.com
dylan.ruffi@weil.com
GRUBHUB INC: Court Dismisses Micheli's Claims Against Postmates
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELI & SHEL, LLC, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-4995 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M.
Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants Postmates LLC's motion for judgment on the pleadings
and dismisses Micheli's claims against Postmate.
In this putative class action, Plaintiff Micheli, a New York City
bakery, sues the food delivery company Postmates LLC for alleged
violations of New York City Local Law Nos. 52 and 88.1 New York
City enacted these laws in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, to
limit the fees food delivery services could charge restaurants. The
laws -- which have since been repealed and replaced -- expressly
provided for two mechanisms of enforcement: "a proceeding to
recover" civil penalties "in any tribunal established within the
office of administrative trials and hearings or within any agency
of the city designated to conduct such proceedings"; or "a civil
action brought by the corporation counsel on behalf of the city in
any court of competent jurisdiction" seeking civil penalties,
restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and costs.
The question presented in the case -- teed up by a motion for
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Postmates -- is whether there is
also a private right of action under these laws.
The answer is plainly no, Judge Furman holds. He explains that
Micheli concedes, as it must, that the statutes do not expressly
create a private right of action. Under New York law, where a
statute does not make express provision for a private remedy, such
a remedy may be had only if a legislative intent to create such a
right of action is fairly implied in the statutory provisions and
their legislative history.
To evaluate whether the legislative intent favors such implied
rights of action, Judge Furman says the Court of Appeals has
identified three relevant factors: (1) whether the plaintiff is one
of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted;
(2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote
the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right
would be consistent with the legislative scheme. Significantly, all
three factors must be satisfied in order for an implied right of
action to be recognized. Of the three, however, the third is the
most important and typically turns on the legislature's choice to
provide one particular enforcement mechanism to the exclusion of
others -- a choice that should be respected by the courts.
In the present case, Judge Furman opines that the third -- and the
most important -- factor is fatal to Micheli's claims. First, a
private right of action would be inconsistent with the plain
language of the city laws, which limit the right to bring civil
actions to the City Corporation Counsel and restrict any attempt to
recover civil penalties to administrative (i.e., non-judicial)
proceedings. Second, as Postmates notes, and Micheli does not
dispute, the legislative history of the laws is similarly devoid of
any suggestion that the City Council intended to create a private
right of action in court.
Recognizing the weakness of its argument for a private right of
action, Micheli argues in its memorandum of law that its Complaint
also sufficiently alleges facts that would establish a claim for
unjust enrichment and that such a claim should be "read into" the
Complaint.
Judge Furman disagrees. He says the Complaint nowhere mentions the
words "unjust," "enrich," or "enrichment," and makes no allegations
regarding "equity and good conscience," as Micheli does in its
brief. And it is axiomatic that the Complaint cannot be amended by
the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss. In any event, he
says, even if an unjust enrichment claim could be fairly read into
the Complaint, it would fail as a matter of law.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Furman grants Postmates' motion
for judgment on the pleadings. He dismisses Micheli's claims
against Postmates. Moreover, he declines Micheli's request for
leave to amend the Complaint, as the defects in its claims are
substantive and insurmountable and, thus, any amendment would be
futile.
Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Furman finds that there is no just reason to delay entry of
final judgment in Postmates' favor until the conclusion of the
arbitration proceedings against the other Defendants.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No.
99, to enter judgment in Postmates' favor consistent with the
Memorandum Opinion and Order, and to terminate Postmates as a
party. Moreover, because there is no reason to keep the case open
pending completion of the arbitration, the Clerk is directed to
administratively close the case without prejudice to any party
moving by letter motion to reopen the case within 30 days of the
conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n86hczn from
Leagle.com.
LIVE NATION: Mismanages 401(K) Retirement Plan, Avecilla Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA AVECILLA and SEAN BAILEY, individually and as
representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries, on behalf of the LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 401(K) COMMITTEE; and DOES 1 through
10,, Case No. 2:23-cv-01943 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2023) is a class
action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, on behalf
of the Plan and seeking Plan-wide relief pursuant to ERISA and/or
as otherwise authorized by law, against current Plan sponsor, LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., the named fiduciary LIVE NATION
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 401(K) COMMITTEE ("Plan Committee"), and John
Does 1-10 (collectively the "Defendants"), for breaching their
fiduciary duties in the management, operation and administration of
the Plan.
This action is brought by current and former
employees/participants/beneficiaries of the Defendants' Plan to
recover losses due to mismanagement of the 401k retirement plan and
certain selected funds. The 401k plan has become the dominant
source of retirement savings for most Americans. Unlike
defined-benefit pensions, 401(k) accounts rise and fall with
financial markets, and therefore, the proliferation of 401(k) plans
has exposed workers to big drops in the stock market and high fees
from Wall Street money managers.
Specifically, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
prudence and loyalty to the Plan by:
a. Offering and maintaining funds with higher-cost share
classes
when identical lower cost class shares were available and
could have been offered to participants resulting in
participants/beneficiaries paying unnecessary costs for
services that provided no value to them and resulted in a
reduction of compounded return gains;
b. Offering a guaranteed income product that carried
unnecessarily high risk, generated relatively low returns
and
offering an expensive share class of that product;
c. Offering expensive investments, depriving participants of
compounded returns which greatly exceed the annual cost of
fees and revenue sharing; and
d. Failing to maintain and restore trust assets.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged actions, participants
invested in subpar investment vehicles and paid additional
unnecessary operating expenses and fees with no value to the
participants resulting in a loss of compounded returns.
This action is filed to recover millions of dollars of funds owed
back to the plan on behalf of employees/participants/beneficiaries.
These retirement funds are significant to the welfare of the
class.
The Plaintiffs, individually and as the representatives of a
putative class consisting of the Plan's participants and
beneficiaries, bring this action on behalf of the Plan to enforce
the Defendants' liability under 29 U.S.C. section 1109(a), to make
good to the Plan all losses resulting from their breaches of
fiduciary duties, and to restore to the Plan any lost profits.
In addition, the Plaintiffs seek to reform the Plan to comply with
ERISA and to prevent further breaches of fiduciary duties and grant
other equitable and remedial relief as the Court may deem
appropriate, the suit claims.
Plaintiff Avecilla and Plaintiff Bailey were employees of Live
Nation and worked for Defendants during the relevant time period.
Live Nation is the current sponsor and administrator of the
Plan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
1117 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 618-2924
Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com
rob@chumphrelaw.com
LOS CASTILLOS: Rosario Seeks Shopkeepers' Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LOS CASTILLOS MINI MARKET, CORP., a New York
corporation, and CARLOS CASTILLO, an individual, Case No.
1:23-cv-02240 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 15, 2023) sues the Defendant for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and for violations of the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor.
The Defendants allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff any
overtime premium (time and a half) for hours worked over 40 in each
workweek, and failed to pay the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which he worked 10 hours or more. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff worked seven days a week, 77 hours per week, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff worked as shopkeeper for the Defendants from 2017
through March 1, 2023.
Los Castillos is a food shop.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
Laura Adame, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Rd., Ste 500
Boca Raton, FL33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
adame@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
MADISON REED: Goodell Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY GOODELL, an Illinois resident, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADISON REED, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01471 (C.D. Ill.,
March 9, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendant for collection without prior consent of face geometry
data of him and a potential class of other visitors to Madison
Reed's website who used the Virtual Try-On feature, in violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, through the Virtual Try-On feature,
visitors to Madison Reed's website - including Plaintiff and the
other Class members - can see what they would look like wearing
different Madison Reed hair color products. All a user must do is
enable his or her computer or smartphone camera to take a photo to
be used by the website or upload a photo to the website. But,
unbeknownst to the website user including Plaintiff and the other
Class members, Defendant collects detailed and sensitive biometric
identifiers and information, including complete face geometry
scans, of its users through the Virtual Try-On feature, and it does
this without first obtaining their consent, or informing them that
this data is being collected, says the suit.
In addition, and in direct violation of BIPA, Defendant does not
provide users with a schedule setting out the length of time during
which their biometric information or biometric identifiers will be
collected, stored, used, or will be destroyed, the suit alleges.
Madison Reed, Inc. is an American brand of hair care and hair color
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
MCKESSON MEDICAL: Maldonado Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDELMIRA MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCKESSON
MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-02100, was removed from the United
States District Court for the Central District of California to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on March 9, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00430-DB-CKD to the proceeding.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was initially
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Bernardino before it was removed to the Central
District of California on November 23, 2022.
On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action
Complaint against the Defendant which sets forth the following 8
causes of action: failure to provide meal periods; failure to
provide paid rest periods; failure to pay wages; failure to timely
pay wages at termination/separation; failure to timely pay vacation
wages at termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements;
failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition.
McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc. is a distributor of medical
supplies, medical equipment, surgical supplies, medical lab
supplies, and more. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Nicky Jatana, Esq.
Buck N. Haddix, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com
Buck.Haddix@jacksonlewis.com
NORDIC NATURALS: Martin Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RUTH MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2023-00003739-CU-MT-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego,
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on March 9, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00441-L-WVG to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges one count for violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, a second count for violations of the
California False Advertising Law, and a third count for violations
of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Nordic Naturals, Inc. manufactures supplements such as animal oils,
fish oil, and other marine animal oils.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Erik K. Swanholt, Esq.
Troy S. Tessem, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
Telephone: (213) 972-4500
Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
E-mail: eswanholt@foley.com
ttessem@foley.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Kurtz Sues Over Contamination of Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT KURTZ, JR., KURTZ TOOL and DIE CO., INC., CURT MCAFEE,
TERESA MCAFEE, TIFFANI MCAFEE, STEVE SHOCKEY, DONALD SIMMONS, PAULA
SIMMONS, and SHERRI JUSTISON, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,, Case No. 4:23-cv-00529 (N.D.
Ohio, Mar. 15, 2023) seeks damages and equitable relief,
individually and on behalf of the other Class Members, each of whom
are residents, employees, property owners, or business owners
located in the area and within a radius affected by the February 3,
2023 Norfolk Southern Freight Train 32N derailment and the
subsequent "controlled release" in the form of a so-called
"controlled burn" of massive amounts of toxic chemicals including,
vinyl chloride, buytl acrylate, benzene residue and combustible
liquids, including in East Palestine, Ohio, which resulted in
contamination of the area proximate to the Derailment, including
property of all kinds, air, surface and ground water and inhalation
of such toxins and contaminants.
As a result of the Derailment, the Plaintiffs and members of the
Class have been damaged and have suffered, among other things, loss
of use and enjoyment of property, and/or property damage, and/or
contamination, and/or diminution in value of property, and/or
emotional distress, and/or inhalation of contaminants causing
injury and/or requiring medical monitoring, and/or economic
damages, says the suit.
Vinyl chloride is a known Group A carcinogen. Prolonged exposure
can result in organ damage and various cancers. On Friday February
3, 2023, Norfolk Southern Freight Train 32N was carrying abnormally
dangerous and ultra-hazardous chemicals including vinyl chloride
and butyl acrylate. At about 8:54 p.m., some 38 of the train’s
cars derailed on Track 1 of the NS Fort Wayne Line of the Keystone
Division in East Palestine, Ohio. Eleven of the derailed tanker
cars contained hazardous chemicals spilled onto the ground and were
subsequently ignited which damaged other rail cars that had not
derailed. The spilled chemicals contaminated the ground, the
atmosphere, waterways, including the sub-surface water table, and
the contamination continued to be released in the so-called
"controlled burn" conducted subsequently.
Accordingly, the Defendants failed to extinguish the fire, which
continued to burn until February 8, 2023. The Defendants allegedly
failed to immediately report the derailment, and did not inform
federal authorities until nearly two hours after the derailment.
Defendants further failed to provide firefighters with information
as to the hazardous materials on board, which allowed the fire to
continue to grow and impeded first responders’ ability to
extinguish it. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members have been
exposed to toxic substances and fumes as a result of Defendants’
actions, and will continue require medical monitoring over and
above what they would have if they were not exposed to known
carcinogens as a result of the derailment. The increased threat to
the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ health can only be mitigated
with a comprehensive monitoring program.
As a direct result of the derailment and subsequent release of
toxic chemicals into the environment covering an area of many
miles, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered damage to
their residences, and/or loss of use of their property and/or
physical symptoms of exposure to the hazardous chemicals released
into the environment by the Defendants among other damages and
consequences. Their residences within the contamination or exposure
radius or area have also suffered stigma, the suit further
asserts.
Mr. Kurtz, Jr. has been an adult citizen of Ohio and is the
owner-occupier of real property in Poland, approximately sixteen
miles from the Derailment site.
Norfolk is a leading U.S. transportation company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq.
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUEZHOTZ, GASTEL, LENSKI
AND WALL, PLLC
425 Walnut Street, Suite 2315
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 381-2224
E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com
ben@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
E-mail: jbarrack@barrack.com
sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
NORFOLK, VA: $8.7K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Roper Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALBERT L. ROPER, II REVOCABLE TRUST, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NORFOLK, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:21-cv-596 (E.D. Va.), Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk
Division, denies the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the Aug. 9,
2022 order sanctioning them and awards the Defendants $8,718.25 in
attorney's fees.
On Oct. 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the City of Norfolk. On Aug. 9, 2022, the Court dismissed
the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice for lack of standing. It also
granted the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and directed the City
to provide an affidavit and other supporting documentation to prove
the reasonableness of their requested attorney's fees.
Pursuant to the Court's Order, on Aug. 24, 2022, the Defendant
filed an Affidavit With exhibits in support of its request for
$10,067.43 in attorney's fees. On Sept. 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, urging the Court to reconsider
its sanctions against them. Then on Sept. 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs
filed their response in opposition to the Defendant's Motion. On
Sept. 19, 2022, the Defendant responded in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and the Plaintiffs replied
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Court ordered the Defendant to supplement
its request for attorney's fees with additional information on Jan.
25, 2023. On Feb. 10, 2023, the Defendant filed its supplemental
pleading.
Before determining the proper fee amount in the case, Judge Jackson
addresses the Plaintiffs' argument that the Court should reconsider
its Aug. 9, 2022 order, dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims and
issuing sanctions against them, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 59.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reconsideration its
Order to correct a clear error of law and prevent manifest
injustice. However, upon review, Judge Jackson finds that the
Plaintiffs offer no meritorious reason to warrant a change in the
Court's ruling. The Plaintiffs reassert previous arguments in an
attempt to convince the Court that it misapplied the facts and the
law, but Judge Jackson has not found any clear error of fact or law
that needs to be corrected. The Plaintiffs fails to present any new
facts to establish standing and their prior pleadings do not
present sufficient facts to demonstrate that they have any legally
cognizable right to object to the demolition of the Granby Street
property. Therefore, the Court has not made any clear error in
determining that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their
claims.
In addition, Judge Jackson finds that the Norfolk Circuit Court
opinion provided a thorough explanation of the insurmountable legal
barriers present in the instant action. Moreover, he finds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion demonstrates that the Court provided both
parties with an adequate understanding of its reasoning in making
its decision to dismiss the case with prejudice. Given the
discretion invested in the Court to reconsider its earlier
decision, Judge Jackson finds that the Plaintiffs have not asserted
any meritorious ground to amend the Court's Order. Accordingly, he
denies the Motion for Reconsideration.
Lastly, the parties disagree on the lodestar fee. The Defendant
seeks $10,067.43 in attorney's fees for an estimated 108.9 hours
spent. The Plaintiff contests this amount and argues that the
Defendant's proposed lodestar should be reduced by approximately
half.
Judge Jackson finds that the Defendant is entitled to $8,807.58 in
attorney's fees. He adopts the Defendants' proposed hourly rates:
$106.30 per hour for Attorney Melita and $52.42 per hour for
Attorney McClellan. However, he reduces the overall fee award by
10% and finds that the Defendants are entitled to attorney's fees
in the amount of $8,718.25.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Jackson denies the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration and grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' request for attorney's fees. The City's request to
approve $10,067.43 in attorneys' fees is denied because several
Johnson factors do not weigh in favor of establishing the lodestar
figure at the Defendants' requested amount. Accordingly, Judge
Jackson finds that $8,718.25 in attorney's fees is reasonable and
awards that amount to the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs are ordered to pay $8,718.25 to the Clerk of Court
within 20 days of the date of the Order. The funds will be paid
into the Court Registry and thereafter be distributed to the City
of Norfolk, Attn: City Attorney's Office, 810 Union Street,
Norfolk, Virginia 23510.
Judge Jackson directs the Clerk to provide a copy of the Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the counsel and parties of record.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2023 Memorandum Opinion
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mcufsbf2 from
Leagle.com.
PLURALSIGHT INC: Public School Teachers File Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT
SYSTEM and PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF
CHICAGO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PLURALSIGHT, INC.; AARON SKONNARD; and JAMES BUDGE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting their motion for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel.
First, most potential class members have likely suffered losses
that are of insufficient magnitude to justify bringing separate and
individual actions. During the class period, there was an average
weekly trading volume of 4,591,192 shares of stock, with 335
institutions holding Pluralsight common stock at some point during
the Class Period. Thus, there are likely thousands of individual
investors who owned far fewer shares of Pluralsight common stock
and who suffered losses that were not of sufficient magnitude to
justify bringing an individual action.
Second, the Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel are unaware of any Class
member that would prefer to prosecute his, her or its claims
individually.
Third, concentrating the litigation in this Court prevents
inconsistent adjudication and promotes the efficient use of the
judicial system, particularly given that Pluralsight has its
corporate headquarters in Utah.
Fourth and finally, this case presents no unusual management
difficulties.
Since the Court's appointment of Cohen Milstein as Lead Counsel on
March 25, 2020, the firm's attorneys have investigated the claims
at issue, drafted two detailed complaints, survived the Defendants'
motion to dismiss on appeal, and are now further pursuing those
claims in discovery.
Moreover, as demonstrated by their record in other securities class
actions, Cohen Milstein has the resources to effectively pursue and
vigorously prosecute those claims on behalf of the
Class.
On January 16, 2019, the start of the Class Period, the Defendant
James Budge informed investors, at the Needham Growth Conference,
that the sales force had grown to " about 250" representatives,
which was false.
Pluralsight, in fact, had about 200 representatives at that time.
Defendants never corrected this materially false and misleading
statement and continued to paint a positive picture of the sales
force.
The Plaintiffs are multi-employer pension plans based in Indiana
and Illinois with tens of thousands of participants and
beneficiaries
Pluralsight is a software company that provides a cloud-based
technology skills platform.
A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TghHLU at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keith M. Woodwell, Esq.
CLYDE, SNOW & SESSIONS , P.C.
201 South Main Street, Suite 1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 322-2516
Facsimile: (801) 521-6280
E-mail: kmw@clydesnow.com
- and -
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Jan Messerschmidt, Esq.
William Wilder, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 357-0370
Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
stoll@cohenmilstein.com
wwilder@cohenmilstein.com
jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com
POINTSBET USA: Seeks to Junk First Amended Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC GUTMAN, RYAN BOYLE,
ERIC SPIVACK, KEITH NATHAN, and KYLE JOHNSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. POINTSBET USA INC.,
POINTSBET NEW YORK LLC, POINTSBET INDIANA LLC, POINTSBET IOWA LLC,
POINTSBET MICHIGAN LLC, POINTSBET NEW JERSEY LLC, POINTSBET
COLORADO LLC, POINTSBET ILLINOIS LLC, POINTSBET WEST VIRGINIA LLC,
POINTSBET VIRGINIA LLC, and POINTSBET PENNSYLVANIA LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02137-RMR-SKC (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order:
-- dismissing the Plaintiffs' first amended class action
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (b)(2),
and (b)(6), and
-- denying class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23.
Indeed, the Plaintiffs' "group pleading" allegations do not even
satisfy Rule 8(a)(2), much less Rule 9(b). They assert claims
against PointsBet and its Subsidiaries operating in different
states, and they fail to differentiate among these entities in
describing any allegedly wrongful conduct.
They indiscriminately assign responsibility to "the Defendants,"
and they state in conclusory fashion, with no supporting facts,
that "PointsBet Subsidiaries do not maintain separate corporate
identities from one another or from PointsBet USA," allowing them
(they contend) to refer to "PointsBet USA and the PointsBet
Subsidiaries.
They assert each cause of action against the entire group of
companies they lump into the definition of "PointsBet," but do not
attribute any purportedly wrongful act to any particular the
Defendant, or explain what role each specific the Defendant
supposedly played (if any) in the allegedly unlawful conduct.
The Defendants hereby move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, to dismiss the claims of the Plaintiffs Ryan
Boyle and Eric Spivack and all of the Plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of
Article III standing, and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims against
non-Colorado entities for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
In the alternative, the Defendants respectfully move the Court to
preemptively deny certification of the Plaintiffs' putative class
claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails for three straightforward reasons.
First, the contracts that all five the Plaintiffs executed with
subsidiaries of PointsBet USA Inc. included enforceable class
action waivers and alternative dispute resolution provisions, the
Defendants contend.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YM8g8b at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
Catherine E. Kennedy, Esq.
FAEGRE, DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 248-3140
Facsimile: (212) 248-3141
E-mail: jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com
catherine.kennedy@faegredrinker.com
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT FRAZIER, et al,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, V. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, e/fl/., Case No.
8:22-cv-01768-PJM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Peter J. Messitte
entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification
The Plaintiffs are given leave to file an amended motion for class
certification after the Court decides the motions for
reconsideration of the Plaintiffs and of the Defendants.
Oppositions to the pending Motions for Reconsideration SHALL be
filed no later than March 16, 2023, and Replies shall be filed no
later than March 27, 2023.
Within 10 days of the date of this Order, the parties shall advise
the Court whether they have reached an agreement with respect to
preliminary relief in connection with the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
No later than March 31, 2023, the County shall file its updated
policy governing the pretrial release process in Prince George's
County.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FnfcBT at no extra charge.[CC]
PRISMA LABS: Faces Brantley Suit Over Biometric Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
TYRONE BRANTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRISMA LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01566 (N.D. Il., March 14, 2023) alleges Defendant's
violation of the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, without providing any notice and
without obtaining any consent, Prisma covertly scraped billions of
photographs from the internet - including facial images of
thousands of Illinois residents - and then used artificial
intelligence algorithms to scan the face geometry of each
individual depicted in the photographs in order to confirm they are
a human being and harvest the individual's unique biometric
identifiers and corresponding biometric information (collectively,
"Biometrics").
PRISMA LABS, INC. provides software solutions. The Company offers
mobile technology applications for photography and video creation.
Prisma Labs serves clients in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
Email: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
QUANTUM HEALTH: Court Extends Tracy Case Schedule by 120 Days
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIMEE TRACY, v. QUANTUM
HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00294-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order granting the parties
motion to extend the case schedule by 120 days in order to engage
in early discovery and mediation.
But, given that the extension is long, the Court is disinclined to
grant further extensions:
-- The Court vacates the current scheduling order, and adopts
the following schedule:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional
parties shall be filed by July 3, 2023.
-- The motion for class certification shall be filed by
December 1, 2023.
-- All discovery shall be completed by October 30, 2023.
-- Any dispositive motions shall be filed by December 1,
2023.
-- Primary expert reports on liability must be produced by
September 1, 2023. Rebuttal expert reports on liability
must be produced September 29, 2023.
-- Settlement
The parties agree that the Plaintiff be required to make a
settlement demand within 30 days of receipt of payroll and
timekeeping data for both the Plaintiff and the putative
collective and class members, and that the Defendant be
required to respond within 14 days of receiving that
demand.
Quantum operates as a healthcare navigation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/409B5wk at no extra charge.[CC]
RAVI ZACHARIAS: Bid to Strike Carrier Class Allegations OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK CARRIER, et al., v.
RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES, INC. a Georgia Domestic
Non-Profit Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03161-TWT (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order
granting the Defendants motion to strike class allegations.
-- The class allegations of the First Amended Complaint are
dismissed.
-- The Defendants have 30 days from the date of this Order to
file their Answers, and discovery will begin pursuant to
Local Rule 26.2(A).
-- The parties' Joint Request for Scheduling Conference is
denied as moot.
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of the Plaintiffs'
Proposed Stipulated Agreement Regarding Discovery of
Electronically Stored Information and the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Entry of the Plaintiffs' Stipulated Protective
Order are denied without prejudice.
-- The parties are directed to negotiate in good faith in a
further attempt to reach agreement on the subject matter
of the motions. the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Ruling on the
Parties' Joint Report Re Local Rule 23.1(C) Concerning
Communication with Actual or Putative Class Members is
denied as moot.
The Plaintiffs primarily request monetary damages, including
the value of their donations, special and consequential damages,
civil penalties, punitive and exemplary damages, and litigation
expenses. Any injunctive or declaratory relief sought by the
Plaintiffs is incidental to this monetary relief, not the other way
around.
The case is an action involving alleged charity fraud.
The Plaintiffs assert their two remaining claims -- for unjust
enrichment and violation of Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act
(the "FBPA") -- on behalf of a nationwide class, defined as:
"All persons in the United States who made contributions of
monetary value to Ravi Zacharias and/or the Ravi Zacharias
International Ministry from 2004 through February 9, 2021"
(the "Proposed Class").
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, Inc. operates as a
non-profit organization. The Organization offers religious study,
training, and activities.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lapfDA at no extra charge.[CC]
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Arreola Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAEL ARREOLA; and ISRAEL ARREOLA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL
CONTRACTORS, LLC; and SAMUEL ESTIS, Defendants, Case No.
9:23-cv-00050-MJT (E.D. Tex., March 14, 2023) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as foreman.
Southern Industrial Constructors Inc. provides industrial
construction services. The Company offers plant equipment
installation and relocation, rigging, concrete work, fabrication,
electrical installation, and plant maintenance. Southern serves
manufacturing, automotive, pharmaceutical, power, and chemical
industries in the United States and Internationally. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
STARDUST DINERS: Danowski Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages of Waiters
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROMUALD DANOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARDUST DINERS, INC. D/B/A COLONY
DINER, GEORGE STRIFAS, AND THOMAS STRIFAS, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01826 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2023) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges, on his behalf and other similarly situated
current and former employees of Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
(a) and (b), that Defendants willfully violated the federal and
states laws by (i) failing to pay the minimum wage, (ii) failing to
pay overtime premium pay, (iii) failing to pay spread-of-hours pay,
and (iv) failing to provide an accurate wage statement.
Mr. Danowski worked as a waiter for Defendants at their East Meadow
restaurant from June 2015 to April 2019 and from March 2022 to
September 2022.
Stardust Diners, Inc., d/b/a Colony Diner, operates and manages an
American-themed restaurant located in East Meadow, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
SUNRISE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Devi Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MORINE DEVI, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
34-2023- 00336258 (Cal. Super., Mar. 15, 2023) sues the Defendant
for failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members their earned
wages, including minimum wages; straight time wages; overtime
wages; premium wages; lawful meal and/or rest breaks; reimbursement
for necessary expenses; and timely payment of wages, pursuant to
the California Labor Code and Wage Orders.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members were required to clock in at
the beginning of their shifts, clock out for lunch, in at the end
of their lunch periods and out at the end of their shifts. However,
the Plaintiff and the Class Members were not paid for all hours
worked because employees were required to work off the clock and
their time punches were rounded.
Further, the Plaintiff and Class Members were also required to
perform certain pre and post shift activities off the clock,
including waiting in line to clock in. They were also required to
and engage in work-related communications while off the clock,
using their personal cellular phones. Upon information and belief,
the Defendants failed to incorporate all forms of non-discretionary
compensation into the regular rate, including differentials,
bonuses, and incentives, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class were employed
as hourly paid employees employed by Defendants, either directly or
indirectly, in the State of California at any time from four years
prior to the filing of this Complaint.
Sunrise Senior Living is an American operator of senior living
communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Christina M . Lucio, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com
TESLA INC: Lambrix Sues Over Repair Parts' Supracompetitive Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA M. LAMBRIX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TESLA, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01145 (N.D.
Cal., Mar. 14, 2023) is an antitrust class action, brought pursuant
to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, seeking relief for all persons who, like the
Plaintiff, have been 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 for Tesla vehicles.
According to the complaint, Tesla has prevented independent
providers from entering the Tesla Repair Services market, prevented
its original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts manufacturers from
producing Tesla-Compatible Parts for anyone other than Tesla, and
prevented market entry by non-OEM, Tesla-Compatible Parts
manufacturers, as a result of this anticompetitive course of
conduct. The lack of competition in the Tesla Repair Services and
Tesla-Compatible Parts markets caused by Tesla's misconduct has
resulted in artificially inflated prices, insufficient supply, and
excessive wait times for Tesla owners looking to maintain or repair
their vehicles, the lawsuit alleges.
Making matters worse, Tesla has not increased its service capacity
at a sufficient pace to keep up with its growth in EV sales.
Tesla's unlawful monopoly of the Tesla Repair Services and
Tesla-Compatible Parts markets should be enjoined and dismantled,
Tesla should be ordered to make its repair manuals and diagnostic
tools available to individuals and independent repair shops at a
reasonable cost, and the Plaintiff and the proposed Class should be
reimbursed by Tesla for the amounts they overpaid for Tesla Repair
Services and Tesla Compatible Parts, the lawsuit contends.
Ms. Lambrix owns a Tesla Model S and has paid Tesla for Tesla
Repair Services and/or Tesla-Compatible Parts during the Class
Period.
Tesla is a multinational automotive and clean energy company
founded in Palo 20 Alto, California in 2003.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq.
Matthew D. Heaphy, Esq.
David Y. Hwu, Esq.
SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-6810
E-mail: rick@saveri.com
grushing@saveri.com
mheaphy@saveri.com
dhwu@saveri.com
- and -
Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
Nia-Imara Binns, Esq.
Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON
& MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: mruan@fklmlaw.com
dmillen@fklmlaw.com
mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
nbinns@fklmlaw.com
kjustice@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
GROSS KLEIN PC
The Embarcadero, Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 671-4628, ext.10
E-mail: sgross@grossklein.com
TESLA INC: Orendain Sues Over Repair Parts' Supracompetitive Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ORENDAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TESLA, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01157 (N.D. Cal., Mar.
15, 2023) is an antitrust class action, brought pursuant to
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, seeking relief for all persons who, like the Plaintiff, have
been 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 ("Tesla-Compatible Parts") and maintenance and repair
services ("Tesla Repair Services") for Tesla vehicles.
According to the complaint, the lack of competition in the Tesla
Repair Services and Tesla-Compatible Parts markets caused by
Tesla's misconduct has resulted in artificially inflated prices,
insufficient supply, and excessive wait times for Tesla owners
looking to maintain or repair their Evs. As a result of this
anticompetitive course of conduct, Tesla has prevented independent
providers from entering the Tesla Repair Services market, prevented
its original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts manufacturers from
producing Tesla-Compatible Parts for anyone other than Tesla, and
prevented market entry by non-OEM, Tesla-Compatible Parts
manufacturers. This, in turn, has caused Tesla owners to suffer
lengthy delays in repairing or maintaining their EVs, only to pay
supracompetitive prices for those parts and repairs once they are
finally provided, says the suit.
Tesla's unlawful monopoly of the Tesla Repair Services and
Tesla-Compatible Parts markets should be enjoined and dismantled,
Tesla should be ordered to make its repair manuals and diagnostic
tools available to individuals and independent repair shops at a
reasonable cost, and the Plaintiff and the proposed Class should be
reimbursed by Tesla for the amounts they overpaid for Tesla Repair
Services and Tesla Compatible Parts, the suit contends.
Mr. Orendain owns a Tesla Model S and has paid Tesla, outside of
warranty, for Tesla Repair Services and/or Tesla-Compatible Parts
during the Class Period.
Tesla is a multinational automotive and clean energy company
founded in Palo Alto, California, in 2003.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
Connor P. Lemire, Esq.
Dana R. Vogel, Esq.
Christopher M. Sloot, Esq.
McCUNE LAW GROUP, McCUNE WRIGHT
AREVALO VERCOSKI KUSEL WECK BRANDT, APC
3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
dyb@mccunewright.com
lmp@mccunewright.com
cpl@mccunewright.com
drv@mccunewright.com
cms@mccunewright.com
TIMEC SERVICES: Wilson Has Until April 7 to Oppose Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARVONTE WILSON and DOMONIQUE DANIELS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIMEC
SERVICES COMPANY, INC.; FERROVIAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.;
VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA; DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS; and DOES
1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00172-WBS-KJN
(E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, having reviewed the Parties'
stipulation:
1. withdraws DISA's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint
and takes off calendar the hearing scheduled for April 17,
2023;
2. orders the Defendants to file their response to the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint; and
3. gives the Plaintiffs until April 7, 2023, to file their
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss if the Defendants file
a Motion to Dismiss, and gives the Defendants until
April 21, 2023, to file their Reply to the Motion to
Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6pvv9be from Leagle.com.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Holly Williamson -- Julianne K. Stanford
-- (Pro Hac Vice Pending) Karen Jennings Evans -- Julianne K.
Stanford -- San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant DISA
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, Kimberley Westmoreland --
kwestmoreland@grsm.com -- Cecilia Hong -- chong@grsm.com --
Attorneys for Defendant TIMEC SERVICES COMPANY, INC., FERROVIAL
SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP, Lawrence A. Organ, Julianne K.
Stanford, Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARVONTE WILSON, DOMONIQUE
DANIELS, and the Putative Class.
TRANS UNION: Discovery & Case Deadlines Stayed in Bartley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM S. BARTLEY, v.
TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00425-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the
Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order approving joint
stipulation regarding discovery and remaining case deadlines.
The Court enter an order that all discovery and remaining case
deadlines are stayed pending ruling on class-certification in
Jordan Coffey v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al., Case
No. 5:22-cv-00271 (E.D. Ky).
Trans Union operates as global information and insights company.
The Company offers various credit monitoring, risk management, and
marketing.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FxWZSc at no extra charge.[CC]
TRANS UNION: Discovery & Case Deadlines Stayed in Breen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Breen v. Trans Union, LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00447 (W.D. Ky., Filed Aug. 30, 2022), the Hon.
Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order staying all discovery
and remaining case deadlines are stayed pending ruling on
class-certification in a ruling on a motion for class-certification
in Jordan Coffey v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al., Case
No. 5:22-cv-00271 (E.D. Ky).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.
TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FrAiiA at no extra charge.[CC]
TRANS UNION: Stamey Case Deadlines Stayed Pending Ruling in Coffey
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stamey v. Trans Union,
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00437 (W.D. Ky., Filed Aug. 24, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order staying all
discovery and remaining case deadlines are stayed pending ruling on
class-certification in a ruling on a motion for class-certification
in Jordan Coffey v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al., Case
No. 5:22-cv-00271 (E.D. Ky).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.
TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mQdWkd at no extra charge.[CC]
VANTAGE POINT: Seeks Abeyance of Class Certification Briefing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WEISTER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VANTAGE POINT AI,
LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-01250-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), VantagePoint asks
the Court to enter an order:
(a) holding class certification briefing in abeyance until
the issues raised in the Motion for Contempt are
resolved; and
(b) directing the parties to submit a class certification
briefing schedule within seven days of a ruling on
VantagePoint's Motion for Contempt.
The Motion for Contempt seeks information relevant to (and several
orders regarding) the Plaintiff's counsel's very recent and likely
ongoing violations of the Protective Order -- all of which are
relevant to VantagePoint's forthcoming opposition to class
certification, currently due 21 days from today (by March 27,
2023).
VantagePoint designates this motion as time-sensitive because it
cannot fully respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification without obtaining an order on its Motion for Contempt
and all the information requested therein. VantagePoint
respectfully requests a ruling on this motion by March 10, 2023.
On January 13, 2023, the Plaintiff's counsel obtained a response to
a subpoena that it issued to the Better Business Bureau of West
Florida. The BBB subpoena sought information about a two-year-old
complaint from a person who claimed to have received communications
from VantagePoint.
A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated March 6, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lbkTvX at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
Matthew A. Keilson, Esq.
KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 400-7300
E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com
mkeilson@kcozlaw.com
VANTAGE POINT: Weister Robocall Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WEISTER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VANTAGE POINT AI, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-01250-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"the thousands of consumers whose cellular telephone
numbers Vantage Point AI, LLC repeatedly called using a
prerecorded message in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act's robocalls provision, 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii);"
2. appointing him as class representative;
3. appointing Kaufman P.A. and Turke & Strauss as class
counsel; and
4. establishing a deadline for submitting a proposed notice
plan.
The case is well-suited for class certification because it involves
a single campaign of calls made using substantively similar
prerecorded voice messages to telephone numbers obtained by Vantage
Point in the same manner, the Plaintiff contends.
Vantage Point sells "financial, technical analysis software,
artificial intelligence for retail [stock] traders.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated March 6, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FtLpY9 at no
extra charge.[CC]
the Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
VUORI INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Buchanan Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
TERRENCE BUCHANAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VUORI INC.; and Does 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-01121 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2023)
is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Buchanan was employed by the Defendants as staff.
VUORI, INC. provides apparels. The Company offers shorts, pants,
tops, jackets, hoodies, hats, bottoms, joggers, leggings,
jumpsuits, and other accessories. Vuori serves customers in the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Dal Bon, Esq.
THE WISDOM LAW GROUP APC
1625 The Alameda #207
San Jose, CA 95126
Telephone: (408) 915-3700
Email: jdb@wagedefenders.net
YOUTUBE LLC: Seeks to File Under Seal Harold Declaration
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SCHNEIDER, UNIGLOBE
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, and AST PUBLISHING LTD., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendants-Counterclaimants YouTube, LLC and Google LLC submit an
interim administrative motion to file under seal the unredacted
version of the Declaration of Paul N. Harold in Support of the
Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification as well as the unredacted version of exhibits
submitted in support of that declaration.
The reasons for sealing will be discussed in a forthcoming omnibus
sealing motion filed jointly by the parties by April 7, 2023, by
agreement of the parties and pursuant to section 31 of Your Honor's
Standing Order for Civil Cases.
A copy of the the Defendants' motion dated March 6, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TgOros at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
David H. Kramer, Esq.
Maura L. Rees, Esq.
Lauren Gallo White, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
E-mail: dkramer@wsgr.com
mrees@wsgr.com
lwhite@wsgr.com
- and -
Brian M. Willen, Esq.
Catherine R. Hartman, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019-6022
Telephone: (212) 999-5800
Facsimile: (212) 999-5801
E-mail: bwillen@wsgr.com
chartman@wsgr.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Int'l. Receives A&E Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., has received asbestos and
environmental liability claims arising from other liability
coverage primarily written in the 1960s, 1970s and into the early
1980s, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos and environmental claims originate
from policies directly underwritten by us and from reinsurance
assumed during this period, including a portion assumed from the
London market. Reserves for other run-off lines relate to other
liability coverage primarily written in the 1970's, with recent
claim activity relating to abuse claims.
"Reserves for asbestos and environmental claims cannot be estimated
with traditional loss reserving techniques that rely on historical
accident year loss development factors. The uncertainty in the
asbestos and environmental reserves estimates arises from several
factors including lack of actuarially credible historical data,
inapplicability of standard actuarial projection techniques,
uncertainty with regards to claim costs, coverage interpretations
and judicial, statutory and regulatory provisions under which the
claims may be ultimately resolved. It is impossible to predict how
the courts will interpret coverage issues and these resolutions may
have a material impact on the ultimate resolution of the asbestos
and environmental liabilities. We use a variety of estimation
methods to calculate reserves as a whole; however, reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims were determined using a variety
of methods which rely on historical claim reporting and average
claim cost information. We apply greatest weight to the method that
projects future calendar period claims and average claim costs
because it best captures the unique claim characteristics of our
underlying exposures. Although management has recorded its best
estimate of loss reserves, due to the uncertainties of estimation
of liability that may arise as discussed herein, further
deterioration of claims could occur in the future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3THfucH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 45 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub,
has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through
December 31, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than
100 defendants. There remained approximately 45 pending asbestos
claims as of December 31, 2022. BNS Sub believes it has significant
defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None
of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there
can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has
insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years
beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive
billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or
decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or
dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the
then-existing claims are revised. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021,
BNS Sub has accrued $1,418 and $1,466, respectively, relating to
the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes
the amount of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company
by the insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of
the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the
amounts funded by insurance. There can be no assurance that the
number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience
to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to
significantly increase its estimated liability for the costs to
settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect
on the consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3TzKX0d
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Faces Various Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CarParts.com, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that
contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not
manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage
to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from
the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather
than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur
significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that
would be material to its consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3yVTGAz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ceridian HCM Defends Asbestos Related Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ceridian HCM Holding Inc. is subject to claims and investigations
as a result of its predecessor, Control Data Corporation ("CDC"),
Ceridian Corporation, and other former entities for whom they are
successor-in-interest with respect to assumed liabilities,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "For example, in September 1989, CDC became
party to an environmental matters agreement with Seagate Technology
plc ("Seagate") related to groundwater contamination on a parcel of
real estate in Omaha, Nebraska sold by CDC to Seagate. In February
1988, CDC entered into an arrangement with Northern Engraving
Corporation and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in relation
to groundwater contamination at a site in Spring Grove, Minnesota.
In 2021 and 2022, we have been subject to asbestos related claims
for former CDC employees. Although we are fully reserved for these
groundwater contamination liabilities, and partially insured for
the asbestos claims, we cannot be certain if additional claims,
investigations, or liabilities related to such predecessor
companies will surface."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3JZfK3z
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Defends Exposure Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc., has been sued, together with approximately
90 other defendants, alleging that indirect exposure to asbestos at
a plant in North Carolina contributed to the wrongful death of Mr.
Bostian, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In a lawsuit styled: Brenda E. Bostian, individually and as
representative of the Estate of Hoyle Steven Bostian, deceased,
case number 2021-CP-40-04877 South Carolina Court of Common Pleas,
Fifth Judicial Circuit- Richland County (Columbia SC). The
complaint alleges that Mr. Hoyle Bostian's father worked at a
facility in North Carolina where he was exposed to asbestos and
that Mr. Bostia's exposure indirectly caused Mr. Bostian (the
decedent) to be exposed to asbestos. The plaintiff's "secondary"
exposure allegedly occurred in the 1950s - prior to the Company's
1987 acquisition of China Grove Cotton Mills, the company that
owned the facility. No damage amount has been alleged. The Company
has denied liability and is vigorously defending the matter.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3LGLlYY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Records $607MM A&E Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited has $607 million of defendant asbestos and
environmental liabilities as of December 31, 2022, substantially
all of which consists of defendant asbestos liabilities, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Defendant asbestos liabilities include amounts
for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future
asbestos-related claims, determined by management using actuarial
methods. The actuarial methods utilize data resulting from claims
experience and include the development of estimates of the
potential value of asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet
resolved, as well as the number and potential value of
asbestos-related claims not yet asserted. In developing the
estimate of liability for potential future claims, the actuarial
methods project the potential number of future claims based on
historical claim filings and health studies. The actuarial methods
also utilize assumptions based on the Company's historical
proportion of claims resolved without payment, historical claim
resolution costs for those claims that result in a payment, and
historical defense costs. The liabilities are estimated by
management using pending and projected future claim filings,
projected payment rates, average claim resolution amounts, and
estimated defense costs, which are derived based on assumptions
relating to defense cost to indemnity cost ratios. Management
utilizes judgment when determining the assumptions related to
projected future claim filings, projected payment rates, and
estimated defense costs.
"The principal considerations for our determination that performing
procedures relating to the valuation of defendant asbestos
liabilities is a critical audit matter are (i) the significant
judgment by management when developing the estimate of the
liability, (ii) a high degree of auditor judgment, subjectivity and
effort in performing procedures and evaluating management's
significant assumptions related to future claim filings, average
claim resolution amounts, and defense cost to indemnity cost
ratios, and (iii) the audit effort involved the use of
professionals with specialized skill and knowledge."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3JziBPb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp.'s Subsidiaries Faces Numerous PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ESAB Corporation's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in
a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Such components were acquired from third-party
suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of our, or our Former
Parent's, subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries, producers or
direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are
alleged to have contained or used asbestos generally were provided
to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers,
including the U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims
for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and
circumstances of each claim. The annual average settlement payment
per asbestos claimant has fluctuated during the past several years
while the number of cases has steadily declined.
"We expect such fluctuations to continue in the future based upon,
among other things, the number and type of claims settled in a
particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise.
To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no
payment."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Jtcls8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Still Receives A&E Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., continues to receive claims
under expired insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting
injuries and/or damages relating to or resulting from environmental
pollution and hazardous substances, including asbestos, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Everest Reinsurance states, "Environmental claims typically assert
liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation of environmental
contamination or (b) bodily injury or property damage caused by the
release of hazardous substances into the land, air or water.
Asbestos claims typically assert liability for bodily injury from
exposure to asbestos or for property damage resulting from asbestos
or products containing asbestos.
The Company's reserves include an estimate of the Company's
ultimate liability for A&E claims. The Company's A&E liabilities
emanate from direct insurance business and Everest Re's assumed
reinsurance business. All of the contracts of insurance and
reinsurance, under which the Company has received claims during the
past three years, expired more than20 years ago. There are
significant uncertainties surrounding the Company's reserves for
its A&E losses."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/42tKSiN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured and/or distributed by them, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Such products were used as internal components
of process equipment, and we do not believe that there was any
significant emission of asbestos-containing fibers during the use
of this equipment. Although we are defending these allegations
vigorously and believe that a high percentage of these lawsuits are
covered by insurance or indemnities from other companies, there can
be no assurance that we will prevail or that coverage or payments
made by insurance or such other companies would be adequate.
Unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could have a
material adverse impact on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3FH70g6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Defends 1,048 PI Lawsuits as of Jan. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc., since 2002 and as of January 31, 2023, has received an
approximately 1,048 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Of these, 996 have been dismissed without any
payment by us, 40 are pending and only 12 have been settled, which
settlements have not materially impacted our financial condition or
operating results.
"As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk
of exposure to product liability claims if the use of the products
we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is
alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or
property damage or to have violated environmental, health or safety
or other laws. Such product liability claims have included and may
in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing,
defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the
product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties.
Certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related
to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they
distributed prior to 1979."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3JVP6II
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,224 Pending PI Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation, at December 31, 2022, has reported 17,224
pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the them,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Of those actions, 16,588 were filed in the New
York Supreme Court (New York County), 115 were filed in other New
York State Supreme Court Counties and 521 were filed in courts
located in other states
"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.
"At December 31, 2022, 16,549 of the actions filed in New York
Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive
Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and
future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate
that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical
impairment. The remaining 39 cases in New York County are pending
on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can
demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment.
"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above.
The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by
the Company's insurers.
"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. At December 31, 2022, the Company
has obtained dismissal in 28,416 cases by stipulation or summary
judgment prior to trial.
"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable
nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded
in the Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss
contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this
uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for
a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that are
reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection
with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/40sSpwx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims.
On May 5, 2011, Company entered into two separate settlement
agreements with two plaintiffs. As of December 31, 2022, the
Company has a remaining obligation under these agreements to pay
the plaintiffs $855 without interest in 9 annual installments of
$95 on or before May 22 of each year. The Company has recorded a
liability for the net present value of the liability. The
difference between the net present value and the total payment will
be charged to interest expense over the payment period.
It is reasonably possible that the estimated reserve for product
liability claims may change within the next 12 months. A change in
estimate could occur if a case is settled for more or less than
anticipated, or if additional information becomes known to the
Company.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3FGXWb3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Has 247 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 247 cases pending
against the Company as of December 31, 2022 (with Illinois, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 223 cases that were pending as of December
31, 2021. During 2022, 139 new cases were filed against the
Company, and the Company was dismissed from 84 cases and settled 31
cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules
leading to or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that
its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending
against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a
continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement
amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and
nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial
health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The
Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will
have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3LEaHqn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Records $320MM Claims Liability
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has updated its recorded
liability for asbestos-related claims to $320 million at December
31, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers'
compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period
from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned
of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not
have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos
litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by
numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in
various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors
unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses include that: (i)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs;
(ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; and (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/42yxBpq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Faces 109 Exposure Cases Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by its former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure
to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned
and/or operated by us. There are 109 of these types of cases
pending, involving a total of approximately 583 plaintiffs. In
addition, the claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio
state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened
unless the plaintiffs meet the courts’ medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this
litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to
reasonably estimate the liability, if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3LLgKtk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ODP Corporation's subsidiary OfficeMax, is named as a defendant
in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the
operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to
those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and
future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out
of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to
the closing of the sale. The Company has made provision for losses
with respect to the pending proceedings. Additionally, as of
December 31, 2022, the Company has made provision for environmental
liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous
substances or other contaminants are or may be located. For these
liabilities, the Company's estimated range of reasonably possible
losses was approximately $15 million to $25 million. The Company
regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. As
additional information becomes known, these estimates may change,
however, the Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax
retained proceedings are material to the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3FKmNL3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Defends 537 Product Liability Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation is named defendant in 537 asbestos-related
product liability cases as of December 31, 2022, compared to 543
cases as of December 31, 2021, with the change reflecting new
cases, dismissals, settlements and other dispositions, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have
been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts
across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these
products in the late 1980s. In virtually all of the cases against
us, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages above a
jurisdictional minimum against multiple defendants who may have
manufactured, sold or used asbestos-containing products to which
the plaintiffs were allegedly exposed and from which they
purportedly suffered injury. Most of these cases are being
litigated in Maryland, Illinois, Missouri and New York; however, we
are also defending cases in other states. We intend to vigorously
defend these cases, primarily on the basis of the plaintiffs’
inability to establish compensable loss as a result of exposure to
our products. As of December 31, 2022, the estimated liability and
estimated insurance recovery for all current and future indemnity
and defense costs projected through 2064 was $65.0 million and
$59.8 million, respectively.
"The indemnity and defense costs of our asbestos-related product
liability litigation to date have been substantially covered by
insurance. As of December 31, 2022, our consolidated statements of
financial position include a $5.2 million net accrual of estimated
asbestos-related expenses that exceed asbestos-related insurance
coverage for all current and future indemnity and defense costs
projected through 2064."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ju09aM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 238 Lawsuits as of Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. as of December 31, 2022, was a defendant in
approximately 238 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "At December 31, 2022, seven plaintiffs have
claims pending in Louisiana and 12 plaintiffs in the aggregate have
claims pending in either Illinois or Missouri, in which we have or
may have an interest.
"One of our subsidiaries was named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the
subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and
involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos. For many of these lawsuits, we
have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs
to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims
against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature
of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary
were sold in 1989. In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain
insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that
provide the subsidiary with cash. An earlier settlement, achieved
in September 2018, provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity
that begins making payments in 2024. Together with a
coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers and additional
coverage issued by other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has
sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as
well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot
predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we
do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these
claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
statement of financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3ZJVkku
*********
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 ***