/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230331.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 31, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 66
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Banks Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Lee Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Rudzinski Class Suit Alleges
8216 SG: Faces Jacobi Class Suit For Failure to Pay All Wages
AGHSBH MARKETING: Gischel Balks at Waitresses' Unpaid Minimum Wages
ALTRIA GROUP: Tekonsha Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Scheme
AMERICAN BAR: Motion to Dismiss Crane Privacy Class Action Granted
AMERICAN EAGLE: Order Overruling Objections to Garcia Suit Reversed
AMERICAN FIRE: Fails to Pay Security Officers' OT Wages, Suit Says
AT&T SERVICES: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Palumbo Class Suit OK'd
BANK OF TOKYO: Laydon & Tullett Prebon's Class Deal Wins Final OK
BANK OF TOKYO: Laydon and Barclays' Class Deal Wins Final Approval
BEAUFORT MEMORIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ragsdale Alleges
BETTERHELP INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
BILLINGS, MT: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Water Billing Practices
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Landrieu Lawsuit
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Maneen Suit
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Pearson Case
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Richoux Case
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Sammie Jones Suit
BRAVO BRIO: St. Clair Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Minimum Wages
CAJUN SEAFOOD: Rodriguez Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
CALIFORNIA STATE: Weber Sues Over Sex Discrimination & Harassment
CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Patients' Health Info
CHARLOTTE, NC: Hensley Class Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Bid for Arbitration in Wilmore Suit
CLEVELAND BROTHERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thomas Alleges
CONDUENT STATE: Page Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
CREDIT CONTROL: Court Dismisses Biener FDCPA Suit Without Prejudice
DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
DRIVER PROVIDER: Bid for Writ of Mandamus Filed in Salazar Suit
EMTEC GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Velayudhan Alleges
EOG RESOURCES: Kimble Loses Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses
EXEL INC: Settles Class Suit Over Unfair Pre-Hire Policy for $2.7-M
EXPRESS SERVICES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Whiting-Turner Suit
FLINT, MI: Attys.' Fees & Costs Award in Water Crisis Suit Affirmed
FLOOR AND DECOR: McKinnon Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
FLORIDA POWER: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Power Outages
FOOT LOCKER: Order Overruling Objections to Garcia Suit Reversed
FORTUNE SOCIETY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sonaike Alleges
FREIGHTWORKS LLC: Oshea Sues Over Termination Without Prior Notice
GENERAL MOTORS: Transmission Suit Granted Class Action Status
GERBER PRODUCTS: Supplemental Class Notice OK'd in Hasemann Suit
GESICK CONCRETE: Cashpal Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
GORES HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over United Wholesale Merger Deal
GROVE CITY: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, Slone Claims
HIGHMARK INC: Ainsworth-Holly Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
HIRERIGHT LLC: Hoffman Has Leave to File First Amended Class Suit
HOLYOKE SOLDIERS: Sued Over Facility's Mishandling of COVID-19
I-BLADES INC: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in Monegro Suit
JUUL LABS: Agrees to Settle False Advertising Class Suit for $255M
K&C EXECUTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walls Suit Alleges
KAGED MUSCLE: Gonzales Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
KANSAS CITY: Bid to Dismiss McMillan Class Suit Granted in Part
KARIFAS AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Puga Suit Alleges
KRATOCHVIL LAW: Smith Sues Over Fraudulent Default Judgments
LABORATORY CORP: Espitia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
LAW OFFICES: Faces Gross Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Hebert's Appeal From Denial of Leave to Amend Nixed
LINCARE INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Prostek Suit
LOWE'S HOME: Rodriguez Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
MARS INC: Chocolate Contains Lead and Cadnium, Prescott Alleges
MCELROY METAL: Pitts' BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
MDL 2913: Allegan Area ESA Sues Over E-Cigarettes' Deceptive Ads
MDL 2913: Cassopolis Schools Sues Over E-Cigarettes' Deceptive Ads
MDL 2913: Owendale-Gagetown Area Sues Over E-Cigarettes' False Ads
MEMPHIS, TN: Class Suit Over Rape Kit Backlog Certified
METHODIST LE BONHEUR: Fails to Pay Dispatchers' OT Wages Under FLSA
MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: $1.75M Class Deal in Baten Suit Wins Final OK
MIKE WALNUT: Faces Kepler Suit Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
MOVE INC: Must Defend Against Faucett's Robocall Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Colon Suit Over Antitrust Violations
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Final Settlement in ACH Suit Heard on May 31
NEVADA: District Court Denies Lopez's Bid to Certify Class Action
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bunts Alleges Train Derailment's Chemical Spills
OAK HARBOR: Aguirrie Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Zimmerman Sues Over Royalty Payment Scheme
PEARSON EDUCATION: Discloses Subscribers' Info, Collins Alleges
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Move to Dismiss Mackey Complaint Denied
PINE TREE PARK: Homeowners Sue Over Mobile Home Act Violations
PINNACLE PROPERTY: Longboy Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
PRICE-SIMMS INC: Watkins Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
PRIORITY CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tidwell Alleges
QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Altimeo Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Sales, Licensing Practices
R.S. WOODWORKS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Munoz Alleges
RATEGENIUS LOAN: Vandever Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Firm File Motion to Quash Subpoena
SACKCLOTH & ASHES: Feliz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SCHUTZER GROUP: Debt Letter "Misleading," Vyacheslav Suit Says
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Faces Zelaya Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
STATE FARM: M.D. Florida Dismisses RICO Claims in Sanchez Suit
STATE FARM: W.D. Kentucky Dismisses Pedroso's Claims Under MVRA
SUFFOLK AUTO DRIVING: Faces Collette Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
SUMMIT UTILITIES: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Billing Practices OK
SZECHUAN MOUNTAIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Portillo Alleges
TELEFLORA LLC: Duhigg TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
THERMO FISHER: Dechirico Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Price Gauging Tickets
TOPHAT LOGISTICAL: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Williams Alleges
TRANSATLANTIC DIRECT: Motion to Dismiss Conrad Fraud Suit Granted
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Ouranitsas Sues Over Drop in Share Price
U.S. SECURITY: Summary Adjudications in Stone Class Suit Affirmed
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Settlement Claims Filing Set April 14
USA TIRES: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Moreno Says
USERTESTING INC: Dickerson Alleges Misleading SEC Proxy Statement
USIC LOCATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Nelson Alleges
VISALUS INC: Appeals 9th Cir. Ruling in Wakefield Suit to Sup. Ct.
WATCHMAN SECURITY: Houston Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
XE HOLDING: Brink ADA Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
ZOLL MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Pettaway Suit Alleges
[^] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Speakers Named
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Int'l. Has 227 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Has 3,383 Pending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J to Appeal Texas Two-Step Case to Supreme Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 99 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Subsidiary Has 109 Pending PI Cases
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Banks Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JURAL BANKS 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-01142-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 22, 2023) is a class action
alleging that 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, aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio
persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which would
expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
The Defendants allegedly 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seek injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.
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. He was diagnosed with
non small cell cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Lee Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW LEE 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-01143-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 22, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff alleging that 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, aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly
toxic and bio persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), which would expose end users of the product to the risks
associated with PFAS.
The Defendants allegedly 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seek injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish active fires during his working
career as a civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with testicular
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Rudzinski Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT RUDZINSKI 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-01140-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 22,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff alleging that 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, aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) with
knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
The Defendants allegedly 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 are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seek injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.
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. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
8216 SG: Faces Jacobi Class Suit For Failure to Pay All Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL JACOBI, an individual, on behalf of the general public as
well as himself and others similarly situated v. 8216 SG CAPITAL
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, et al., Case No.
23SMCV01245 (Cal. Super., Mar. 21, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants fail to pay wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants allegedly refused and/or
promptly compensate him all wages owed to him on the date of his
constructive termination. The Plaintiff also alleges the Defendant
for waiting time penalties, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to produce employee file, retaliation,
unfair and unlawful business practices, and wrongful constructive
termination.
On May 2020, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff as an employee. The
agreement was that the Plaintiff would earn $25,000 on every
property that was closed plus a salary of $120,000.00. The
Plaintiff was never paid during his employment and was given
excuses whenever he complained about the lack of pay. In
retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints, Mr. Golcheh would continue
to withhold payment and belittle Plaintiff.
As a result of the unlawful acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff
is entitled to recovery of the unpaid wage amounts, plus interest
and penalties thereon, attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to
Labor Code sections 218.5, 218.6 and 1194, says the suit.
The Defendants include 7601 FIG LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company; EUCLID HAZARD CAPITAL LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company; CARSON BELSHIRE CAPITAL LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; SHOSHANA CAPITAL LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; GAREY CAPITAL LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; LAKEWOOD CAPITAL LLC, Unlimited, a California
Limited Liability Company; 3521 MSB CAPITAL LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; 2150 MSB CAPITAL LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; 6432 MSB CAPITAL LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; MAZAL SHEL BERACHA LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; 1818 CAPITAL LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; HOLT DUDLEY CAPITAL LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; E & B REAL ESTATE INC. a California,
Corporation; MISSION WHITE CAPITAL LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; and GOLCHEH DEVELOPMENTS AND INVESTMENTS LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; JOSH GOLCHEH, an individual;
and DOES 1 through 170 inclusive.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gavril T. Gabriel, Esq.
Athina Kotsia, Esq.
Nikolaos Kefallonitis, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GAVRIL T. GABRIEL
8255 Firestone Blvd., Suite 209
Downey, CA 90241
Telephone: (562) 758-8210
Facsimile: (562) 758-8219
E-mail: GGabriel@GTGLaw.Org
AKotsia@GTG Law. Org
NKefallonitis@GTGLaw.Org
AGHSBH MARKETING: Gischel Balks at Waitresses' Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE GISCHEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGHSBH MARKETING & DISTRIBUTION,
LP d/b/a AROOGA'S GRILLE HOUSE & SPORTS BAR, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00957 (E.D. Pa., March 13, 2023) is a civil action brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking damages for Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff all minimum wages owed while working for
Defendant paid on a hybrid sub-minimum wage and tips basis.
Plaintiff Gischel was employed as a waitress at Defendant's
restaurant located in Allentown, Pennsylvania from October 2019 to
September 2021.
AGHSBH Marketing & Distribution, LP operates a chain of restaurants
known as Arooga's Grille House & Sports Bar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
Horsham, PA 19044
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
ALTRIA GROUP: Tekonsha Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
TEKONSHA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01312 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 2023) alleges violation of the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
marketing strategy, advertising, and product design targets minors,
especially school age minors, and has dramatically increased the
use of e-cigarettes amongst the student body of the Tekonsha
Community Schools. The Defendants' conduct has caused many students
to become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat the
Defendants' deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its students on
the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent
the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette products on
Plaintiffs' property, says the suit.
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. is a holding company. The Company, through
subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes and other tobacco
products, including cigars and pipe tobacco. Altria holds an
interest in a brewery company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.,
Jade S. Koller, Esq.,
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 West Broadway, Suite 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com
kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com
AMERICAN BAR: Motion to Dismiss Crane Privacy Class Action Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Thomas of Reuters reports that the American Bar Association
won dismissal of a proposed privacy class action on March 22, 2023,
but a federal judge in Detroit gave the lawyer behind it another
chance to make his case.
Mark Crane, a lawyer in Rochester, Michigan, claimed the ABA
violated a state law that prohibits sellers of reading materials
from disclosing what materials their customers receive.
Lawyers are automatically subscribed to the ABA Journal when they
join the bar association, the lawsuit said, and the ABA violated
the Michigan law when it sold his and other lawyers' information to
third parties.
Crane claimed he received a "barrage of unwanted junk mail" after
the ABA, the world's largest voluntary bar association, sold his
data.
U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg, however, noted in March 21,
2023's ruling that Crane's website and his profile page on the
State Bar of Michigan both advertise him as a member of the ABA,
and by extension, an ABA Journal subscriber.
Crane "published to the entire world the very facts he claims the
ABA revealed," Berg said.
Berg nevertheless held open the possibility that the "ABA's alleged
conduct may amount to a violation" of Michigan's privacy law. Berg
said Crane could amend his complaint if he can allege that the ABA
"disclosed information about other books he purchased or magazines
to which he subscribed."
Crane and his class action attorneys at Bursor & Fisher and Hedin
Hall did not respond to requests for comment.
An ABA spokesperson said the judge's ruling speaks for itself and
declined to comment further. The bar association was represented by
a pair of lawyers from law firm Greenberg Traurig.
The case is Mark Crane v. American Bar Association, U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 2:22-cv-11267
For Mark Crane: Frank Hedin of Hedin Hall, Philip Fraietta of
Bursor & Fisher, and Gregory Mitchell, Sharon Almonrode and E.
Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm.
For the ABA: Christopher Dodrill and Jean Valdetero of Greenberg
Traurig, and Moheeb Murray of Bush, Seyferth & Paige [GN]
AMERICAN EAGLE: Order Overruling Objections to Garcia Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellee v. AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC.,
CARTER'S INC., CHICO'S FAS, INC., EXPRESS, INC., GABRIEL BROTHERS,
INC., GENESCO INC., HOT TOPIC, INC., J. CREW GROUP, INC., KOHL'S
CORPORATION, TAPESTRY, INC., THE GAP, INC., VERA BRADLEY, INC.,
Appellant, Case No. 1320 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super.), Judge Victor P.
Stabile of the U.S. Superior Court of Pennsylvania reverses the
trial court's July 14, 2021 order overruling the Appellants'
preliminary objections to the class action complaint of the
Appellees.
Garcia purchased cloth face masks from each of the Appellants and
retained sales receipts indicating that the Appellants collected
sales tax for each mask. On Oct. 22, 2020, Garcia filed the class
action under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
("UTPCPL"), 73 P.S. 201-1, et seq., alleging that the Appellants
engaged in unfair trade practices by charging sales tax for items
they knew or should have known were nontaxable.
The Appellants filed preliminary objections on Feb. 15, 2021,
alleging that the complaint was legally insufficient and failed to
state a claim because improper sales tax collection is not
actionable under the UTPCPL. Garcia responded on April 7, 2021, and
the trial court heard argument on June 4, 2021. The trial court
overruled the preliminary objections by order of July 14. The
Appellants have taken this interlocutory appeal by permission. The
sole issue before the Superior Court is whether the collection of
sales tax on nontaxable items, as alleged in Garcia's complaint, is
cognizable under the UTPCPL.
The Appellants argue that collection of tax does not meet the
definition of "trade or commerce," and that their alleged conduct
does not meet any definition of unlawful conduct under Section
201-2(4). They argue that the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue
("DoR") is responsible for determining which items are taxable and
which are not, and that the DoR also offers a remedy for consumers
who believe they have been charged tax they did not owe.
Judge Stabile opines that the unambiguous language of the operative
provisions of the UTPCPL, its purposes as delineated by the Supreme
Court, the dictionary definition of "conduct", the treatment of
sales tax under the Pennsylvania Code, and persuasive authority
from other jurisdictions and the persuasive concurring opinion of
former Chief Justice Castille all lead him to conclude that
collection of sales tax, as alleged in Garcia's complaint, is not
part of the conduct of trade or commerce under the UTPCPL. He
discerns no basis for concluding that activity merely "related to"
trade or commerce is actionable under the UTPCPL.
For these reasons, Judge Stabile concludes that the collection of
sales tax on nontaxable items, under circumstances alleged by
Garcia does not occur in the conduct of any trade or commerce,
within the meaning of the UTPCPL. The alleged conduct is not
actionable under the UTPCPL, and the trial court erred in
overruling the Appellants' preliminary objections. Therefore, he
reverses the order and relinquishes jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/j4v8a2kp from Leagle.com.
AMERICAN FIRE: Fails to Pay Security Officers' OT Wages, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ISLOMBEK YULDASHEV individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. AMERICAN FIRE & SECURITY, INC., VED
ASSOCIATES LLC, VEP ASSOCIATES LLC, and ROMAN PYATETSKY, Case No.
152669/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Mar. 22, 2023) seeks to recover overtime
compensation for Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals who performed work since March 2017 as security
officers for Defendants, pursuant to New York Labor Law and New
York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.
The Defendants have allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of
requiring their security guards to regularly work in excess of 40
hours per week, without providing overtime compensation as required
by applicable state law. While working for the Defendants, the
Plaintiff Yuldashev normally worked 7 days per week and regularly
worked back-to-back 12-hour shifts. The Plaintiff regularly worked
over 100 hours in a week. Like the Named Plaintiff, the Named
Plaintiff’s fellow security officers also worked more than 40
hours in a week and were not paid at a rate of one and a half times
their regular rates of pay, the lawsuit claims.
Plaintiff Yuldashev worked for Defendants as a security officer
from July 5, 2021 to September 4, 2021.
American Fire is a veteran-owned security company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
Jack Newhouse, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com
AT&T SERVICES: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Palumbo Class Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN PALUMBO, et al., Plaintiffs v. AT&T SERVICES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-1818-N (N.D.
Tex.), Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants Defendants AT&T
Services, Inc., and DirecTV, LLC's motion to compel arbitration.
The dispute arises from class action complaints filed by Plaintiffs
Steven Palumbo and Jill Witte alleging that Defendants AT&T
Services, Inc., and DirecTV, LLC (collectively "AT&T") engaged in
deceptive and unfair trade practices related to the issuance of
rewards cards to induce new customers to contract for various
services. Palumbo and Witte filed their initial complaints in
August 2021 and February 2022 respectively. Witte's complaint
alleged substantially similar claims to Palumbo's, and AT&T then
filed an unopposed motion to consolidate, which the Court granted.
AT&T filed the motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the
arbitration clauses in the bundled television and internet services
contract. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that the
dispute falls outside the scope of any binding arbitration
provision and that they did not assent to the arbitration
provisions that AT&T claims covers the disputes.
Judge Godbey holds that the Plaintiffs have not identified a
federal statute or policy that renders their claims nonarbitrable.
Accordingly, he need only determine whether a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement covers the dispute at issue. Because AT&T has
proven that the Plaintiffs assented to the internet services
agreement which covers the dispute at issue, he grants the motion.
Because all of the Plaintiffs' claims against AT&T are subject to
arbitration, a stay would serve no purpose and dismissal of the
claims is appropriate.
Judge Godbey concludes that AT&T has met its burden to show a valid
arbitration agreement exists and that the Plaintiffs' claims
against it fall within the scope of that agreement. Palumbo and
Witte have failed to show that the agreement is otherwise invalid
or unenforceable. Accordingly, Judge Godbey grants the motion and
exercises his discretion to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims
against AT&T without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckw6ayv from
Leagle.com.
BANK OF TOKYO: Laydon & Tullett Prebon's Class Deal Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY LAYDON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ,
LTD., THE SUMITOMO TRUST AND BANKING CO., LTD., THE NORINCHUKIN
BANK, MITSUBISHI UFJ TRUST AND BANKING CORPORATION, SUMITOMO MITSUI
BANKING CORPORATION, J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CHASE
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES PLC, MIZUHO
CORPORATE BANK, LTD., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, THE SHOKO CHUKIN BANK,
LTD., SHINKIN CENTRAL BANK, UBS AG, UBS SECURITIES JAPAN CO. LTD.,
THE BANK OF YOKOHAMA, LTD., SOCIETE GENERALE SA, THE ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS SECURITIES
JAPAN LIMITED, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, CITIBANK, NA, CITIGROUP, INC.,
CITIBANK, JAPAN LTD., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS JAPAN, INC.,
COÖPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., HSBC
HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, ICAP EUROPE
LIMITED, R.P. MARTIN HOLDINGS LIMITED, MARTIN BROKERS (UK) LTD.,
TULLETT PREBON PLC, AND JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No.
12-cv-3419 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Representative Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement with TP ICAP plc (f/k/a Tullett Prebon plc and
n/k/a TP ICAP Finance plc).
The matter came before the Court for a duly noticed hearing on
March 14, 2023, upon the Representative Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval, which was consented to by Tullett Prebon. Due and
adequate notice of the Settlement Agreement have been given to the
Class Members, the Fairness Hearing has been held, and the Court
has considered all papers filed and proceedings had therein.
For purposes only of the settlement of the Released Claims set
forth in the Settlement, Judge Daniels finally certifies the
Settlement Class, as defined in the Court's Oct. 5, 2022 Order
Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement with TP ICAP plc (f/k/a
Tullett Prebon plc and n/k/a TP ICAP Finance plc), Scheduling
Hearing for Final Approval Thereof, and Approving the Proposed Form
and Program of Notice to the Class. Based on the record, he
reconfirms that the applicable provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied for purposes only of
the Settlement.
Judge Daniels finds that 1 Class Member has validly requested to be
excluded from the Settlement Class as it relates to the Settlement.
That excluded Class Members is identified at ECF No. 1049-4. He
finds that all objections are without merit and overrules them.
The Representative Plaintiff and the Releasing Parties are bound by
the Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order, and the
Actions and the Released Claims against any of the Released
Parties, as provided under the Settlement Agreement, are dismissed
with prejudice and released.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Daniels finally approves the Settlement, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Settlement embodied in the
Settlement Agreement is approved in all respects. The Parties are
directed to carry out the Settlement Agreement in accordance with
all of its terms and provisions, including the termination
provisions.
Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order for
purposes of appeal, the Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over
the implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and
the Settlement contemplated thereby and over the enforcement of
this Final Approval Order. Any disputes involving the
Representative Plaintiff, Tullett Prebon, or the Class Members
concerning the implementation of the Settlement Agreement will be
submitted to the Court.
Each Class Member must execute a release and covenant not to sue in
conformity with the Settlement Agreement, as incorporated into the
Proof of Claim and Release form, in order to receive the Class
Member's share(s), if any, of the Net Settlement Fund defined in
the Settlement Agreement. Judge Daniels confirms the appointment of
A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator, and directs that
it will ensure that each Proof of Claim and Release form provided
to the Class Members contains a copy of such release and covenant
not to sue. However, each Class Member's claims will be released
pursuant to Section 12 of the Settlement Agreement, regardless of
whether the Class Member executes a release and covenant not to
sue.
Judge Daniels approves the Releasing Parties' releases of the
Released Claims against the Released Parties as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order as of the
Effective Date.
Any data or other information provided by the Class Members in
connection with the submission of claims will be held in strict
confidence, available only to the Settlement Administrator, the
Class Counsel, and experts or consultants acting on behalf of the
Settlement Class. In no event will a Class Member's data or
personal information be made publicly available, except as provided
for herein or upon Court Order for good cause shown.
The Proof of Claim and Release form, Distribution Plan, and the
Supplemental Agreement referenced in Section 23 of the Settlement
Agreement are each approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The word "days," as used herein, means calendar days. If any date
or deadline falls on a weekend or federal or state legal holiday,
such date or deadline will be deemed moved to the first business
day thereafter.
The Court's certification of the Settlement Class and appointment
of the Representative Plaintiff as the Class Representative is
without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any Defendant to
contest any other request by the Representative Plaintiff to
certify a class. The Court's findings in the Final Approval Order
will have no effect on the Court's ruling on any motion to certify
any class or to appoint Class Representatives in the Actions or any
challenge to the Representative Plaintiff's capacity to litigate or
to represent a putative class, and no party may cite or refer to
the Court's approval of the Settlement Class as binding or
persuasive authority with respect to any such motion or challenge.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Final Approval Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jkk4645 from Leagle.com.
BANK OF TOKYO: Laydon and Barclays' Class Deal Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY LAYDON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ,
LTD., THE SUMITOMO TRUST AND BANKING CO., LTD., THE NORINCHUKIN
BANK, MITSUBISHI UFJ TRUST AND BANKING CORPORATION, SUMITOMO MITSUI
BANKING CORPORATION, J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CHASE
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES PLC, MIZUHO
CORPORATE BANK, LTD., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, THE SHOKO CHUKIN BANK,
LTD., SHINKIN CENTRAL BANK, UBS AG, UBS SECURITIES JAPAN CO. LTD.,
THE BANK OF YOKOHAMA, LTD., SOCIETE GENERALE SA, THE ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS SECURITIES
JAPAN LIMITED, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, CITIBANK, NA, CITIGROUP, INC.,
CITIBANK, JAPAN LTD., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS JAPAN, INC.,
COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., HSBC HOLDINGS
PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, ICAP EUROPE LIMITED,
R.P. MARTIN HOLDINGS LIMITED, MARTIN BROKERS (UK) LTD., TULLETT
PREBON PLC, AND JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No.
12-cv-3419 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
with Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., and Barclays PLC.
The matter came before the Court for a duly noticed hearing on
March 14, 2023, upon the Representative Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval, which was consented to by Barclays. Due and
adequate notice of the Settlement Agreement have been given to the
Class Members, the Fairness Hearing has been held, and the Court
has considered all papers filed and proceedings had therein.
For purposes only of the settlement of the Released Claims set
forth in the Settlement, Judge Daniels finally certifies the
Settlement Class, as defined in the Court's Oct. 5, 2022 Order
Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement with Barclays Bank PLC,
Barclays Capital Inc., and Barclays PLC, Scheduling Hearing for
Final Approval Thereof, and Approving the Proposed Form and Program
of Notice to the Class. Based on the record, he reconfirms that the
applicable provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure have been satisfied for purposes only of the Settlement.
Judge Daniels finds that one Class Member has validly requested to
be excluded from the Settlement Class as it relates to the
Settlement. That excluded Class Member is identified at ECF No.
1049-4. He also finds that all objections are without merit and
overrules them.
The Representative Plaintiff and the Releasing Parties are bound by
the Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order, and the
Actions and the Released Claims against any of the Released
Parties, as provided under the Settlement Agreement, are dismissed
with prejudice, and released.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Daniels finally approves the Settlement, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. The Parties are directed to carry out the
Settlement Agreement in accordance with all of its terms and
provisions, including the termination provisions.
The Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement has been
established as a trust and will be established as a fiduciary
account. Judge Daniels further approves the establishment of the
Settlement Fiduciary Account under the Settlement Agreement as a
qualified settlement fund pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations
promulgated thereunder.
Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order for
purposes of appeal, the Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over
the implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and
the Settlement contemplated thereby and over the enforcement of
this Final Approval Order. In addition, without affecting the
finality of the Final Approval Order, the Representative Plaintiff,
Barclays, and the Settlement Class irrevocably submit to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York for any suit, action, proceeding, or
dispute arising out of or relating to the Final Approval Order or
the Settlement Agreement. Any disputes involving the Representative
Plaintiff, Barclays, or Class Members concerning the implementation
of the Settlement Agreement will be submitted to the Court.
Each Class Member must execute a release and covenant not to sue in
conformity with the Settlement Agreement, as incorporated into the
Proof of Claim and Release form, in order to receive the Class
Member's share(s), if any, of the Net Settlement Fund defined in
the Settlement Agreement. Judge Daniels confirms the appointment of
A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator, and directs that
the Settlement Administrator will ensure that each Proof of Claim
and Release form provided to Class Members contains a copy of such
release and covenant not to sue. However, each Class Member's
claims will be released pursuant to Section 12 of the Settlement
Agreement, regardless of whether the Class Member executes a
release and covenant not to sue pursuant to this paragraph 13.
Judge Daniels approves the Releasing Parties' releases of the
Released Claims against the Released Parties as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order as of the
Effective Date.
Judge Daniels permanently bars and enjoins the Representative
Plaintiff and all Class Members from: (a) filing, commencing,
prosecuting, intervening in, or participating (as class members or
otherwise) in any other lawsuit or administrative, regulatory,
arbitration, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction against
Barclays or any of the Released Parties based on the Released
Claims; (b) filing, commencing, or prosecuting a lawsuit or
administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding as a
class action on behalf of any Class Member (including by seeking to
amend a pending complaint to include class allegations or seeking
class certification in a pending action), against Barclays or any
of the Released Parties based on the Released Claims; or (c)
organizing Class Members into a separate group, class, or subclass
for purposes of pursuing as a purported class action any lawsuit or
administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding
(including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to include class
allegations, or seeking class certification in a pending action)
against Barclays or any of the Released Parties based on the
Released Claims.
Judge Daniels permanently bars and enjoins claims by any Person
against Barclays or any of the Released Parties for contribution,
indemnification, or similar claims (however denominated) for all or
a portion of any amounts paid or awarded in the Actions by way of
settlement, judgment, or otherwise.
Judge Daniels permanently bars and enjoins claims by Barclays or
any Released Parties against any other Defendants for a portion of
any amounts paid or awarded in the Action by way settlement,
judgment, or otherwise.
Judge Daniels orders that any data or other information provided by
the Class Members in connection with the submission of claims will
be held in strict confidence, available only to the Settlement
Administrator, the Class Counsel, and experts or consultants acting
on behalf of the Settlement Class. In no event will a Class
Member's data or personal information be made publicly available,
except as provided for in the Final Order or upon Court Order for
good cause shown.
The Proof of Claim and Release form, Distribution Plan, and the
Supplemental Agreement referenced in Section 23 of the Settlement
Agreement are each approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The word "days," as used, means calendar days. If any date or
deadline falls on a weekend or federal or state legal holiday, such
date or deadline will be deemed moved to the first business day
thereafter.
The Court's certification of the Settlement Class and appointment
of the Representative Plaintiff as the Class Representative is
without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any Defendant to
contest any other request by the Representative Plaintiff to
certify a class. The Court's findings in the Final Approval Order
will have no effect on the Court's ruling on any motion to certify
any class or to appoint Class Representatives in the Actions or any
challenge to the Representative Plaintiff's capacity to litigate or
to represent a putative class, and no party may cite or refer to
the Court's approval of the Settlement Class as binding or
persuasive authority with respect to any such motion or challenge.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Final Approval Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/uy7evb6p from Leagle.com.
BEAUFORT MEMORIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ragsdale Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RENA RAGSDALE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEAUFORT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case
No. 9:23-cv-01132-DCN (D.S.C., March 22, 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 Ragsdale was employed by the Defendant as imaging service
coordinator.
BEAUFORT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL provides healthcare services. The
Hospital offers asthma, blood conservation, blood donation, cancer
care, diabetes care, digestive, emergency, heart and vascular,
surgical, vein therapy, women's health, and wound care services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW, LLC
652 Rutledge Ave Ste A
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 588-5587
Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
BETTERHELP INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
L.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BETTERHELP, INC. d/b/a COMPILE, INC., also d/b/a
MYTHERAPIST, also d/b/a TEEN COUNSELING, also d/b/a PRIDE
COUNSELING, also d/b/a ICOUNSELING, also d/b/a REGAIN, also d/b/a
TERRAPPEUTA, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01382 (N.D. Cal., March
23, 2023) is an action pertaining to the Defendant's unauthorized
disclosure of the Plaintiff's Protected Health Information and
Personally Identifiable Information that occurred between in or
around 2013 through December of 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disclosed
the Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' PHI and PII to
unauthorized persons as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's failure to safeguard and protect their PHI and PII. The
Defendant flagrantly disregarded the Plaintiff's and the other
Class Members' privacy and property rights by intentionally,
willfully, and recklessly failing to take the necessary precautions
required to safeguard and protect the Plaintiff's and the other
Class Members' PHI and PII from unauthorized disclosure, says the
suit.
The Defendant's alleged wrongful actions and inaction and the
resulting Breach have also placed Plaintiff and the other Class
Members at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of
identity theft, identity fraud, and medical fraud.
BETTERHELP, INC. is a mental health platform that provides online
mental health services directly to consumers. The online counseling
and therapy services are provided through web-based interaction as
well as phone and text communication. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sharon J. Zinns, Esq.
ZINNS LAW, LLC
1800 Peachtree St. NW Suite 370
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 882-9002
Email: sharon@zinnslaw.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
Lucy McShane, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 888-8010
Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
BILLINGS, MT: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Water Billing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Ehrlick of Daily Montanan reports that a case pitting
Montana's largest city against itself has been resolved after the
City of Billings and a group of residents suing it for billing
practices on water bills has announced a settlement after
four-and-a-half years of litigation.
The class-action suit centers on fees the city charged to
residential users of its water and sewer service. The residents
proved that the additional fees, which the city called "franchise
fees," were an illegal sales tax.
A new filing in Yellowstone County District Court on March 27, 2023
shows that after two failed mediation attempts, a third try by the
mediator found a solution that will work for both the city and the
ratepayers, which includes most of the city's residential property
owners.
The city has agreed to pay $3.6 million to settle the franchise
fees suit. As part of the settlement, the class attorneys will turn
in a settlement fee, which is expected to be around 25% or
$900,000. The rest will be applied to rebating residents who were
charged the fees, which the court ruled were illegal sales taxes
and had already been outlawed by the state's Supreme Court.
In the case, the City of Billings and attorneys argued that
charging an additional "franchise fee" paid for services that the
city incurred but could not quantify on a monthly bill, including
items like providing police services for the city's utility
department. Billings also argued that it had the right to charge
residents for using the right-of-way, like other providers, for
example, a telecommunications company.
However, attorney Matthew Monforton, who represented the residents,
argued that Montana had already established that cities cannot
charge franchise fees to residents for using the right-of-way
residents already own. Furthermore, it cannot charge fees to
residents without specifically tying that cost back to an expense
the city incurs.
For years, the city fought against citizens who said the fees were
illegal. However, it dropped the practice in 2018, shortly after
the lawsuit was filed. The lawsuit took 4.5 years, generated 87,000
pages of documentation in discovery, and more than 200 requests for
documents.
The decision also involved retired district court judge Michael
Salvagni, who served Gallatin County, because every member of the
Yellowstone County judicial district was a ratepayer of the City of
Billings and thus had a conflict of interest.
The residents in the class-action will be anyone who paid a
Billings water or wastewater bill for residential service from 2015
through 2018. That time period is determined by analyzing when the
City of Billings stopped the practice of charging for franchise
fees, and looking back three years from the point, the maximum
allowed by the state's statute of limitations.
From here, the proposed settlement will head to the Billings City
Council for approval. Monforton, along with Doug James and Bryce
Burke of Moulton Bellingham, who represented the city, have agreed
on the terms of the settlement, but the council will need to
approve it.
The settlement of $3.6 million will come out of the city's general
fund, and will not come out of the city's enterprise funds, which
support the water and wastewater service. The filing on March 27,
2023 acknowledges the odd position: Those who will likely get money
back will actually be paying into city coffers to cover the
settlement.
The settlement proposal also outlines how residents will be
notified.
Former customers who have already been identified as property
owners will be sent postcard notices. Those will include a tear-off
claim form that can be sent back. All current rate owners who were
not identified will be sent a claim form. A one-page summary notice
will be included on monthly bill invoices.
The company that will notify customers will also send notices to
those who have email addresses, and those who have an street
address.
Charging franchise fees brought in approximately $2.5 million per
year, according to documents in the lawsuit. The practice continued
for more than a decade. However, because of the statute of
limitations, the city was only liable for three years' worth.
"As other courts have noted, a cash settlement that is only a
fraction of the potential recovery does not per se render a
settlement inadequate or unfair," the proposed settlement noted.
"In discussing the amount of the settlement, it is also important
to note that the settlement will be paid out of the general fund of
the City of Billings. Essentially, this means that the settlement
will be paid by funds primarily collected from the Billings
taxpayers. The settlement will not be paid by the Public Works
Department and will not be paid with revenue derived from the
provision of water, wastewater, and solid waste disposal
services."
The court filing also notes that because Montana law is not
extensive on the subject of rates and franchise fees, the cost of
trial, including depositions and expert witnesses, could have
driven costs of litigation much higher, and the settlement also
means that decision will not go to the state Supreme Court, which
could add expenses on top of that.
"The settlement agreement eliminates the city's ability to appeal
and challenging the ruling on the legality of franchise fees," the
court document said. [GN]
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Landrieu Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP
America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services,
Inc., Transocean Deepwater Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc., and Transocean Holdings, LLC, in the case captioned
as David Landrieu et al., v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et
al., Section: H, Civil Action No. 17-3161, (E.D. La.).
The case is among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before
Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of this Court. The above cases were reassigned to
Section H.
The Plaintiff David Landrieu claims a myriad of medical conditions
resulting from continuous toxic exposure suffered after the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Specifically, he claims to suffer from
"vibrios from vibrio vulnificus bacteria, cellulitis, high fever,
nausea, hot flashes, sweating, skin irritations, dizziness,
tingling and weakness in extremities, insomnia, loss of
concentration, irritability, anxiety, leg and lower back pain,
unexplained weight gain, and headaches." The Plaintiff asserts
claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and
gross negligence with respect to the spill and its cleanup.
In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that
exposure to oil or dispersants caused his alleged injuries. To
date, Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the Defendants' Motion.
Judge Milazzo points out that "the Plaintiff has the burden of
proving causation. B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil, or other
chemicals used during the response. Under the general maritime law,
a party's negligence is actionable only if it is a 'legal cause' of
the Plaintiff's injuries. Legal cause is something more than 'but
for' causation, and the negligence must be a 'substantial factor'
in the injury."
Judge Milazzo further explains that "in general, when the
conclusion regarding medical causation is not one within common
knowledge, expert medical testimony is required to prove causation.
Here, the causal connection between exposure to oil or dispersants
and the Plaintiff's injuries is not within the common knowledge of
a layperson. In a toxic tort suit such as this one, the plaintiff
must present admissible expert testimony to establish general
causation as well as specific causation."
The Plaintiff's deadline for expert disclosures and reports was
Jan. 4, 2023. The Plaintiff neither met this deadline nor moved for
its extension. Additionally, to date, the Plaintiff has failed to
oppose the Defendants' motion or put forth any evidence of
causation. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff cannot
prove a necessary element of his claims against Defendants, and his
claims must be dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated March 17, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5xwbvte4 from Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Maneen Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by the Defendants: BP Exploration & Production,
Inc., BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater Inc., Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc., and Transocean Holdings, LLC, in the case
captioned as Rachel Maneen v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 17-3183, (E.D. La.).
The case is among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before
Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of this Court. The above cases were reassigned to
Section H.
The Plaintiff Rachel Maneen claims a myriad of medical conditions
resulting from continuous toxic exposure suffered after the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Specifically, she claims to suffer
from "skin issues; respiratory issues; sinus problems; watery eyes;
blurred vision; scratchy throat; nose bleeds; limb numbness; and
stress and anxiety induced early menopause." The Plaintiff asserts
claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and
gross negligence with respect to the spill and its cleanup.
The Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that the
Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was the
legal cause of her alleged injuries because she has not produced
expert testimony to support her claims, and in a toxic tort case
such as this, expert testimony as to causation is required. Having
filed no opposition, the Plaintiff provides no response to this
argument.
Judge Milazzo points out that "the Plaintiff has the burden of
proving causation. B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil, or other
chemicals used during the response. Under the general maritime law,
a party's negligence is actionable only if it is a 'legal cause' of
the Plaintiff's injuries. Legal cause is something more than 'but
for' causation, and the negligence must be a 'substantial factor'
in the injury."
Judge Milazzo further explains that "in general, when the
conclusion regarding medical causation is not one within common
knowledge, expert medical testimony is required to prove causation.
Here, the causal connection between exposure to oil or dispersants
and the Plaintiff's injuries is not within the common knowledge of
a layperson. In a toxic tort suit such as this one, the plaintiff
must present admissible expert testimony to establish general
causation as well as specific causation."
The Plaintiff's deadline for expert disclosures and reports was
Jan. 18, 2023. The Plaintiff neither met this deadline nor moved
for its extension. Additionally, to date, the Plaintiff has failed
to oppose the Defendants' motion or put forth any evidence of
causation. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff cannot
prove a necessary element of her claims against Defendants, and her
claims must be dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated March 17, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58we5jxf from Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Pearson Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP
America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services,
Inc., Transocean Deepwater Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc., and Transocean Holdings, LLC, in the case captioned
as Barbara Pearson, v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al.,
Section: H, Civil Action No. 17-3597, (E.D. La.).
The case is among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before
Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of this Court. The above cases were reassigned to
Section H.
The Plaintiff Barbara Pearson claims a myriad of medical conditions
resulting from continuous toxic exposure suffered after the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Specifically, she claims to suffer
from "asthmatic hyperaeration, acute asthma exacerbation,
obstructive lung disease, pneumonia, wheezing, acute bronchitis,
cough, nose running, facial pain or sinus pain, renal artery
stenosis, coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy, chest pain,
abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, depression, dizziness, and
visual disturbances." The Plaintiff asserts claims for general
maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence with
respect to the spill and its cleanup.
In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that
exposure to oil or dispersants caused her alleged injuries. To
date, the Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the Defendants'
Motion.
Judge Milazzo points out that "the Plaintiff has the burden of
proving causation. B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil, or other
chemicals used during the response. Under the general maritime law,
a party's negligence is actionable only if it is a 'legal cause' of
the Plaintiff's injuries. Legal cause is something more than 'but
for' causation, and the negligence must be a 'substantial factor'
in the injury."
Judge Milazzo further explains that "in general, when the
conclusion regarding medical causation is not one within common
knowledge, expert medical testimony is required to prove causation.
Here, the causal connection between exposure to oil or dispersants
and the Plaintiff's injuries is not within the common knowledge of
a layperson. In a toxic tort suit such as this one, the plaintiff
must present admissible expert testimony to establish general
causation as well as specific causation."
The Plaintiff's deadline for expert disclosures and reports was
Feb. 8, 2023. The Plaintiff neither met this deadline nor moved for
its extension. Additionally, to date, the Plaintiff has failed to
oppose the Defendants' motion or put forth any evidence of
causation. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff cannot
prove a necessary element of her claims against Defendants, and her
claims must be dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated March 17, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4vapbk7f from Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Richoux Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by defendants BP America Production Company, BP
Exploration & Production, Inc., BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Holdings,
LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., in the case
captioned as Denise Richoux, v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
et al., Section: H(1), Civil Action No. 17-3186, (E.D. La.).
The case is among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before
Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of this Court. The above cases were reassigned to
Section H.
The Plaintiff Denise Richoux alleges continuous exposure to harmful
substances and chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico. Plaintiff alleges that exposure to crude oil
and dispersants caused various health conditions, including
exacerbation of symptoms related to multiple sclerosis, respiratory
issues, blurred vision, cognitive issues, and headaches. The
Plaintiff asserts claims under the general maritime law of
negligence, negligence per se, claims under Louisiana nuisance law,
battery, and gross negligence with respect to the spill and its
cleanup.
The BP Parties move for summary judgment on the grounds that the
Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was the
legal cause of her alleged injuries. BP argues that the Plaintiff
cannot do so because she has produced no expert testimony to
support her claims, and in a toxic tort case such as this, expert
testimony as to causation is required.
Judge Milazzo points out that "the Plaintiff has the burden of
proving causation. B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil, or other
chemicals used during the response. Under the general maritime law,
a party's negligence is actionable only if it is a 'legal cause' of
the Plaintiff's injuries. Legal cause is something more than 'but
for' causation, and the negligence must be a 'substantial factor'
in the injury."
Judge Milazzo further explains that "in general, when the
conclusion regarding medical causation is not one within common
knowledge, expert medical testimony is required to prove causation.
Here, the causal connection between exposure to oil or dispersants
and the Plaintiff's injuries is not within the common knowledge of
a layperson. In a toxic tort suit such as this one, the plaintiff
must present admissible expert testimony to establish general
causation as well as specific causation."
The Plaintiff's deadline for expert disclosures and reports was
Jan. 18, 2023. The Plaintiff neither met this deadline nor moved
for its extension. Additionally, to date, the Plaintiff has failed
to oppose the Defendants' motion or put forth any evidence of
causation. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff cannot
prove a necessary element of her claims against the Defendants, and
her claims must be dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated March 17, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yck5c5vk from Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Sammie Jones Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by the Defendants: BP Exploration & Production,
Inc., BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater Inc., Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc., and Transocean Holdings, LLC, in the case
captioned as Sammie Jones, v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et
al. Section: H., Civil Action No. 17-4383, (E.D. La.).
The case is among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before
Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of this Court. The above cases were reassigned to
Section H.
The Plaintiff Sammie Jones claims a myriad of medical conditions
resulting from continuous toxic exposure suffered after the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Specifically, he claims to suffer from
"headaches, shortness of breath, RADS, COPD, chronic airway
obstruction, sleep apnea, chronic rhinitis and sinusitis,
obstructive sleep apnea, dry eye syndrome, loss of vision,
congestive heart failure and chronic pain syndrome." The Plaintiff
asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se,
and gross negligence with respect to the spill and its cleanup.
The Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that the
Plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that
exposure to oil or dispersants caused his alleged injuries. To
date, the Plaintiff has filed no opposition to Defendants' Motion.
Judge Milazzo points out that "the Plaintiff has the burden of
proving causation. B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil, or other
chemicals used during the response. Under the general maritime law,
a party's negligence is actionable only if it is a 'legal cause' of
the Plaintiff's injuries. Legal cause is something more than 'but
for' causation, and the negligence must be a 'substantial factor'
in the injury."
Judge Milazzo further explains that "in general, when the
conclusion regarding medical causation is not one within common
knowledge, expert medical testimony is required to prove causation.
Here, the causal connection between exposure to oil or dispersants
and the Plaintiff's injuries is not within the common knowledge of
a layperson. In a toxic tort suit such as this one, the plaintiff
must present admissible expert testimony to establish general
causation as well as specific causation."
The Plaintiff's deadline for expert disclosures and reports was
Jan. 6, 2023. The Plaintiff neither met this deadline nor moved for
its extension. Additionally, to date, the Plaintiff has failed to
oppose the Defendants' motion or put forth any evidence of
causation. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff cannot
prove a necessary element of his claims against Defendants, and his
claims must be dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated March 17, 2023 is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n923n4c from Leagle.com.
BRAVO BRIO: St. Clair Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA ST.CLAIR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRAVO BRIO RESTAURANTS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00341 (D. Conn., March 15, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated
workers their earned minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act and Agency
Regulations.
The suit asserts that the Defendant pays its tipped employees,
including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage rate by
taking advantage of the tip credit provisions of the federal and
state laws. As a result of these violations, Defendant lost the
ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate
Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum
wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all hours
worked.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at the Brio Italian Grille in
West Hartford, Connecticut from approximately November 2019 through
December 2021.
Bravo Brio Restaurants, LLC operates a nationwide chain of
restaurants under the trade name "Brio Italian Grille" in several
states across the U.S., including in Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michelle N. Holmes, Esq.
HOLMES LAW OFFICES
49 Leavenworth Street, Suite 200
Waterbury, CT 06702
Telephone: (203) 596-1091
Facsimile: (203) 596-1093
E-mail: michelle@mholmeslaw.com
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
34555 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 250
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
CAJUN SEAFOOD: Rodriguez Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JALLISSA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAJUN SEAFOOD MIDDLETOWN LLC D/B/A HOOK &
REEL CAJUN SEAFOOD AND BAR and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No.
7:23-cv-02217 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023) is brought by the
Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law to recover unpaid minimum wages, misappropriated tips,
statutory damages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief and
to remedy Defendant's conduct of terminating Plaintiff's employment
for engaging in protected activity.
The Plaintiff commenced her employment with Defendants in June
2022, where she worked as a server until August 26, 2022.
Cajun Seafood Middletown LLC d/b/a Hook & Reel Cajun Seafood and
Bar is a seafood restaurant situated in County of Orange, State of
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yale Pollack, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
66 Split Rock Road
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 634-6340
E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com
CALIFORNIA STATE: Weber Sues Over Sex Discrimination & Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLARE WEBER and ANISSA ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (the State of California acting in its
higher education capacity); TOMAS MORALES, an individual; JAKE ZHU,
an individual and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 23STCV05549 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 14, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for retaliation in violation
of California Equal Pay Act, gender based discrimination and
harassment in violation of California Government Code, failure to
produce personnel file for inspection in violation of California
Labor Code, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.
According to the complaint, Defendant California State University
has a long and sordid history of ratifying gender harassment and
discrimination by: (a) paying generous settlement offers to the
harassers worth hundreds of thousands of dollars; (b) supplying the
harassers with paid administrative leave; (c) allowing the
harassers to voluntarily resign; (d) scrubbing the harassers'
personnel files of all mention of disciplinary action; (e) failing
to maintain a centralized data-base to house all complaints of
gender discrimination and harassment; and (f) failing to
investigate all complaints of gender discrimination and
harassment.
California State University is a public university in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew H. Friedman, Esq.
Helmer Friedman, LLP
9301 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 609
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 396-7714
Facsimile: (310) 396-9215
E-mail: afriedman@helmerfriedman.com
- and -
Courtney Abrams, Esq.
Courtney Abrams, PC
2711 N. Sepulveda Blvd., No. 625
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 601-4448
E-mail: courtney@courtneyabramslaw.com
CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Patients' Health Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HIPAA Journal reports that Cardiovascular Associates in Alabama is
facing a class action lawsuit over a recently reported hacking
incident in which patients protected health information (PHI) was
stolen. The security incident was detected on December 5, 2022, and
the forensic investigation determined hackers had access to its
network for a week and exfiltrated files containing the PHI of
441,640 individuals, including names, addresses, birth dates,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and health,
insurance, and billing/claims information.
The lawsuit was filed on March 15, 2023, by the law firm Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC on behalf of plaintiff,
Samuel Lee. The lawsuit alleges Cardiovascular Associates
"intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently" failed to
implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to ensure the
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of patient
information, failed to meet its obligations under the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) Act and HIPAA, and did not implement cybersecurity
measures to industry standards, such as those detailed in the NIST
Cybersecurity Framework.
The lawsuit claims the plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals have suffered injury as a result of the conduct of
Cardiovascular Associates, including invasion of privacy, lost or
diminished value of private information, and lost opportunity costs
from attempting to mitigate the consequences of the data breach.
The plaintiff and class members now face an increased risk of
identity theft and fraud as their private information is now in the
hand of cybercriminals. As such, they will have to spend time and
money protecting their identities, including paying for credit
monitoring and identity theft protection services for years to
come.
The lawsuit states 10 causes of action: negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, wantonness, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of
privacy, declaratory judgement, and violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Practices Act.
The lawsuit seeks class action status, a jury trial, attorneys'
fees, and an award of damages, including actual, statutory,
nominal, and consequential damages. The lawsuit also seeks
injunctive relief and provides a 17-point list of measures that
should be implemented. These include encryption of data, deletion
of identifying information unless there is a reasonable
justification for retention, the implementation of a comprehensive
information security program, independent penetration tests and
security audits, third-party automated security monitoring, regular
database scanning, annual information security training for
employees, and the appointment of a qualified and independent
third-party assessor to conduct a SOC 2 Type 2 attestation annually
for a period of 10 years. [GN]
CHARLOTTE, NC: Hensley Class Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, dismisses the case,
JOHNATHAN S. HENSLEY, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-00482-KDB-DSC (W.D. N.C.), for lack of
jurisdiction.
The matter is again before the Court on City's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
following a ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
instructing the Court to decide the threshold issue of whether the
Plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue this action prior to
considering the merits of the City's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.
Defendant City of Charlotte is a North Carolina municipal
corporation, chartered by the General Assembly of North Carolina,
organized and operating under the laws of North Carolina. The
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department ("CMPD") is a component of
the City. North Carolina law enforcement officers, including CMPD
officers, are required to document reportable vehicle crashes on a
standard form promulgated by the North Carolina Department of Motor
Vehicles ("NCDMV") known as a DMV-349. When a DMV-349 has been
completed by a N.C. law enforcement officer, it typically contains
the following personal information about the drivers involved in
the accident: name, date of birth, gender, residence address, and
NCDMV driver's license number.
Mr. Hensley was involved in a motorcycle accident in Charlotte,
North Carolina on Nov. 22, 2017. The resulting DMV-349 prepared by
the responding CMPD officer contained Mr. Hensley's personal
information including his address, showing a nine-digit zip code;
his date of birth; his North Carolina driver's license number; and
his telephone number. Mr. Hensley alleges that he did not provide
his driver's license number or nine-digit zip code to the
investigating CMPD officer, so he contends that the officer
necessarily obtained this information from NCDMV records.
Beginning in 2007 (or earlier), the City has placed one or more
unredacted copies of each DMV-349 "recently received" on the front
desk of its records division so that the forms are available to the
public. The Plaintiff alleges that the City is aware that multiple
people come to the Records Division each business day to review
DMV-349 reports, including for marketing purposes. However, the
City does not maintain any log or record identifying which accident
reports have been looked at, the persons or entities that have
reviewed any accident reports or the purpose for which any report
was reviewed.
Also, the City contracted with PoliceReports US ("PRUS"), a company
that was later purchased by LexisNexis Claims Solutions
("LexisNexis"), to make DMV-349s available to the public on a
LexisNexis website for viewing or to download. Pursuant to that
contract, DMV-349s were made available by the City to
PRUS/LexisNexis "subject to the obligations of federal law."
The Plaintiff contends that the City made copies of his Accident
Report containing his personal information available to the public
at both the CMPD records division and through the LexisNexis
website in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
("DPPA"). Beyond the allegation that the Accident Report was
"available to the public," the Complaint does not allege that a
member of the public who viewed Mr. Hensley's Accident Report at
the records division solicited the Plaintiff. Rather, the Complaint
specifically alleges that through the City's contract with
PRUS/LexisNexis and the Website, the Plaintiff's name, address and
driver's license number was unlawfully disclosed to one or more
internet users who obtained the name to use in targeted direct mail
solicitation.
Based on this alleged disclosure, the Plaintiff filed the action on
Sept. 1, 2020, seeking liquidated damages and injunctive relief
under the DPPA for himself and a putative class of others who the
Plaintiff claims were similarly wronged. After the Defendant filed
its Answer on Oct. 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, which the Court denied on Dec. 1, 2020. In
the course of that briefing, it was revealed that the City is no
longer making DMV-349 accident reports containing DPPA protected
personal information available to the public.
The City argues that judgment should be entered in its favor or the
action should be dismissed on several grounds, including that 1)
the Plaintiff does not allege and cannot show he received any
solicitation following his traffic accident based upon an unlawful
release of DPPA protected information by the City; 2) as a
subordinate division of the State, the City is not a "person" and
thus is not subject to a private cause of action under the DPPA;
and 3) the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing thereby depriving
the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.
As instructed by the Court of Appeals, Judge Bell limits his
examination to the issue of standing. He has carefully
re-considered these motions and the parties' memoranda in support
and in opposition and finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to
move forward with the action because he has not alleged in the
relevant pleadings that his injury was the result of a wrongful
disclosure of his personal information by the City in violation of
the DPPA. Thus, having concluded that the "irreducible" requirement
of Article III standing has not been met, Judge Bell says the Court
cannot proceed at all in the cause and the only function remaining
to it is that of announcing the absence of jurisdiction and
dismissing the cause.
In sum, the Plaintiff has failed to allege in the Complaint or
otherwise establish that his alleged injury is "traceable" to the
City's alleged DPPA violation. Therefore, the Plaintiff lacks
standing to pursue the action, which must accordingly be dismissed.
Accordingly, the case is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to close
the matter in accordance with Judge Bell's Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3enr5xj7 from Leagle.com.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Bid for Arbitration in Wilmore Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEVERLY WILMORE, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
LLC and SPECTRUM REACH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01271
(JAM) (D. Conn.), Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut grants the Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration.
Wilmore worked as a Senior Manager of Digital Sales at Spectrum, a
Charter brand, from 2012 to 2018. Wilmore is black and she alleges
that despite her excellent performance ratings white employees with
similar work histories advanced more quickly in the company and
that few black people at Spectrum occupied positions at or above
the Senior Manager level.
On Oct. 6, 2017, Charter sent an email to all active non-union
employees below the level of Executive Vice President who were not
on a leave of absence. The email bore the subject line "Charter's
Code of Conduct and Employee Handbook." It described in general
terms the purpose of the company's Code of Conduct and Employee
Handbook and that these documents were available to all company
employees on "Panorama," the company's internal website.
The email then advised that even with clearly articulated
standards, guidelines and policies, we understand that workplace
conflicts arise from time to time and that in the unlikely event of
a dispute not resolved through the normal channels, Charter has
launched Solution Channel, a program that allows employees and the
company to efficiently resolve covered employment-related legal
disputes through binding arbitration. The email went on to describe
how arbitration would waive the right to court litigation and how
an employee could opt out of the commitment to participate in
arbitration within 30 days.
The email included a hyperlink to Panorama, and Panorama contained
opt out instructions and included a link to the arbitration
agreement. The agreement covers claims against both Charter and any
of its subsidiaries or affiliated entities.
The Defendants have submitted evidence that Wilmore opened the
email but did not click any of the links in the email. For her
part, Wilmore states that she did not review, nor did any person at
Charter or Spectrum ever personally ask her to review, a dispute
resolution agreement titled 'Solution Channel.' But she
acknowledged during a deposition that she checked her emails
regularly during the workday.
On Oct. 9, 2017, Wilmore began a health leave for hip surgery
pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
2601 et seq. She claims that she had no access to her work email
between October 9 and when she returned to work several months
later on Feb. 1, 2018. Charter has no record of Wilmore opting out
of Solution Channel, nor does Wilmore allege that she attempted to
do so -- either within the 30-day period or at any time after she
returned to work.
Wilmore resumed working for Charter in February and March 2018
until her health problems resulted in her taking leave again in
April 2018. Then, in June 2018, Charter fired Wilmore.
In October 2019, Wilmore brought a class action on behalf of all
black employees subjected to race discrimination by Charter and
Spectrum. She alleges that the Defendants violated Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., and 42
U.S.C. Section 1981 by engaging in intentional discrimination
(Count One) and that they violated Title VII by engaging in
disparate impact discrimination (Count Two). She also alleges
individual claims against Charter and Spectrum for violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C.
Section 12101 et seq. (Count Three).
Wilmore originally sued the Defendants in the Southern District of
New York. In August 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York ordered jurisdictional discovery and discovery
concerning whether Wilmore's claims were subject to mandatory
arbitration. Because Charter and Spectrum maintain a principal
place of business in Stamford, Connecticut, the parties consented
to the case's transfer to this District. In March 2022, the
defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the
Solution Channel arbitration agreement.
As an initial matter, Judge Meyer concludes that there is no
genuine fact issue to dispute that Wilmore received and opened an
email from Charter advising her that Charter was requiring her to
agree to arbitration unless she wished to opt out of arbitration
within 30 days. Wilmore does not offer enough evidence to create a
genuine dispute regarding whether she opened the arbitration email.
But Wilmore's affidavit does not unequivocally deny that she saw
the email.
Thus, the affidavit constitutes an unequivocal denial that Wilmore
ever reviewed the arbitration agreement but it says nothing to
controvert the Defendants' evidence that she received and opened
the arbitration email. So Judge Meyer analyzes whether the parties
formed an agreement on the assumption that Wilmore received and
opened the arbitration email but that -- crediting Wilmore's
affidavit -- she did not click on the email's hyperlink to Panorama
or review the arbitration agreement itself.
Judge Meyer finds that neither side alleges that a choice of law
provision applies to this dispute. Absent a choice of law
provision, Connecticut has adopted the Second Restatement's "most
significant relationship" approach to determining which
jurisdiction's law governs a contract. Wilmore lived and worked in
Alabama from December 2014 to the termination of her employment in
June 2018. This period encompassed Wilmore's two health leaves and
her receipt of the arbitration email on Oct. 6, 2017. She also
applied for several promotions while working in Alabama. These
contacts are significant enough to conclude that Alabama law
applies. In short, Judge Meyer applies Alabama law to decide if
Wilmore agreed to arbitration.
Wilmore argues that she did not agree to arbitration because she
never signed the arbitration agreement. But, according to Judge
Meyer, under Alabama law, and as Wilmore acknowledges, express
assent is not required for an arbitration provision to be
enforceable. So, the fact that Wilmore never signed the arbitration
agreement is not dispositive.
Given that the parties agreed to arbitrate, Judge Meyer must
determine the scope of the arbitration agreement. He finds that the
arbitration agreement extends broadly to cover any dispute arising
out of or relating to the employee's employment with Charter or the
termination of that relationship, including claims for unlawful
termination, unlawful failure to hire or failure to promote,
unlawful discrimination or harassment, and claims arising under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The agreement covers claims
against both Charter and any of its subsidiaries or affiliated
entities.
Wilmore's complaint alleges race and disability discrimination by
Charter and Spectrum, one of Charter's brands that operates as a
business unit within Charter. Wilmore does not dispute that, if the
arbitration agreement applies to her claims against Charter, it
also applies to her claims against Spectrum.
Because the arbitration agreement covers race and disability
discrimination claims against Charter and Spectrum, Judge Meyer
concludes that all of Wilmore's claims are subject to arbitration
pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement.
Finally, Judge Meyer determines whether to stay or dismiss the
action. He says a stay is mandatory when all claims have been
referred to arbitration and a stay has been requested. The
Defendants have requested a stay. Therefore, he stays the action
pending resolution of the arbitration pursuant to the terms of the
arbitration agreement. The parties will proceed to arbitration, and
the Court expects that Wilmore will receive a prompt and fair
hearing in accordance with the arbitration rules.
For these reasons, the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is
granted and the action is stayed pending resolution of the
arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4p3dyjvu from Leagle.com.
CLEVELAND BROTHERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thomas Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY THOMAS; and GABRIELLE THOMAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLEVELAND BROTHERS
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00501-JPW (M.D Pa.,
March 22, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for its failure
to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular
business practices, including, but not limited to, names and Social
Security numbers.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that by obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the
Plaintiffs and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect the Plaintiffs' and
Class Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this
highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to the Defendant's negligent and careless acts and
omissions and its utter failure to protect customers' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained the Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the
identities of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The present and
continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their
respective lifetimes, says the suit.
CLEVELAND BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a holding company.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, rents and leases heavy
construction equipment including dump trucks, motor graders,
bulldozers, excavators, and forestry and earth moving equipment.
Cleveland Brothers Holdings serves construction, oil and gas,
mining, and recycling industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
CONDUENT STATE: Page Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANELL PAGE, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL
SOLUTIONS, Inc., a New York corporation; RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES,
LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23CV026135, was removed from the Superior
Court of California in and for the County of Alameda to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
March 14, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-01120 to the proceeding.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, eight total causes of action, seven of
which are for various violations of the California Labor Code, and
one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business &
Professions Code.
Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc., delivers business process
outsourcing solutions.[BN]
Defendant Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. is represented
by:
Heather D. Hearne, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM
10233 South Parker Rd, Suite 306
Parker, CO 80134
Telephone: (720) 447-6628
Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com
CREDIT CONTROL: Court Dismisses Biener FDCPA Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YITTEL BIENER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES,
INC. d/b/a CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES (CCS), Defendant, Case No.
21-CV-2809 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted and denies as moot its
alternative Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the
Defendant ("CCS"), alleging that it engaged in unlawful credit and
collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692, et seq.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the New York, residing in Orange
County. The Defendant is a Massachusetts Corporation with its
principal place of business in Norfolk County, Massachusetts. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant regularly collects or attempts
to collect debts asserted to be owed by others or otherwise is in
the business of collection of debts. As relevant to the instant
action, the Defendant alleges the Plaintiff owes a debt arising
from personal medical services provided to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is "a Medicaid Beneficiary" whose Medicaid insurance
provider is Fidelis. She has been a recipient of Medicaid Benefits
under New York State Law since approximately 2010. On Feb. 14,
2020, the Plaintiff received laboratory services from Empire City
Laboratories. While the Parties seem to dispute who holds the
particular debt based on where the actual services took place, they
agree that the Plaintiff did not physically present to Empire for
the laboratory testing on that day.
On the day of the service in question, the Plaintiff received an
in-office procedure which she was advised required laboratory
testing. After the procedure, the sample was sent to Empire for
further testing. The Plaintiff was not involved in choosing which
laboratory would receive the test sample, nor did she know whether
the testing would be done on-site where the procedure was
completed, or at an off-site facility. These services gave rise to
a $250 bill; however, the Plaintiff disputes the extent of her
monetary obligation and to who that obligation may have been owed.
The Plaintiff disputes ever receiving a bill from Empire for the
services she received, however both Parties agree that the bill was
placed with CCS for collection. On Aug. 8, 2020, CCS sent the
Plaintiff a letter requesting the outstanding payment. On Aug. 26,
2020 ("the August 2020 call"), CCS called the Plaintiff to discuss
the payment at issue. During this call, she told the collection
representative from CCS that she was a Medicaid beneficiary. CCS's
notes from the August 2020 call reflect the Plaintiff's statement,
noting that there is a "Medicare/Medicaid Dispute" on the
Plaintiff's account. CCS sent at least four additional letters to
the Plaintiff after the August 2020 call, requesting the
outstanding payment. The Plaintiff never paid the $250 bill to
either CCS or Empire. CCS in turn reported the alleged debt to all
three credit reporting bureaus.
The Plaintiff asserts that she was misled by CCS' actions and fears
that, without the Court's intervention, it will continue its
allegedly unlawful means to attempt to collect the debt and cause
her future economic harm. Specifically, she asserts that CCS' debt
collection efforts have caused her and her husband fear of the
negative credit reporting. As a result of CCS's conduct, she
asserts that she was forced to retain counsel, incur attorney's
fees, and expend time and money to investigate whether her debt was
collectible. She appears to be requesting statutory damages, rather
than actual damages.
The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 1, 2021. The Defendant
filed an answer to the Complaint on May 7, 2021. After completing
discovery, the Defendant filed a pre-motion letter in anticipation
of filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 23, 2022.
On April 15, 2022, it filed another pre-motion letter in
anticipation of filing a motion for summary judgment. After
receiving the Plaintiff's response, the Court held a pre-motion
conference on May 25, 2022 and adopted a briefing schedule.
On June 9, 2022, the Defendant filed the instant Motion. After an
extension of time, the Plaintiff filed her Opposition on July 1,
2022, and on July 11, 2022, the Defendant filed its Reply.
The Plaintiff brings one cause of action under the FDCPA based on
the Defendant's conduct as outlined. The Defendant argues that the
Action should be dismissed because the Plaintiff fails to assert
that she suffered any concrete harm and thus lacks standing under
Article III. In the alternative, it argues that it is entitled to
summary judgment because the Plaintiff failed to make a sufficient
showing regarding essential elements of her claim for improper
balance billing under the FDCPA. The Plaintiff, in opposing the
Defendant's Motion, argues that she does have Article III standing
and that she has established the essential elements of her claim.
Judge Karas opines that the Plaintiff has wholly failed to
demonstrate that she suffered any concrete harm sufficient to give
rise to Article III standing. To start, he says the Plaintiff's
Complaint alleges that she fears that, absent the Court's
intervention, Defendant will continue to use abusive, deceptive,
unfair, and unlawful means in its attempts to collect this debt, in
addition to fears of possible future economic harm and attorneys'
fees expended in bringing this action. However, the Supreme Court
in TransUnion conclusively foreclosed standing for FDCPA claims
based on the "mere risk of future harm. Nor can Plaintiff rely on
attorneys' fees to confer standing.
In response to the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiff raises for the
first time in her briefing before the Court a dissemination-based
theory of standing under the FDCPA. Specifically, she argues that
the Defendant reported the alleged Debt to all three credit
reporting bureaus and a declaration filed with her briefing states
that hard inquiries were made after the date the Defendant reported
the debt.
As an initial matter, Judge Karas says the Court has previously
held that dissemination of credit reports to traditional credit
reporting agencies are not the type of third parties contemplated
by the Supreme Court in TransUnion, stating that the Supreme Court
clearly contemplated potential creditors. As such, the Defendant's
reporting of the debt to the three major credit reporting agencies
on its own cannot establish a concrete injury.
To cure this deficiency, the Plaintiff argues that her declaration
asserts that hard inquiries were made after the date of Defendant's
reporting of the fictitious debt. However, beyond the fact that the
Plaintiff never pled a dissemination theory in her Complaint, Judge
Karas says neither declaration filed by the Plaintiff's counsel in
opposition to the instant Motion actually states that there were
hard inquiries on the Plaintiff's report. Moreover, he is skeptical
that a statement in the Plaintiff's declaration stating that there
indeed were hard inquiries would be sufficient to confer standing
in the face of a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge.
Finally, the Plaintiff attempts to allege a "materialized injury"
in the form of economic harm from hiring a credit repair agency
after Defendant reported the debt. Again, as the Defendant points
out, both the Plaintiff's Complaint and declarations in opposition
to this Motion are wholly insufficient. The Plaintiff has not
alleged any underlying harm or risk of harm that supports treating
the cost of her mitigation efforts as a concrete injury sufficient
to confer standing.
Accordingly, Judge Karas concludes that the Plaintiff does not have
Article III standing to pursue her FDCPA claims and thus, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Action. He grants the
grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and denies the Defendant's
alternative Motion for Summary Judgment as moot. The Clerk of Court
is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion at Dkt.
No. 47.
The dismissal of the action is without prejudice. The Plaintiff may
file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of the
Opinion & Order. Failure to properly and timely amend will likely
result in dismissal of the claims against the Plaintiff with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2wsvvur9 from Leagle.com.
DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VANESSA HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, individually and, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
DERMCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; SKIN
AND BEAUTY CENTER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV40910, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 15, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01949 to the proceeding.
The complaint includes eight separate causes of action alleging
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices from
Defendant's failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum, straight
time, and overtime wages); failure to provide meal periods; failure
to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to pay final wages;
failure to furnish accurate wage statements; and failure to
indemnify for employees for expenditures. The Plaintiff also seeks
restitution, injunctive relief, the appointment of a receiver and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit.
DermCare Management is a dermatology practice management
company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rebecca L. Torrey, Esq.
THE TORREY FIRM PC
1626 Montana Avenue, Suite 647
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Telephone: (310) 310-2992
Facsimile: (424) 414-1712
E-mail: rebecca@torreyfirm.com
DRIVER PROVIDER: Bid for Writ of Mandamus Filed in Salazar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KELLI SALAZAR, et al. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in her
lawsuit entitled Kelli Salazar, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Driver Provider
Phoenix LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
The Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint for alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, chauffeur drivers, who worked for The Driver
Provider in Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming, filed the lawsuit against
the Defendants on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
employees for the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
employee drivers with minimum wage and overtime wages and the
failure to maintain payroll records for the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants are privately owned chauffeur companies in Arizona,
Utah, and Wyoming and their owners and officers.
As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Feb 21, 2023, the Hon.
Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order:
(1) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification
on Claim III of the Fourth Amended Complaint, violation of the
Amended Migrant Workers Act (AMWA); and (2) denying without
prejudice as moot on Claim II of the Fourth Amended Complaint,
violation of the Arizona Wage Act (AWA).
On March 1, 2023, Judge Brnovich entered an order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration or, Alternatively, to
Certify an Interlocutory Appeal.
The appellate case is captioned In re: Kelli Salazar, et al. v.
USDC-AZP, Case No. 23-70046, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 21, 2023.
The real parties-in-interest are Driver Provider Phoenix LLC,
Innovative Transportation Of Sedona LLC, Innovative Transportation
Solutions Of Tucson LLC, Innovative Transportation Solutions
Incorporated Arizona, Innovative Transportation Solutions
Incorporated Utah, Innovative Transportation Solutions LLC Wyoming,
Driver Provider Management LLC, Jason Kaplan, Kendra Kaplan,
Stephen Kaplan, Barbara Kaplan, Barry Gross, and Jane Doe Gross.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners KELLI SALAZAR, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
Michael Licata, Esq.
Susan Joan Martin, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC
4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (602) 240-6900
Defendant-Respondent UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX, is represented by:
Douglas Calvin Lynn, III, Esq.
Tracy Ann Miller, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 778-3708
(602) 778-3704
EMTEC GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Velayudhan Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
AJAIGOPAL VELAYUDHAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMTEC GROUP, INC. d/b/a EMTEC,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00336-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., March
22, 2023) is a class action arising out of the cyberattack and data
breach that was perpetuated against the Defendant, where the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information --
which was entrusted to Defendant -- was compromised and unlawfully
accessed due to the data breach.
According to the complaint, the Private Information compromised in
the data breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' names,
addresses, dates of birth, financial account and routing
information, Social Security numbers, ("personally identifying
information" or "PII"), and health insurance information, which is
protected health information ("PHI" and collectively with Private
Information, "Private Information").
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and potentially
thousands of Class Members, suffered concrete injury in fact
including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy (ii) lost or
diminished value of their Private Information; (iii) lost
opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the data breach, including but not limited to lost
time; (iv) loss benefit of the bargain; and (v) the continued and
certainly increased risk to their Private Information, which: (a)
remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to
access and abuse; and (b) remains backed up in Defendant's
possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so
long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate
measures to protect the Private Information, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present and
continuing risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class
Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial
accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit.
EMTEC GROUP, INC. d/b/a EMTEC, INC. is an electronic business
solution provider that implements the highly integrated systems
required for effective electronic business solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Email: jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
EOG RESOURCES: Kimble Loses Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN KIMBLE, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EOG RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-674-MLG-GJF (D.N.M.), Judge Matthew L. Garcia of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico denies the
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Certain Affirmative
Defenses.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate him
for overtime pay as required pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. He filed his Complaint on
Sept. 13, 2022 and requested certification of a class and
collective.
The Defendant timely submitted its Answer on Oct. 13, 2022. That
pleading included numerous affirmative defenses attendant to the
claims presented. Thereafter, on Nov. 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed
his motion seeking to strike or dismiss three of those defenses
including the following:
Upon information and belief, and subject to further
investigation, the claims asserted against EOG by Plaintiff and the
individuals he seeks to represent are subject to a valid
arbitration agreement. EOG reserves its right to compel arbitration
of all claims asserted against it that are subject to a valid
arbitration agreement, and notice should not be provided to any
such person.
Assuming, arguendo, Plaintiff or the individuals he seeks to
represent are entitled to recover damages in this action, Plaintiff
or the individuals he seeks to represent cannot recover for
noncompensable or de minimis matters and their claims would be
subject to offsets and deductions, including any and all payments
for wages and payments in kind, received by Plaintiff or the
individuals he seeks to represent during the time period for which
damages are sought, including any time for which Plaintiff or the
individuals he seeks to represent were paid but did not work.
Subject to further discovery, any alleged losses and damages,
if any, of Plaintiff and the individuals he seeks to represent are
the result of, and directly related to, Plaintiff's and any alleged
class members' own conduct or the conduct of third parties' actions
and/or failure to act.
The Plaintiff takes issue with these affirmative defenses claiming,
inter alia, that the Defendant has failed to provide a sufficient
basis to substantiate the defenses or that the stated defense is
inapplicable to FLSA claims.
After briefing on the matter was completed, the Plaintiff filed a
notice indicating he would file an amended pleading omitting his
request to certify the matter as either a collective or class
action. While that change in status may arguably do away with some
of the disputes raised in the Plaintiff's motion to strike, it is
not dispositive. Accordingly, the Court has issued his Opinion
addressing the matter.
The Plaintiff first asks the Court to strike or dismiss EOG's
arbitration defense. In his view, the Defendant has not provided
sufficient information to afford fair notice or document support
for the existence of a binding arbitration agreement.
But, Judge Garcia holds, that the Plaintiff asks more than the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require. The Defendant is not
obligated to produce or otherwise prove up the existence of an
arbitration agreement as part of its Answer. As it stands
presently, the existence of a binding arbitration agreement is a
fact question, which the Plaintiff can easily resolve through the
discovery process. There is no legal or practical basis to strike
the Defendant's arbitration defense at this nascent stage of the
litigation.
The Plaintiff's request to strike the Defendant's affirmative
defense of offsets and deductions is similarly misplaced. Judge
Garcia holds that White v. EOG, No. 1:22-cv-00025-KWR-SCY (D.N.M.
May 3, 2021) Mencia v. Allred, 808 F.3d 463, 473 (10th Cir. 2015)
allow for the possibility that the Defendant may be permitted to
offset its damages should the Plaintiff prevail on its claims. This
defense cannot be fairly characterized as frivolous or having no
chance of success.
Finally, the Plaintiff moves to strike the Defendant's thirtieth
affirmative defense, which states that any alleged losses and
damages of the Plaintiff and the individuals he seeks to represent
are the result of, and directly related to, the Plaintiff's and any
alleged class members' own conduct or the conduct of third parties'
actions and/or failure to act.
This request presents a closer call, Judge Garcia says. The
Defendant asserts this language is intended to invoke a defense of
estoppel based on the conduct of Plaintiff, the individuals he
seeks to represent, and/or third parties. In response, as the
Plaintiff correctly points out, the Tenth Circuit has ruled that
the use of equitable estoppel in FLSA wage claims is limited
because such claims lie in an area where agreements and other acts
that would normally have controlling legal significance are
overcome by Congressional policy. Given the lack of binding
precedent and the split of decisional authority from other
circuits, the application of estoppel to the claims presents a
question of fact and law that the Court ought to address.
Judge Garcia concludes that the claims and defenses will be fleshed
out as the litigation proceeds. Indeed, the scope of the matter has
narrowed significantly since its inception. Whether the affirmative
defenses at issue in the Plaintiff's motion are meritorious cannot
yet be determined. Judge Garcia is unable to conclude that they
lack factual basis or are insufficient as a matter of law. For this
reason, he denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss
Certain Affirmative Defenses.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yfwdd75r from Leagle.com.
EXEL INC: Settles Class Suit Over Unfair Pre-Hire Policy for $2.7-M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Moody of Hrdive reports that DHL Supply Chain has settled
for $2.7 million a class-action lawsuit filed by two Black job
applicants who alleged the company's pre-hire criminal history
screening policy disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic
applicants, according to the March 20 agreement (Pickett et al. v.
Exel Inc. No. 23-1655 (N.D. Ill. March 20, 2023)).
DHL's criminal history background check policy "automatically
triggers rejection for certain criminal offenses without any
individualized analysis of the applicant or the offense's relation
to the job sought," the complaint alleged, which "results in a
blanket ban on employment for applicants with certain prior
criminal convictions."
One of the named plaintiffs, who was already working at DHL as a
forklift driver through a staffing agency, was denied a different
forklift job at DHL due to their prior criminal history.
"DHL Supply Chain's policy is not job related or consistent with
business necessity," the complaint said. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs
allege that DHL Supply Chain implements a criminal history
screening policy and practice that perpetuates gross racial
disparities in the criminal justice system in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
DHL Supply Chain declined to comment.
Employers more broadly have been taking a second look at hiring
protocols around criminal history, studies have shown, especially
as a way to widen talent pools. RAND Corp. research released in
February 2022 found that the majority of unemployed men in their
30s have a criminal history.
Some states and localities have also banned employers from asking
applicants about their criminal histories early on in the hiring
process, most commonly referred to as "ban the box" laws.
To that end, employers have warmed up to hiring workers with
criminal records, particularly in a tight labor market, a Society
for Human Resource Management survey showed in 2021. [GN]
EXPRESS SERVICES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Whiting-Turner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RE: The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Express
Servs., Inc., Civil Action No. GLR-22-472 (D. Md.), Judge George L.
Russell, III, of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.
Whiting-Turner and Express entered into a contract wherein Express
agreed to help staff a construction project based in Tennessee for
Whiting-Turner. The Agreement included a duty to defend provision
in which Express agreed to defend Whiting-Turner in any litigation
stemming from employees it provided to Whiting-Turner.
Some of the employees allegedly discriminated against others, and
the EEOC sued Whiting-Turner as a result (the "EEOC Lawsuit").
Whiting-Turner claims that Express is refusing to defend it in the
EEOC Lawsuit, though, and sues for a declaratory judgment and
breach of contract.
The Agreement, dated Aug. 31, 2017, states that the staff members
provided by Express were Express' employees only, not
Whiting-Turner's. Further, Express agreed to carefully screen its
employees before placing them on the project to ensure their
"qualifications and competence." Additionally, the Express
employees were to provide services in a manner and quality
consistent with the best industry standards and were to comply with
all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Of
note in the case at bar, the Agreement imposed a duty to defend
upon Express.
In 2018, Express placed Darren Riley, Clifford Powell, Jr., and
Harold Thomas on the Tennessee construction project to perform
general labor tasks. On Sept. 20, 2018, Thomas complained that
Powell and Riley were bullying him and making fun of his religious
beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. After Whiting-Turner learned of the
complaints, it asked Express to remove Powell and Riley from the
project. Express agreed and their last day of work was Sept. 20,
2018.
After Powell left the project, he submitted a complaint to Express
alleging that he had been subjected to discrimination and
retaliation based on his race. Whiting-Turner learned of his
allegations on Sept. 26, 2018 and conducted an internal
investigation. It concluded that Powell's claims were unfounded and
meritless.
In any event, on Aug. 17, 2021, the EEOC issued a Letter of
Determination indicating that there was reasonable cause to believe
that Whiting-Turner had violated Title VII with respect to Powell,
Riley, and other unnamed African American workers. At some
unspecified point during the administrative proceedings, Express
"reached a resolution" with the EEOC. Whiting-Turner presumably did
not, and on Sept. 30, 2021, the EEOC filed a class action lawsuit
against Whiting-Turner in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee. The EEOC alleges that Powell, Riley, and
other members of the class were subjected to a hostile work
environment and retaliated against based on race.
Whiting-Turner claims that Express and its employees caused or
contributed to the alleged hostile work environment. It points to
an allegation in the EEOC Lawsuit that an unnamed "White crew
leader" discriminated against Powell and Riley by referring to each
of them as "boy" instead of using their names. It claims that the
crew leader is Randy Spaulding, an Express employee placed on the
project under the Agreement. The EEOC also alleges that after
Spaulding was reassigned, a "new White crew leader" began to
supervise Powell and Riley. It claims that the new crew leader was
also "demeaning and disrespectful," and snapped her fingers at
Black workers when telling them what to do. Whiting-Turner alleges
that the new White crew leader was Express employee Nicole
Boutiette. Finally, it alleges that Express has refused to defend
it in the EEOC Lawsuit despite the terms of the Agreement.
On Dec. 15, 2021, Whiting-Turner filed its Complaint in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County. On Feb. 25, 2022, Express removed the
case to this Court on diversity grounds. On March 25, 2022, Express
moved to dismiss the Complaint. Whiting-Turner filed an Amended
Complaint on April 14, 2022, thereby mooting the original Motion.
In the Amended Complaint, Whiting-Turner seeks a declaratory
judgment for duty to defend (Count I) and a claim for breach of
contract (Count II).
On April 27, 2022, Express filed the pending Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint. Whiting-Turner opposed the Motion on May 11,
2022 and Express filed a Reply on May 25, 2022.
On Dec. 12, 2022, the case was transferred to this Chambers from
Judge Deborah L. Boardman. Pending before the Court is Express'
Motion to Dismiss.
First, Whiting-Turner seeks a declaratory judgment based on
Express' alleged failure to defend it in the EEOC Lawsuit.
Judge Russell finds that Whiting-Turner adequately pleads its
declaratory judgment claim. First, the actual controversy element
is met. Second, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction as the
parties are diverse. Finally, the Court would not abuse its
discretion in adjudicating the declaratory judgment. Judge Russell
finds that Whiting-Turner has stated a claim and denies Express'
Motion.
Next, Whiting-Turner alleges a claim for breach of contract again
based on Express' failure to defend it in the EEOC Lawsuit. (Count
II).
Judge Russell finds that Whiting-Turner has adequately pleaded a
breach of contract and that Express' remaining general arguments
fail. He finds that Express again fails to support its sweeping
claims of intentional misconduct with any real facts. It cannot
credibly argue that its resolution with the EEOC makes its
contractual obligations to Whiting-Turner disappear. The
unambiguous language in the Agreement states that Express must
defend Whiting-Turner against any and all legal claims arising, in
whole or in part, from Express' role providing staff to
Whiting-Turner.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Russell finds that Whiting-Turner
has stated claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract.
Accordingly, he denies Express' Motion to Dismiss. Express will
answer the First Amended Complaint in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Court.
Despite the informal nature of Judge Russell's Memorandum, it will
constitute an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to
docket it accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y72u2y8x from Leagle.com.
FLINT, MI: Attys.' Fees & Costs Award in Water Crisis Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES. LUKE WAID, Plaintiff,
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS; SETTLEMENT CLASS PLAINTIFFS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. RICHARD DALE SNYDER, et al., Defendants,
RAYMOND HALL and ASHLEY JANKOWIAK (22-1185); HELEN CHAPMAN, DOROTHY
CHAPMAN, SHAMIYA CHAPMAN, LASHONDA JONES, SHIRLEY GLOVER on behalf
of herself and her children, J.S. and A.S., TRISHA WALTER, TOMMIE
LOWERY, JR. on behalf of himself and his children, T.L., I.L., and
M.L., LINDA WELCHE, REKIYAH WILLIAMS on behalf of herself and her
children, M.W., O.B., D.W., and D.W., ASHLEY SUBLET on behalf of
herself and her children, E.W. and E.W., ELIZABETH FRANKLIN on
behalf of herself and her children, E.W. and E.W., FLORLISA
STEBBINS, ALBERT HARRIS, SHEILA HARRIS, NADINE ROBERTS on behalf of
herself and her foster daughter, D.J., and EARL WELCHE (22-1197);
NADINE ROBERTS on behalf of herself and her foster daughter, D.J.
(22-1605), Objectors-Appellants, Case Nos. 22-1185, 22-1197,
22-1605 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirms the district court's order awarding the counsel attorneys'
fees and expenses.
Following the Flint Water Crisis, scores of lawsuits were filed in,
removed to, or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. There, putative class action lawsuits
and lawsuits brought by thousands of individual plaintiffs were
consolidated in what have since become known as the Flint Water
Cases.
Upon consolidation, the district court appointed Theodore Leopold
of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Michael Pitt of Pitt
McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC as the Co-Lead Class Counsel for the
putative class, and Corey Stern of Levy Konigsberg LLP and Hunter
Shkolnik of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC as the Co-Liaison Counsel for all
individual cases. Among other responsibilities, the Co-Lead Class
Counsel and the Co-Liaison Counsel were tasked with coordinating
and conducting all pretrial discovery, organizing and attending
meetings between counsel, submitting and arguing all motions to the
court, negotiating with Defendants, keeping the court and all
Plaintiffs advised of the progress of the litigation, and generally
acting fairly, efficiently, and economically in the interests of
all parties and parties' counsel.
Pursuant to their duties, the Co-Lead Class Counsel and the
Co-Liaison Counsel (collectively "Plaintiffs' Counsel") engaged the
Defendants in a years-long process of coordination and negotiation.
For the duration of this process, the Plaintiffs' Counsel operated
under the direction of court-appointed Mediators, former Judge
Pamela Harwood and retired Senator Carl Levin, as well as
court-appointed Special Master Deborah E. Greenspan. Under the
court's Case Management Order, the Co-Lead Class Counsel and the
Co-Liaison Counsel were required to submit monthly time and expense
records to the Special Master. Notably, only time spent on matters
common to all plaintiffs in the Flint Water Cases ('Common Benefit
Time') would be considered in determining fees.
After years of hard-fought and arm's-length negotiation, the
Co-Lead Class Counsel, the Co-Liaison Counsel, and the Settling
Defendants reached a proposed settlement agreement (the "Amended
Settlement Agreement"). The Settling Defendants included: the State
of Michigan and its individual officials ("State Defendants"); the
City of Flint, Flint's City Emergency Managers, and several City
employees ("Flint Defendants"); McLaren Health Care Corporation,
McLaren Regional Medical Center, and McLaren Flint Hospital
("McLaren Defendants"); and Rowe Professional Services Co. The
settlement sought to resolve the claims of tens of thousands of
minors, adults, property owners, and business owners who suffered
personal and property damage because of the Flint Water Crisis. In
the parties' Amended Settlement Agreement, the State Defendants
agreed to pay $600 million, the Flint Defendants agreed to pay $20
million, the McLaren Defendants agreed to pay $20 million, and Rowe
agreed to pay $1.25 million into the FWC Qualified Settlement
Fund.
Under the Amended Settlement Agreement's terms, the net funds made
available in the FWC Qualified Settlement Fund were further
distributed among Sub-Qualified Settlement Funds for each
Settlement Category: Minor Child, Minor Adolescent, Minor Teen,
Future Minor, Adults and Property Damage, Business Economic Loss,
and Programmatic Relief.4 Additionally, pursuant to the Amended
Settlement Agreement's "Compensation Grid," each claimant was
assigned a Settlement Category, and every claimant in each
Settlement Category was entitled to the same monetary award. A
claimant's Settlement Category was predicated on a variety of
factors, including the claimant's age, the date(s) of the
claimant's exposure to Flint water, lead levels (as demonstrated by
bone or blood lead level testing), cognitive deficits,
legionnaires-related harm or death, residential property ownership,
business property damage, or business economic loss. Most important
for purposes of this appeal, demonstration of higher lead levels
qualified claimants for larger monetary recoveries.
Under the Compensation Grid, a qualifying blood lead test must have
been taken during the period of May 16, 2014 through Aug. 31, 2016.
A qualifying bone lead test, on the other hand, required use of an
X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) device optimized to measure bone lead in
vivo in humans and to perform measurements off in vivo bone lead in
bones and must have been taken between May 16, 2014, and 90 days
after the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, except that the
end date of 90 days after the date of the Preliminary Approval
Order will not be applied to Future Minor Claimants, who will not
be subject to that end date restriction. The most common objection
to the Amended Settlement Agreement itself related to the inclusion
of this bone lead level testing in the Compensation Grid, but the
district court rejected those objections.
In an effort to develop their own clients' cases, the Co-Liaison
Counsel of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC established a bone lead level
testing program for their clients at their offices in Flint,
Michigan. There, bone lead level testing was overseen by Dr. Aaron
Specht, Ph.D., and conducted using a hand-held XRF device
manufactured by Thermo Fisher. As the district court noted in its
Final Approval Order, the Co-Liaison Counsel was not obligated
under the Amended Settlement Agreement or otherwise to offer bone
lead level testing to non-Napoli clients through the Napoli
Program. Despite this, the Napoli Program did offer testing for
non-clients and many obtained tests.
On March 8, 2021, prior to the district court's approval of the
underlying settlement agreement, the Plaintiffs' Counsel also filed
a Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Expenses ("Fee and Expense Motion"). A deadline for filing
objections to the Amended Settlement Agreement and to the
Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Motion was set for March 29, 2021.
Thereafter, the district court held a three-day fairness hearing
beginning July 12, 2021. As relevant to this appeal, the district
court heard argument and objections regarding the Plaintiffs' Fee
and Expense Motion on the third day.
On Nov. 10, 2021, the district court granted final approval of the
underlying settlement. Importantly, none of the objectors involved
in the instant appeal appealed from this final approval. In its
Final Approval Order, the court deferred ruling on the Plaintiffs'
Fee and Expense Motion. Ultimately, on Feb. 4, 2022, the district
court granted the Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Motion, with a few
modifications.
Specifically, the court awarded the Plaintiffs' Counsel
reimbursement for expenses in the amount of $7,147,802.36. It then
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Counsel's
attorneys' fee request, adopting the basic structure of the fee
proposal but making a few modifications. The court awarded the
Plaintiffs' Counsel a Common Benefit Assessment of 6.33% of the
total $626.25 million settlement amount. Apart from this 6.33%
global Common Benefit Assessment, it capped the aggregate amount
that may be paid in other fees and common benefit awards at 25% --
a reduction from the Plaintiffs' Counsel's original request of
27%.
As to the portion of attorneys' fees related only to class
recovery, the court awarded the Co-Lead Class Counsel 25% of the
value of the claims resolved in the Adult Exposure, Property
Damage, and Business Economic Loss Subclasses, and of the aggregate
claims involving a Minor who retained Class Counsel before Aug. 20,
2020. Additionally, the court awarded the Co-Lead Class Counsel 10%
of the value of the Programmatic Relief Fund and 8% of the
aggregate value of claims involving a Minor where the Class Counsel
assisted or was retained by the Minor after Aug. 20, 2020.
With respect to independently retained counsel, the court awarded
the following, regardless of the amounts set forth in the counsel's
retainer agreements: 25% of the value of the claims for Claimants
that entered into retainer agreements with independently retained
counsel before Aug. 20, 2020; 8% of the value of the claims for
Claimants that entered into retainer agreements with independently
retained counsel after Aug. 20, 2020; and 8% of the value of the
claims where independently retained counsel assisted and advocated
for a Minor in submitting a claim, whether retained or unretained,
if the assistance took place after Aug. 20, 2020.
After approving the underlying settlement and granting in part the
Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Motion, the district court entered its
Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on
March 3, 2022. Thereafter, on June 22, 2022, the district court
issued sua sponte an "Order Establishing Procedures for Management
of Claims Process and Expense Payment for Unrepresented Claimants
and for Claimants With Multiple Counsel," wherein it ordered that
payment for any single bone lead test will not exceed $500."
Raymond Hall and Ashley Jankowiak (the "Hall Objectors") are
members of the Settlement Class. They filed timely objections to
the fee portion of the Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Motion pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). To advance their
objections, the Hall Objectors also moved for discovery of the
Plaintiffs' Counsels' detailed billing and costs records.
Additionally, the Hall Objectors appeared through counsel at the
fairness hearing to voice their objection. On Feb. 4, 2022, the
district court denied the Hall Objectors' discovery motion in the
same order that granted in part Plaintiffs' Fee Motion. The Hall
Objectors timely appealed.
On appeal, the Hall Objectors are joined by the Chapman Objectors
and the Roberts Objector with respect to discovery issues and the
award of fees and costs to Co-Liaison Counsel. The Chapman
Objectors are individual plaintiffs represented by Mark. R. Cuker
of the Cuker Law Firm. They are not members of the Settlement
Class. Like the Hall Objectors, the Chapman Objectors appeared
through counsel at the fairness hearing. And like the Hall
Objectors, the Chapman Objectors moved for discovery to advance
their objections. The Chapman Objectors timely appealed from the
district court's denial of that discovery request and its partial
grant of Plaintiffs' Fee Motion.
The Roberts Objector, also represented by Mr. Cuker, is an
individual plaintiff who objects on her own behalf and on behalf of
her foster daughter, D.J. D.J. is the only Objector-Appellant who
received a bone lead scan from the Napoli firm. Accordingly, the
Roberts Objector timely appealed from the district court's June 22,
2022 Order instating a $500 maximum on the cost of bone lead level
scans.
The Hall Objectors raise two primary arguments on appeal: (1) that
the district court erred in denying objectors the opportunity to
review Plaintiffs' Counsel's detailed billing and costs records,
and (2) that the district court violated the common fund doctrine
by imposing "special assessments" on claimants who did not retain
individual counsel, or who did not retain individual counsel before
the designated date.
The Sixth Circuit opines that the Hall Objectors' arguments fail.
It finds that the Hall Objectors fail to demonstrate that the
district court abused its discretion in denying their motion for
discovery. Indeed, the Hall Objectors fail to point to a single
authoritative source that affords them a substantive right to
discovery, let alone the detailed discovery they seek. Accordingly,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Hall
Objectors' motion for discovery as to the Plaintiffs' Counsel's
detailed billing and costs records.
In addition, the Sixth Circuit opines that the Hall Objectors lack
standing to challenge the Common Benefit Assessment provisions of
the district court's Fee Order. Were they to have standing to
appeal the issue, they fail to demonstrate that the district court
abused its discretion in awarding the Plaintiffs' Counsel Common
Benefit Assessments, particularly when those assessments achieve
parity among settlement beneficiaries and are reasonable under the
circumstances.
The Chapman and Roberts Objectors raise three primary issues on
appeal: (1) the Co-Liaison Counsel devalued certain claimants'
recoveries and are therefore not entitled to receive common benefit
fees from those claimants; (2) the district court erred in denying
objectors' discovery request with respect to the Co-Liaison
Counsel's bone scan program; and (3) the district court erred in
ordering payment of $500 for bone scans.
The Sixth Circuit opines that because the Chapman Objectors are not
aggrieved by the district court's Fee Order, and because Mr. Cuker
has failed to appeal in his own name, neither the Chapman Objectors
nor their counsel have standing to appeal the Fee Order's common
benefit fee structure with respect to Co-Liaison Counsel.
The Sixth Circuit further opines that having cited no authority to
support their argument that they are entitled to discovery of the
Co-Liaison Counsel's billing and costs, or the Co-Liaison Counsel's
bone scan program, the Chapman Objectors have failed to demonstrate
that the district court's denial of their discovery motion
constituted an abuse of discretion.
Lastly, the Sixth Circuit opines that because Roberts was already
aware of the $500 charge, she cannot claim to have been aggrieved
by the $500 ceiling set by the district court. Accordingly, Roberts
lacks standing to appeal the district court's Bone Scan Expense
Order. Furthermore, even if Roberts did have standing to appeal the
Order, she has failed to appeal the district court's Final Approval
Order. Hence, Roberts has not, and cannot, demonstrate that the
district court abused its discretion in making that determination.
In sum, the Sixth Circuit concludes that the Objectors are not
entitled to the discovery they seek, that they lack standing to
appeal the common benefit structure of the district court's
attorneys' fee award, and that the district court did not otherwise
abuse its discretion in awarding Counsel fees and expenses.
Accordingly, it affirms the district court.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yck8xhkn from Leagle.com.
ON BRIEF: Adam E. Schulman -- adam.schulman@hlli.org -- M. Frank
Bednarz -- frank.bednarz@hlli.org -- HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW
INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., for the Appellants in 22-1185.
Mark Cuker -- mark@cukerlaw.com -- CUKER LAW FIRM, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for the Appellants in 22-1197 and 22-1605.
Hunter J. Shkolnik NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, New York, New York, Corey
M. Stern, LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP, New York, New York, for the
Individual Plaintiffs Appellees.
Emmy Levens -- elevens@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
& TOLL, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for the Settlement Class
Appellees.
FLOOR AND DECOR: McKinnon Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW MCKINNON, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS OF AMERICA, INC. a Corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2023-00005275-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court for
the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on March 13, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00460-JLS-AHG to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts ten causes of action in his complaint against
the Defendant: (1) unfair competition; (2) failure to pay minimum
wage; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to provide meal
periods; (5) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (6)
failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) failure to
reimburse necessary business expenses; (8) failure to provide wages
upon separation of employment; (9) failure to pay sick leave; and
(10) failure to provide standard temperature conditions.
Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc. provides flooring
products. The Company offers vinyl coverings, ceramic tiles, floor
molding, decorative glass, counter tops, finishing accessories, and
wood flooring products. Floor and Decor Outlets of America serves
customers in the United States.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Whang, 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: dwhang@seyfarth.com
- and -
Gina Gi, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
E-mail: ggi@seyfarth.com
FLORIDA POWER: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Power Outages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CEO Today reports that on March 22, 2023, Florida's Third District
Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court ruling certifying a class
action affecting 4.4 million people against America's largest
electric utility company, Florida Power & Light ("FPL"). The class
action stems from "storm charges" imposed by FPL to supposedly
harden its systems. Plaintiffs claim that FPL failed to use
reasonable diligence by failing to meet National Electrical Safety
Code (NESC) standards and its own standards, and that as a result
of FPL's breaches, Florida residents suffered unnecessary and
prolonged power outages when Hurricane Irma sideswiped South
Florida.
FPL's own witness testified that the power outages cost the state
of Florida billions of dollars. Plaintiffs suffered consequential
damages such as loss of food and incurred expenses, loss of income,
loss of sleep, intense discomfort, and more.
The extensive appellate opinion issued by the Third District Court
of Appeal is based on detailed factual findings by the trial court
and essentially creates a roadmap for how FPL's very own data can
be used to prove liability for damages in favor of the class
members. Citing the unique analytics and use of FPL's data and
metrics by plaintiffs' counsel, the Third District Court of Appeal
noted that "plaintiffs can use FPL's data to prove FPL's liability
for the entire class."
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, John H. Ruiz, Founder of MSP Recovery Law
Firm LLP and CEO and Founder of MSP Recovery d/b/a LifeWallet
(NASDAQ: LIFW), whose technology and data systems were used at the
trial court level to certify the class, stated: "FPL wields a lot
of power as an energy provider within the state of Florida,
routinely seeking rate hikes, and has nothing to show for it.
Today's opinion and its lengthy analysis by the court demonstrates
that the law and our lawsuit uphold accountability and
responsibility, in that you need to actually do what you promise
you're going to do, and if you don't, you'll be held accountable."
Hurricane Irma affected the state of Florida in 2017 and left an
unusually elevated power outage situation for many Florida
residents and businesses. Years before, FPL sought and received
rate hike permission in the form of "storm charges" to its Florida
customers under the reasoning that the extra funds being collected
were for hardening infrastructure and other related considerations
caused by hurricanes affecting the peninsula. FPL's infrastructure
failed during Hurricane Irma, sparking a class action which
reviewed and analyzed FPL's own mountain of data and metrics by
LifeWallet and its proprietary data systems.
The detailed results, presented in a 3-day class certification
hearing in Miami-Dade County before the Honorable David C. Miller,
demonstrated without question that the "storm charges" were either
ineffective or superfluous and in breach of the required purpose of
the charges. The class action is set to continue through further
discovery phases now that the appellate court has weighed in and
allowed the matter to proceed.
The plaintiffs are represented by John H. Ruiz and Alexis Fernandez
of MSP Recovery Law Firm, J. Alfredo Armas, Francesco Zincone, and
Eduardo E. Bertran of Armas Bertran Zincone, Gonzalo Dorta of Dorta
Law, and Julio Acosta of Acosta Law Firm. Any person or business
that had services provided by FPL and lost power during hurricane
Irma can submit their claimed losses to Class counsel. For more,
visit: www.fplclassaction.com [GN]
FOOT LOCKER: Order Overruling Objections to Garcia Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees v. FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC.,
FOOT LOCKER SPECIALTY, INC., AND FOOT LOCKER STORES, INC.,
Appellants, Case No. 1453 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super.), Judge Victor P.
Stabile of the U.S. Superior Court of Pennsylvania reverses the
trial court's September 2021 order overruling the Appellants'
preliminary objections to the Appellees' class action complaint.
Appellants Foot Locker Retail, Inc., Foot Locker Specialty, Inc.,
and Foot Locker Stores, Inc. (collectively "Foot Locker"), take the
interlocutory appeal from the trial court's September 2021 order
overruling their preliminary objections to the class action
complaint of Appellees Daniel Garcia and all others similarly
situated.
In its retail stores, Foot Locker sold cloth face masks commonly
worn during the Covid-19 pandemic. Appellee Garcia alleges that he
purchased a cloth face mask from Foot Locker on Sept. 29, 2020. He
retained a sales receipt indicating that he paid sales tax on it,
and that the sales tax was improper because the Pennsylvania
Department of Revenue ("DoR") treated cloth face masks as medical
supplies during the pandemic.
On March 9, 2021, Garcia filed the class action complaint on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated. On April 1, 2021,
Foot Locker filed preliminary objections alleging, among other
things, that Garcia failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Garcia filed an amended complaint on April 23, 2021,
and the Appellants filed preliminary objections on May 20, 2021.
The trial court heard argument on Aug. 10, 2021 and on Sept. 2,
2021 entered an order overruling the preliminary objections.
The Superior Court granted permission for an interlocutory appeal
by order of Dec. 10, 2021. The sole issue before it is whether the
collection of sales tax on nontaxable items, as alleged in Garcia's
complaint, is cognizable under the UTPCPL.
The Appellants argue that collection of tax does not meet the
definition of "trade or commerce," and that their alleged conduct
does not meet any definition of unlawful conduct under Section
201-2(4). They argue that the DoR is responsible for determining
which items are taxable and which are not, and that the DoR also
offers a remedy for consumers who believe they have been charged
tax they did not owe.
Judge Stabile holds that the unambiguous language of the operative
provisions of the UTPCPL, its purposes as delineated by the Supreme
Court, the dictionary definition of conduct, the treatment of sales
tax under the Pennsylvania Code, and persuasive authority from
other jurisdictions and the persuasive concurring opinion of the
former Chief Justice all lead him to conclude that collection of
sales tax, as alleged in Garcia's complaint, is not part of the
conduct of trade or commerce under the UTPCPL. He discerns no basis
for concluding that activity merely "related to" trade or commerce
is actionable under the UTPCPL.
Judge Stabile concludes that the collection of sales tax on
nontaxable items, under circumstances alleged by Garcia does not
occur in the conduct of any trade or commerce, within the meaning
of the UTPCPL. The alleged conduct is not actionable under the
UTPCPL, and the trial court erred in overruling the Appellants'
preliminary objections.
Accordingly, Judge Stabile reverses the Order and relinquishes
jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3v65cbkr from Leagle.com.
FORTUNE SOCIETY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sonaike Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN SONAIKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 152609/2023 (N.Y. Sup., March 21, 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.
Plaintiff Sonaike was employed by the Defendant as a case manager.
THE FORTUNE SOCIETY INC. operates as a non profit organization. The
Organization offers employment, education, family, and mental
health services. Fortune Society serves communities in the State of
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
1613 Northern Boulevard
Roslyn, N.Y. 11576
Telephone: (516) 625-0105
FREIGHTWORKS LLC: Oshea Sues Over Termination Without Prior Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN OSHEA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, v. FREIGHTWORKS, LLC; FREIGHTWORKS ADMIN, LLC;
FREIGHTWORKS HOLDINGS, LLC; FREIGHTWORKS LOGISTICS, LLC;
FREIGHTWORKS REAL ESTATE, LLC; FREIGHTWORKS STAFFING, LLC;
PROPERTYWORKS II, LLC AND FREIGHTWORKS TRANSPORT, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00084 (W.D.N.C., Mar. 23, 2023) is a class action for the
recovery by the Plaintiff and Other Similarly Situated Employees of
the Defendants, as a single employer, of damages in the amount of
60 days' pay and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
benefits by reason of the Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988 29.
The Defendants violated the WARN Act by failing to give the
Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the
Defendants at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination,
as required by the WARN Act. As a consequence, the Plaintiff and
the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the Defendants are
entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendants their
wages and ERISA benefits for 60 days, none of which has been paid.
Approximately 200 persons were employed at the Facility by
Defendants until their termination without cause on March 6, 2023,
says the suit.
Accordingly, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and the
Other Similarly Situated Employees their respective wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for
60 days following their respective terminations and failed to make
401(k) contributions and provide them with health insurance
coverage and other employee benefits. The Plaintiff and the Other
Similarly Situated Employees were employed by the Defendants as a
single employer at the Facility until their termination without
cause on March 6, 2023 and thereafter at which time the Defendants
ordered a mass layoff and/or plant closing of the Facility, added
the suit.
Freightworks LLC. provides freight forwarding services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilbert J. Andia, Jr., Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
301 N. Elm Street, Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
Facsimile: (336) 274-4650
E-mail: bandia@greensborolaw.com
- and -
Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
Johnathan Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
100 Church Street, 8th FL
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 581-5005
Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
- and -
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 433-8100
Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
GENERAL MOTORS: Transmission Suit Granted Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Korzeniewski of Autoblog reports that a story on Autoblog
about potentially faulty 8-speed automatic transmissions from
General Motors in 2019 has, as of the day this was published, 166
comments, mostly from owners of cars and trucks who say they are
experiencing "a hesitation, followed by a significant shake,
shudder, jerk, clunk, or 'hard shift' when the vehicle's automatic
transmission changes gears." At the time, lawyers were seeking
statewide classes in at least six states. As of March 21, 2023, the
Detroit Free Press reports that a judge has granted class action
status to a lawsuit brought by 39 plaintiffs across 26 states
covering the transmission issue.
The lawsuit specifically applies to vehicles that are equipped with
GM's 8L90 or 8L45 8-speed automatic transmissions made between 2015
and March 1, 2019. Both of these transmissions are similar units,
the 8L45 being slightly lighter version used in fewer vehicles than
the beefier 8L90, and are designed for front-engine, rear- or
all-wheel drive applications. The lawsuit alleges that the erratic
transmission behavior makes some vehicles unsafe to drive.
Ted Leopold, partner at Cohen Milstein and the court-appointed lead
counsel for the case, said in a statement, "General Motors
knowingly sold over 800,000 eight-speed transmission vehicles,
which they knew to be defective for years, and yet made the
business decision not to tell its customers before purchase." He
added, "Dealers were directed to tell the customers that harsh
shifts were 'normal' or 'characteristic.' Such decision making is
both highly irresponsible and emblematic of what GM believes it can
get away with."
The vehicles included in the court order with potentially faulty
transmissions includes:
2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado
2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado
2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette
2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro
2015-2019 Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS, ATS-V, CTS, CT6, and CTS-V
2015-2019 GMC Sierra, Yukon, Yukon XL, and Yukon Denali XL
2017-2019 GMC Canyon
Some additional details of the lawsuit can be found at the Cohen
Milstein site, including claims that "since 2015, GM has issued
thirteen versions of a "technical service bulletin, " or "TSB,"
related to this shifting issue alone."
The statement from Cohen Milstein says that a "second action
regarding GM vehicles with 8L transmissions is also underway in
Battle v. General Motors, LLC, 2:22-cv-108783. That case features
8L vehicles with harsh shifts made after March 1, 2019 (MY19 to
MY22), when GM replaced the automatic transmission fluid that
caused the shudder problem." [GN]
GERBER PRODUCTS: Supplemental Class Notice OK'd in Hasemann Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JENNIFER HASEMANN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO.,
Defendant. WENDY MANEMEIT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., Defendant,
Case Nos. 15-CV-2995 (EK) (RER), 17-CV-0093 (EK) (RER) (E.D.N.Y.),
Judge Eric Komitee of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' motion for an order
approving supplemental notice to potential members of the
subclasses previously certified in the action.
In the class action, the Plaintiffs allege that Gerber engaged in
false and deceptive advertising in marketing its Good Start Gentle
infant formula.
The Honorable Margo K. Brodie, to whom this action was previously
assigned, certified two subclasses in 2019: one for New York
purchasers of Good Start Gentle, the other for Florida purchasers.
The subclasses were defined as follows: "The Florida/New York
Subclass: All persons who purchased Good Start Gentle infant
formula in Florida /New York between Oct. 10, 2011, and April 23,
2016. The Florida/New York Subclass excludes the judge or
magistrate assigned to this case; Defendant; any entity in which
Defendant has a controlling interest; Defendant's officers,
directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns; persons
who purchased Good Start infant formula for the purpose of resale;
and any government or government entity participating in the WIC
program. The term purchased does not include formula received by a
person via the WIC program."
Soon thereafter, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
appoint Angeion Group, LLC as the class-notice provider and
approved Plaintiffs' proposed notice program. The notice program
had two components: (1) a "paid media campaign" consisting of
"targeted internet banner notices," and (2) "direct email notice
where email addresses are available." About 1,000 such email
addresses were available at that point. Court provided a 90-day
period for class members to opt out of the class. The initial
notice was sent in July 2019.
The Plaintiffs now ask the Court to approve supplemental notice to
potential class members, at email addresses that they have
received, or will soon be receiving, from four retailers. They sent
subpoenas to four retailers that sold Good Start Gentle formula --
Target, Walmart (through its Sam's Club warehouses), the
supermarket conglomerate Ahold, and (most recently) CVS. They
indicate that they (or the notice administrator) have received
lists of Good Start Gentle purchasers' email addresses for the
first three retailers already and expect to receive a list from CVS
soon. The Plaintiffs request that the Court directs the notice
provider to send email notices to the individuals identified in
these lists.
In opposing such notice, Gerber raises several objections. First,
it argues that the retailers' lists may be overbroad. It relies on,
among other cases, a district court's holding that "it is not
necessary to send individual notice to an overinclusive group of
people simply because that group contains some additional class
members whose identities are unknown," in Jermyn v. Best Buy
Stores, L.P., No. 08-CV-0214, 2010 WL 5187746, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
6, 2010).
It argues that the retailers' lists may be overbroad for three
reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs requested lists of consumers who "may
have" purchased Good Start Gentle, rather than restricting their
request to those who actually made such purchases; (2) the lists
may include purchases outside the class period; and (3) the lists
could include consumers who received Good Start Gentle through the
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, despite the fact that
such purchasers are excluded from the class definition.
These arguments do not undermine the need to send class notice to
the identified individuals, Judge Komitee finds. First, Gerber's
concern that the lists were responsive to a request for customers
who "may have" purchased Good Start Gentle is unfounded. Moreover,
modest overbreadth -- even if it were present -- would not override
the requirement of individual notice. Gerber's objection that the
lists may be temporally overbroad is also misplaced. Target,
Walmart, and Ahold's counsel all confirmed they were producing data
that corresponded to the class period. Nor does Gerber's argument
that the records may include products provided through WIC change
the outcome. The cases that Gerber cites involved overbreadth far
greater than any potential overbreadth.
Gerber has also not shown that proof of authenticity is required in
the class-notice context. On the contrary, courts frequently
consider hearsay in deciding whether to issue class notice. But it
has cited no authority for the proposition that it is "entitled to
a copy of" Walmart's responses.
Because the supplemental notice is going to individuals who may not
previously have learned about the litigation, Judge Komitee is
extending the time for class members to opt out by 90 days after
the supplemental notices are sent. This extension is motivated
primarily out of concern for the recipients of the supplemental
notice. However, it would be unwieldy (and involve unnecessary
expense) to extend the opt-out period only for consumers on Target,
Walmart, Ahold, and CVS's lists (and to verify that any new
opt-outs fall within that subset of class members). In the interest
of "making Rule 23 workable," it makes more sense simply to extend
the opt-out period for all class members.
For these reasons, Judge Komitee grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
supplemental notice. The time for class members to elect to opt out
of the class is extended to 90 days after the notice program goes
into effect. Within seven days of the Order, the class-notice
provider should send email notice to the email addresses provided
by Walmart, Target, Ahold, and CVS (except for those identified in
the Ahold records as purchasers only of Gerber Good Start Gentle
for Supplementing). These email notices should be sent in the
manner previously approved in the case and should contain the same
content, except that they should reflect the new opt-out date as
set forth above.
The Plaintiffs are directed to update the class-notice website to
reflect the new opt-out deadline. They are also directed to submit
a final report from the notice administrator verifying the
supplemental notice program's effective implementation, after its
completion.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9nzty9w from Leagle.com.
GESICK CONCRETE: Cashpal Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARLOS CASHPAL, individually, and on behalf of all
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GESICK CONCRETE, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
34-2022-00330545, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on March 15, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-at-00257 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims for relief arising from the
Plaintiff's employment with Defendant on behalf of a proposed class
of all non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked in California
at any time since June 6, 2018. Specifically, Plaintiff brings
claims for: (1) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods;
(4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to
timely pay final wages at termination; (6) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to indemnify
employees for expenditures; and (8) unfair business practices.
Gesick Concrete, Inc. is a commercial concrete subcontractor based
in California.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq.
Lisa L. Bradner, Esq.
Spencer S. Turpen, Esq.
CASTLE LAW: CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL, PC
2999 Douglas Blvd., Suite 180
Roseville, CA 95661
Telephone: (916) 245-0122
E-mail: tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com
lb@castleemploymentlaw.com
st@castleemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Avalon C. Fitzgerald, Esq.
Jake C. Weaver, Esq.
REYNOLDS TILBURY WOODWARD LLP
11601 Blocker Drive, Suite 105
Auburn, CA 95603
Telephone: (530) 885-8500
E-mail: afitzgerald@rtwlawllp.com
jweaver@rtwlawllp.com
GORES HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over United Wholesale Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley Haas of The Mortgage Note reports that an investor has
filed a class action complaint claiming he and other shareholders
were misled prior to a merger deal involving United Wholesale
Mortgage.
Lawyers for Richard Delman say false and misleading disclosures
induced public stockholders of Gores Holdings IV, LLC to invest in
a merger rather than redeem their shares, causing monetary
damages.
Company leaders for UWM and Gores announced the deal in September
2020, saying upon completing the transaction UWM would go public
and be listed on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "UWMC."
"The transaction values UWM at approximately $16.1 billion, or 9.5x
the company's estimated 2021 adjusted net income of approximately
$1.7 billion," a press release stated.
Alec Gores, chairman and CEO of The Gores Group, said in a
statement that as a public company, "UWM will be well positioned
given its significant competitive advantages and we look forward to
working together to accelerate the next phase of growth and to
drive value for all of our stakeholders."
According to court documents, Gores is a Delaware corporation that
was formed as a special purpose acquisition company with
stockholders throughout the United States.
Delman's lawyers argue leaders at Gores breached their fiduciary
duties to their stockholders during the merger with SFS Holding
Corp., United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC, and UWM Holdings, LLC. They
say the merger agreement published by the Gores board of directors
valued the company's shares at $10, even though there was less than
$8.25 in net cash underlying them.
Leaders at UWM inflated projections to match this implied
valuation, saying they would increase pro forma tax-adjusted income
by 77% and revenues by 61% by the end of 2022, according to the
complaint.
"The inflated valuation and projections failed to account for the
inevitable slowdown of the refinance and origination market, a
predictable rise in interest rates, and significant regulatory
risks that would require substantial changes to the business," the
complaint filed by Kelly Tucker at Grant and Eisenhofer in
Wilmington, Del., states.
It was announced on Nov. 9, 2020, that leaders at UWM intended to
adopt a policy of issuing a regular annual dividend of $0.40 per
share as part of its capital allocation strategy following the
merger with Gores.
On Jan. 21, 2021, the deal closed. Stocks were initially being
traded at $11.54 per share, according to the complaint.
By April 20, 2021, stock prices had dropped to $7.23. They were
down to $5.29 per share by Jan. 21, 2022, and closed on March 6 of
this year at $4.76, according to the complaint.
Lawyers for Delman want damages and interest for plaintiffs in an
amount that can be proven at trial. They also ask that class
members still holding them be allowed to redeem their shares.
"The deeply conflicted members of the board breached their duty of
loyalty and candor by impairing public stockholders' redemption
rights by recommending the merger, providing misleading information
in the proxy, and omitting from the proxy information that was
highly material to public stockholders' decision whether to redeem
their shares or invest in the merger," the complaint states.
The complaint, filed at Delaware Chancery Court, states that during
an initial meeting on April 20, 2020, UWM's CEO and Chairman Mat
Ishbia provided Gores leaders with a high-level view of the
company's operations. At the time, UWM was setting company
records.
On Jan. 6, 2020, leaders at UWM announced that they had $107.7
billion in mortgage loan volume in 2019, more than doubling 2018's
production of $41.5 billion.
By the end of Q3, UWM had already closed a year-to-date total of
$127.8 billion in production. Ishbia said at the time, it was the
best quarter in the company's history.
Leaders at UWM Holdings announced in February 2021 that UWM
reported a FY20 net income of $3.38 billion. The board of directors
of UWMC declared its first regular quarterly dividend of $0.10 per
share on outstanding shares of Class A common stock. [GN]
GROVE CITY: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, Slone Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA SLONE, BRITTANY STALEY, KELLIE MARTIN, DAVID STRONG, and
ANGEL CROY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GROVE CITY CORRAL LLC, d/b/a GOLDEN CORRAL
BUFFET & GRILL, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00957-ALM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio, March 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
its failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as servers at any
time between 2005 and 2023.
Grove City Corral LLC is an operator of a restaurant called Golden
Corral Buffet & Grill, located at 2005 Stringtown Rd., Grove City,
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610-4134
Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
HIGHMARK INC: Ainsworth-Holly Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA AINSWORTH-HOLLY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHMARK INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00428-NR (W.D. Pa., March 14, 2023) arises from the recent
data breach involving Defendant, which collected and stored certain
protected health information and personally identifiable
information of the Plaintiff and the putative class members, all of
whom have PII/PHI on Defendant's servers.
According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' PII/PHI. The Defendant itself has acknowledged that it
first discovered the cybersecurity attack on December 15, 2022, but
it took Defendant two months to contact class members.
Thus, Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated to address Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of class members' PII/PHI that it collected
and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate
notice to Plaintiff and other class members that their information
was unsecured and left open to unauthorized access by any unknown
third party, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and the proposed Classes have all entrusted their
sensitive personal information to Defendant, a healthcare company
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
James Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall St., 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD
1100 15th Street, NW, 14th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
Facsimile: (202) 615-3948
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
HIRERIGHT LLC: Hoffman Has Leave to File First Amended Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLE HOFFMAN, Plaintiff v. HIRERIGHT, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action 2:22-cv-2375 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge
Chelsey M. Vascura of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint for
Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint to add class allegations
of Fair Credit Reporting Act violations. The Defendant opposes the
Plaintiff's Motion on grounds that the proposed amendments would be
futile.
Because denying a motion for leave to amend on grounds that the
proposed pleading is legally insufficient is, at least indirectly,
a ruling on the merits of the pleading, the Court has recognized
the "conceptual difficulty presented" when a Magistrate Judge, who
cannot by statute ordinarily rule on dispositive matters, is ruling
on such a motion.
Considering this procedural impediment, Judge Vascura concludes
that the better course would be to permit the Plaintiff to amend
her Complaint with the understanding that the Defendant is free to
challenge the new pleading via a motion to dismiss. Therefore, he
grants the Plaintiffs' Motion. The Clerk is directed to file on the
docket the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint,
attached to her Motion as Exhibit 1.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/43ayvvsf from Leagle.com.
HOLYOKE SOLDIERS: Sued Over Facility's Mishandling of COVID-19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Marselas of McKnights reports that a new civil suit that
could grow to include more than 80 employees accuses managers at a
state-run veterans home of showing "deliberate indifference" toward
the health and safety of the workers during one of the nation's
worst COVID-19 outbreaks.
The legal action is being closely watched by wary providers -- and
potentially by an unknown number of disgruntled nursing home
employees -- around the country.
The class action, filed in US District Court in Massachusetts on
March 23, 2023, accuses a former Holyoke Soldiers' Home
superintendent, former medical director, former chief nursing
officer, former infectious disease nurse and former assistant
director of nursing of violating workers' civil rights while trying
to conceal how bad the outbreak had become.
Some 77 veterans died, with many of the deaths attributed by later
investigations to the mingling of exposed and non-exposed patients.
The lawsuit also alleges that more than 80 employees were
sickened.
The state has already settled a civil suit brought by residents and
families to the tune of $58 million, and the state is attempting to
reinstate criminal charges it previously brought against some of
the facility's former leaders.
The latest salvo comes from Debra Ragoonanan, who is still an
employee at the facility, which was renamed the Massachusetts
Veterans' Home in Holyoke on March 1. She and her attorneys argue
in a 207-page filing that those leaders made a "series of
criminally catastrophic decisions in their mishandling of the
COVID19 virus within the Soldier's Home."
"The Soldiers' Home Defendants engaged in a knowing pattern of lies
and misrepresentations in a shocking attempt to cover up their own
malfeasance," the suit claims. "If the employees had been informed
of what the Soldiers Home Defendants knew, such as there being
sufficient PPE within the facility and the identity of who and who
was infected with COVID-19, they could have taken measures to
mitigate the risk. Instead, the Soldiers' Home Defendants deceived
their employees about the risks of coronavirus and forced employees
to continue working even as they exhibited symptoms of COVID and as
they waited for the results of COVID tests -- and even after they
had tested positive."
Ragoonanan's attorney is seeking damages for the class "at the
greatest extent available under the law." He asked the judge to
certify a class of workers who were employed at the Soldiers' Home
during the COVID-19 outbreak from Feb. 1 through and April 1, 2020
and suffered harm. He has asked for a jury trial.
Lawyers for the defendants were not listed in court documents
reviewed by McKnight's Long-Term Care News this week. An attorney
who has represented former superintendent Bennett Walsh in past
cases had not responded to a request for comment by publication
deadline.
A previous class-action suit representing former residents and
their families ended in a $58 million settlement late last year.
But another class-action lawsuit from employees was dismissed by a
judge when the court ruled the workers hadn't shown how their
constitutional rights were violated. It was unclear March 21, 2023
how this latest case might differ.
The case claims employees were deprived access to personal
protective equipment and that guidance that was beginning to become
clear and recommended by outside agencies was not followed at the
facility. Ragoonanan has spoken to local media about the emotional
distress of seeing so many residents die, saying that some workers
developed post-traumatic stress disorder in addition to long COVID
symptoms. [GN]
I-BLADES INC: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in Monegro Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANKIE MONEGRO, Plaintiff v. I-BLADES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21 Civ. 3093 (GBD) (SN) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York:
a. denies the Defendant's summary judgment motion seeking
dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims; and
b. grants the Defendant's motion to preclude recovery of civil
penalties and punitive damages.
Monegro commenced the putative class action against I-Blades,
alleging that Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq. ("ADA") and the New York City
Administrative Code Section 8-107 ("NYCHRL") by creating and
maintaining a website that was not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Monegro is a visually-impaired, legally blind resident of the State
of New York who requires a screen-reading software to access
website content on his computer. The Defendant is a
California-based smart phone accessory manufacturing company that
owns and operates www.i-blades.com.
The Defendant is a purely online business; it has no
brick-and-mortar location anywhere. At the time the events
underlying the suit took place, it sold its products to customers
in New York. In 2020, for example, the Defendant made $3,207.14 in
sales and recorded $841.39 in net revenue from New York sales.
After the suit was filed, it ceased sales to customers in New
York.
On several occasions in 2021, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's
website to shop for phone cases. During each visit, he was
prevented from navigating the site because the drop-down menus
could not be accessed using his screen-reading software. The
barriers the Plaintiff encountered delayed his ability to access
certain subsections of the site, and in some cases, prevented him
from accessing those pages altogether.
After multiple, unsuccessful attempts to access Defendant's
website, the Plaintiff filed the instant action alleging violations
of the ADA and NYCHRL. He seeks injunctive relief under the ADA,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees under the NYCHRL, and a
declaratory judgment that the Defendant's website fails to comply
with provisions of both statutes that prohibit discrimination
against the blind.
The Defendant moves for summary judgment on three grounds: (1) that
the Plaintiff's claims are moot because the Defendant has stopped
sales in New York; (2) that the Plaintiff has not established an
injury-in-fact and therefore lacks standing; and (3) that the
Defendant's website is not a place of public accommodation under
the ADA and is therefore not required to abide by the ADA's
prohibitions on disability discrimination.
As to the first argument, Judge Daniels holds that the Defendant
has not met its "formidable burden" to show that it could not
reasonably be expected to resume its sales in New York.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims are not moot. As to the second
argument, he finds that the Plaintiff's assertions of deterrence
and interest raise a genuine issue of material fact, and it is not
the Court's job to determine their veracity on a motion for summary
judgment. As to the third argument, he holds that the Defendant's
website falls within the meaning of a "place of public
accommodation" in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Finally, the Defendant asks the Court to deny supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's NYCHRL claim.
Because the ADA applies to Plaintiff's claims, Defendant's request
is denied. Further, because the NYCHRL is more liberal than the
ADA, and "a claim is automatically stated under the NYCHRL if it is
stated under the federal statute, Judge Daniels holds that the
NYCHRL applies to the case, and the Defendant is not entitled to
summary judgment on the Plaintiff's city claim. The Plaintiff,
however, is not entitled to civil penalties or punitive damages
under the NYCHRL. As the Defendant notes, civil penalties -- as
opposed to compensatory damages -- are payable to the City, not to
private plaintiffs. The conduct described simply does not rise to
that level. The Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to punitive
damages.
For these reasons, Judge Daniels grants the Defendant's motion to
preclude Plaintiff from recovering civil penalties or punitive
damages under the NYCHR. He otherwise denies the Defendant's motion
for summary motion.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the open motion
accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Memorandum Decision
& Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tw2rk2nx from
Leagle.com.
JUUL LABS: Agrees to Settle False Advertising Class Suit for $255M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that JUUL Labs agreed to a $255 million
settlement to resolve claims it concealed the addictiveness of its
e-cigarettes to sell to consumers and minors. No proof of purchase
is required for consumers to benefit.
The settlement benefits individuals who purchased JUUL products,
including pods and devices, from a retail store, online store or
the JUUL website before Dec. 7, 2022.
According to the JUUL class action lawsuit, JUUL Labs was able to
sell its products to a large number of consumers by concealing the
addictiveness of and safety concerns associated with the
e-cigarette products. Plaintiffs in the case also claim JUUL Labs
intentionally advertised its products to minors.
JUUL Labs is an e-cigarette company that sold e-cigarettes and a
wide range of flavored vape pods.
JUUL Labs hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $255
million class action settlement to resolve the false advertising
claims.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a
proportional cash payment based on the amount they paid for JUUL
products. No payment estimates are available at this time.
Types of purchases will be weighted differently under the
settlement. Youth purchase totals where the initial purchase was
made by someone under the age of 18 will be multiplied by four when
assigning settlement shares. Purchase totals where the initial
purchase was made between 2015 and 2018 will be multiplied by two
when assigning settlement shares. Purchase totals where the initial
purchase was made between 2019 and 2022 will not be multiplied when
assigning settlement shares.
Documentation is required for combined purchases of $300 or more.
Payments are capped at $300 without proof of purchase.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 14, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Juul settlement is scheduled for
Aug. 9, 2023.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by July 14, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who purchased JUUL products, including pods and
devices, from a retail store, online store or the JUUL website
before Dec. 7, 2022.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Documentation (receipts, etc.) is required for combined purchases
of $300 or more.
Claim Form Deadline
07/14/2023
Case Name
In re: JUUL Labs Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Final Hearing
08/09/2023
Settlement Website
JUULClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
In re JUUL Labs Inc.
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 5730
Portland, OR 97228–5730
info@JUULClassAction.com
855-604-1734
Class Counsel
Dena C Sharp
GIRARD SHARP LLP
Defense Counsel
Peter Farrell
Renee Smith
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Adam Moses
MILBANK LLP
Michael J Guzman
David L Schwarz
KELLOGG HANSEN TODD FIGEL & FREDERICK PLLC
Van C Durrer II
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP [GN]
K&C EXECUTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walls Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW WALLS; BRIANNA BREWER; TERRANCE PETERS; BRIANNA HILL;
DAYRICE BREWER;DAIQUAN GREEN;JAMES CLARK; KENNETH HARPER; HIKEEM
KEITH; DAMIR MITCHELL; RAFIAH CANNON; BIANCA LIVINGSTON, and ELIJAH
DODSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. K&C EXECUTIVE PROTECTION LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01110 (E.D. Pa., March 21, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as staff.
K&C EXECUTIVE PROTECTION LLC is a security service provider. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roderick L. Foxworth, Jr., Esq.
THE FOXWORTH LAW FIRM LLC
7715 Crittenden Street, Suite 382
Philadelphia, PA 19118
Telephone: (267) 674-2368
Email: rfoxworth@thefoxworthlawfirm.org
KAGED MUSCLE: Gonzales Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAGED MUSCLE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV21890, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 16, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01959 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Defendant markets its
"In-Kaged Intra-Workout" supplements in a "systematically
misleading manner by representing it as adequately filled when, in
fact, it contains an unlawful amount of empty space or
'slack-fill.'" The Plaintiff also alleges in the first amended
complaint that Defendant has violated the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act and has committed per se violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law.
Kaged Muscle, LLC manufactures sports nutrition supplements.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brett N. Taylor, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 892-7900
Facsimile: (213) 892-7999
E-mail: btaylor@cozen.com
KANSAS CITY: Bid to Dismiss McMillan Class Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY A. McMILLAN, Plaintiff v. KANSAS CITY LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil No. 1:22-cv-01100-ELH (D. Md.),
Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland:
a. grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply
in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;
b. grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss; and
c. grants leave to amend.
McMillan filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant
Kansas City Life Insurance Co. ("KCLI" or "KCL"), alleging multiple
breach of contract claims and conversion with respect to universal
and variable universal life insurance policies issued by KCLI. He
has included his insurance policy as an exhibit. According to the
Plaintiff, the Defendant has breached his Policy and the policies
of others ("Class Policies") by assessing charges more than amounts
authorized by the insurance policies.
The Plaintiff brings the case as a class action on behalf of
himself and a class of similarly situated persons who own or owned
certain universal and variable universal life insurance policies
issued by KCLI in the State of Maryland. According to him, the
Policies in issue are all materially the same.
On June 25, 1993, the Plaintiff purchased from KCLI a "Flexible
Premium Adjustable Death Benefit Life Policy - Nonparticipating,"
bearing policy number 2558330, for the specified amount of $50,000.
He is both the owner and the insured under the Policy. KCLI
administers all aspects of the Policies, including collecting
premiums and "determining, assessing, and deducting policy charge.
The Plaintiff asserts that age, sex, and risk class are factors
commonly used to determine mortality expectations and the cost of
insurance ("COI"). But, according to him, the Defendant uses
unlisted, non-mortality factors to determine the COI, and it has
not updated the COI rate based on improved mortality. Therefore, he
argues that the Defendant has repeatedly breached the Policy by
charging higher than authorized insurance rates and deducting
impermissibly high amounts from the accumulated values.
The Complaint contains five counts. Count I alleges breach of
contract. According to the Plaintiff, KCLI breached the insurance
contract by improperly calculating monthly cost of insurance rates
using factors not authorized by the Policies, and then deducting
those charges from accumulated values. Count II alleges breach of
contract by deducting unauthorized expense charges from the
accumulated values. Count III alleges breach of contract by failing
to reduce the cost of insurance rates despite improved mortality
expectations.
Count IV alleges conversion. According to the Plaintiff, KCLI
converted the property interests of plaintiff and the class in
their accumulated values by deducting charges exceeding the amounts
authorized by the Policies. Count V asserts a claim for declaratory
and injunctive relief. In particular, the Plaintiff seeks a
declaration that defendant is in material breach of the Policy and
the Class Policies, and an injunction to enjoin KCLI from further
breach. He also seeks both compensatory and punitive damages,
attorney's fees, and costs.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). The motion is supported by a memorandum. The Plaintiff
opposes the Motion to Dismiss. In the Opposition, he requests leave
to amend to include new factual allegations if the Court concludes
his present allegations are insufficient to plausibly allege
punitive damages. The Defendant has replied.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Leave to File a
Surreply in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss." It is
supported by a memorandum. The proposed Surreply is docketed at ECF
37-1. The Defendant opposes the Surreply Motion and the Plaintiff
has replied.
Notably, the issues in the case have been litigated in other
courts, citing Fine v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., SSS-22-02071, ___
F. Supp. 3d ___, 2022 WL 4240901 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2022); Karr
v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., JMT-1916-26645, 2022 WL 633903 (Mo.
Cir. Ct. Feb. 22, 2022); Meek v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.,
BP-19-000472, 2022 WL 499049 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 7, 2022); Sheldon v.
Kansas City Life Ins. Co., SRB-19-00899, 2020 WL 8270387 (W.D. Mo.
Jan 15, 2020) (remanded to the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri).
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions.
First, Judge Hollander examines the Plaintiff's breach of contract
claims (Counts I, II, and III). Count I alleges that KCLI breached
the Policy by using unauthorized and unlisted non-mortality factors
to determine monthly COI rates. Count II alleges that KCLI breached
the Policy by loading monthly cost of insurance rates with unlisted
expense factors in excess of the maximum expense charges expressly
authorized by the Policy. And, Count III alleges that KCLI breached
the Policy by failing to reduce monthly COI rates to reflect
"improved mortality expectations.
KCI seeks dismissal of all three counts on the basis that "he plain
language of the Policy does not constrain its ability to determine
COI rates.
Judge Hollander opines that the Policy is ambiguous as to mortality
considerations with respect to COI rates. She says the Policy does
not state that COI rates are based only on mortality expectations
at the time of contracting. The Policy indicates that the COI rate
is "based on expectations as to future mortality experience." As
noted by KCI, this provision does not provide a specific time for
the adjustment. But, the use of the word future arguably indicates
that the COI rates are to be adjusted. Therefore, the Policy is
also ambiguous with respect to defendant's duty to update the COI
to reflect future mortality expectations. Accordingly, Judge
Hollander denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts I and III
of the Complaint.
Judge Hollander also denies KCLI's Motion to Dismiss Count II of
the Complaint. She says nothing in the definitions indicates that
KCLI is permitted to assess expense charges other than those
associated with the defined "Monthly Expense Charge" or "Premium
Expense Charge."
Judge Hollander then turns to the conversion claim (Count IV). In
Count IV, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant is liable for
the common law tort of conversion. The Defendant maintains that
Maryland law, rather than Missouri law, applies to the conversion
claim, because the applicable law is the jurisdiction where the
injured party resides. It argues that the Plaintiff has not pleaded
sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages regarding
the alleged conversion. Therefore, KCLI seeks dismissal of the
claim for punitive damages.
The law in Missouri appears to support the conclusion that the
Plaintiff has stated a conversion claim, as he has adequately
pleaded that funds were placed in KCLI's custody for a specific
purpose. Accordingly, Judge Hollander denies the Defendant's motion
to dismiss Count IV.
Moreover, Judge Hollander cannot yet determine whether the facts
that the Plaintiff seeks to add in an amended complaint will be
sufficient to meet the pleading standard for punitive damages. She
notes, however, that the bar is a steep one. But she dismisses the
Plaintiff's request for punitive damages, without prejudice, and
with leave to amend.
In Count V, the Plaintiff asks the Court, inter alia, to declare
the parties' rights and obligations under the Policies and to
declare the Defendant's conduct unlawful and in material breach of
the Policy and Class Policies so that future controversies may be
avoided." The Defendant asks the Court to dismiss this portion of
the claim on the basis that the Plaintiff's request for declaratory
relief is entirely duplicative of the breach of contract claims
asserted in Counts I, II, and III.
Judge Hollander opines that the Defendant is correct in asserting
that a request for declaratory judgment that mirrors other counts
in the Complaint is unnecessary and duplicative. The claim
essentially duplicates the contract claims. Therefore, she
dismisses the portion of Count V pertaining to declaratory
judgment. Instead, the Plaintiff may seek declaratory relief as a
remedy.
In Count V, the Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief. He asks the
Court to enjoin the Defendant (1) from continuing to engage in
conduct in breach of the Policy and Class Policies, and from
continuing to collect unlawfully inflated charges in violation of
the Policy and Class Policies; and (2) ordering the Defendant to
comply with the terms of the Policy and Class Policies in regards
to its assessment of charges against Plaintiff and class members'
accumulated values. The Defendant urges dismissal of this claim as
duplicative of the claims for breach of contract, and because it
does not constitute an independent cause of action.
The Plaintiff has asserted an independent claim for injunctive
relief in Count V of the Complaint, Judge Hollander holds. She
dismisses the claim. But her ruling is without prejudice to the
Plaintiff's right to pursue injunctive relief as a remedy.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Hollander dismisses the claim for
punitive damages, without prejudice and with leave to amend. She
also dismissed the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief in
Count V. In all other respects, Judge Hollander denies the Motion
to Dismiss.
An Order follows, consistent with the Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2d8hz9p from Leagle.com.
KARIFAS AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Puga Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PUGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KARIFAS AUTO REPAIR INC.; and KARIFA KEITA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02127 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2023) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Puga was employed by the Defendants as laborer.
KARIFAS AUTO REPAIR INC. provides automotive repair and maintenance
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
www.StillmanLegalPC.com
KRATOCHVIL LAW: Smith Sues Over Fraudulent Default Judgments
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIKA SMITH-CHESTER SMITH, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. KRATOCHVIL LAW, P.C. f/k/a KRATOCHVIL & CHIMKO,
P.C. f/k/a CHIMKO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; BRENT M. KRATOCHVIL; RPM AUTO
SALES, INC.; 54A JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, in its official capacity
and on behalf of a Defendant class of JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS,
Case No. 4:23-cv-10664-FKB-KGA (E.D. Mich., Mar. 22, 2023) involves
an attorney and his law firm not upholding their oath, not honoring
the legal system, and knowingly cheating an overburdened state
district court judicial system, to fraudulently obtain default
judgments for treble damages against the owner of an automobile for
the legally impossible act of knowingly converting their own
automobile.
On July 3, 2019, Jamika Smith-Chester entered into a retail
installment contract with RPM for the purchase of 2008 Dodge Nitro.
The 2008 Dodge Nitro purchased by the Plaintiff subsequently
stopped working, and while was parked was hit by another vehicle.
The Plaintiff informed RPM of this and provided the location of the
vehicle. RPM choose not to pick up the vehicle and the retail
installment contract indicates that RPM had placed a GPS tracking
device in the vehicle. The Plaintiff, being financially distressed
and in need of another vehicle, did not make further payments under
the retail installment contract she had with RPM, says the suit.
Kratochvil on behalf of RPM filed suit against the Plaintiff in
Lansing, Michigan, even though KRATOCHVIL knew that the Plaintiff
was living in Detroit, Michigan, and caused the Plaintiff to be
served with the summons and complaint in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
85 Denison Parkway E. No. 186
Corning, NY 14830
Telephone: (607) 438-3011
E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal
- and -
John A. Evanchek, Esq.
KELLEY & EVANCHEK, P.C.
43695 Michigan Ave.
Canton, MI 48188-2516
Telephone: (734) 397-4540
E-mail: john@kelawpc.com
LABORATORY CORP: Espitia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KARINA ESPITIA, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22STCV37550, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on March 15, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01942 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges six causes of action on a class basis during
the putative class period including: (1) failure to provide meal
periods; (2) failure to provide paid rest periods; (3) failure to
pay wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages at
termination/separation; (5) failure to provide compliant itemized
wage statements; and (6) violation of Unfair Business Practices
Act.
Laboratory Corporation of America is an American healthcare company
headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eugene Ryu, Esq.
Neil A. Eddington, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd. 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-5000
Facsimile: (310) 553-5001
E-mail: Gene.Ryu@klgates.com
Neil.Eddington@klgates.com
LAW OFFICES: Faces Gross Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
SOLOMON GROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN COHEN, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 507882/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., March
14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to clearly
provide the accurate amount of the debt, the identity of the
original creditor and by overshadowing the disclosures with
conflicting interest accrual representations.
The Law Offices of Steven Cohen, LLC is a law firm located in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Yusko, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Hebert's Appeal From Denial of Leave to Amend Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD HEBERT, ET AL. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,
Case No. 2:21-CV-02077 (W.D. La.), Judge James D. Cain, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake
Charles Division, denies Plaintiffs Chad and Elizabeth Hebert's
appeal from a magistrate judge's ruling denying their Motion for
Leave to Amend.
The suit arises from damage to the Plaintiffs' home in Hurricane
Laura and Hurricane Delta, which both made landfall in Southwest
Louisiana in 2020, as well as a winter storm in February 2021. At
all relevant times the house, located in Sulphur, Louisiana, was
insured under a homeowner's policy issued by Liberty Personal
Insurance Co. The Plaintiffs allege that Liberty failed to timely
or adequately compensate them for their covered losses, and filed
suit in the Court on July 19, 2021, raising claims for breach of
insurance contract and bad faith. They filed a first amended
complaint to name the correct Liberty entity.
Liberty then filed a counterclaim for reimbursement under Louisiana
Civil Code article 2299, asserting that (1) the amounts paid to the
Plaintiffs under their dwelling coverage far exceeded the cost to
repair the home and (2) the Plaintiffs' receipt of $116,642.70
under their loss of use coverage is not supported by the policy's
terms.
Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint, in which they sought to raise an
additional claim "on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated" based on Liberty's alleged practice of not inspecting the
interior of the home due to COVID-19 protocols.
The magistrate judge found that the proposed amendment was futile
insofar as it proposed to state a class action. Specifically, she
stated that any such action would fail to meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s
superiority and predominance requirements. Accordingly, she denied
the motion without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to amend the
complaint and bring the claim individually.
The Plaintiffs now appeal that ruling, disputing the magistrate
judge's findings. Liberty opposes the appeal.
Judge Cain states that the magistrate judge joined other courts in
finding that individual issues would predominate in any attempt to
consolidate homeowner claims for the purposes of a class action.
The magistrate judge noted that any such action would prejudice
hurricane claimants who were already individually litigating their
claims, and that the Plaintiffs failed to show why they should be
allowed to assert these claims on behalf of other homeowners when
they could raise it in their own cases. She also recognized that
the Plaintiffs' proposed class included other Louisiana homeowners
who had their claims adjusted during the pandemic after
nonhurricane events, further complicating any attempt to
consolidate these matters.
Judge Cain agrees with these concerns; to the extent inspections
were inadequate these claims can easily be raised within individual
cases while the prevalence of individual legal and factual issues
makes any proposed class impractical. Therefore, he denies the
Appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Memorandum Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycknteyd from Leagle.com.
LINCARE INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Prostek Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii for the Eastern District of
California grants the Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by
Defendants Lincare, Inc., and Lincare Pharmacy Services, Inc., in
the case captioned as JENNIFER PROSTEK, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. LINCARE
INC., LINCARE PHARMACY SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-1530 AWI BAM, (E.D. Cal.).
The lawsuit is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff
Jennifer Prostek against her former employers, Lincare, Inc. and
Lincare Pharmacy Services, Inc. Prostek alleges various violations
of the California Labor Code (e.g. failure to pay overtime, failure
to provide required meal periods, failure to pay minimum wages,
etc.), California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's
Private Attorney General Act.
Now, the Defendants have moved to compel arbitration Prostek's
claims. In the motion, the Defendants argue that the Arbitration
Agreement was mutually agreed to and supported by sufficient
consideration between Lincare, Inc. and Prostek. Further, the
Arbitration Agreement states that the FAA governs, uses broad
language that covers all of the claims alleged in the Complaint,
and includes a waiver of the right to participate in, bring, or
collect money from a class, representative, collective, joint, or
consolidated action. The Arbitration Agreement is not procedurally
unconscionable since it is a stand-alone document. The Arbitration
Agreement is also not substantively unconscionable because it binds
both the Defendants and Prostek and incorporates the rules of the
American Arbitration Association. Under these circumstances,
Prostek's class claims should be dismissed and her individual
claims should be submitted to binding arbitration.
Prostek argues that the Arbitration Agreement is unconscionable
because it contains: (1) an unlawful PAGA waiver; (2) a pre-dispute
waiver in violation of Labor Code Section 206.5(a) and improperly
insulates an employer from equitable relief and paying wages
actually owed; and (3) a definition of "covered claims" that is too
one-sided.
The Court finds that "the Arbitration Agreement's broad "Covered
Claims" sections covers all claims arising out of the employment
relationship that could be brought by either the Defendants or
Prostek. The central purpose of the Arbitration Agreement is to
have nearly all employment-related disputes resolved through
arbitration. Prostek has demonstrated a single substantively
unconscionable provision that affects one cause of action -- a
representative PAGA claim. . . the substantive unconscionability,
however, can be excised from the Arbitration Agreement through
severance."
Faced with an identical situation, the Court will follow the same
course as in the case of River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct.
1906, 1916 (2022), where the United States Supreme Court "had no
difficulty in first severing a clause that waived the plaintiff's
right to bring a representative PAGA claim, and then enforcing the
remainder of the arbitration agreement." Accordingly, the parties
will submit all claims pending in this matter, except for the
Plaintiff's representative PAGA claim, to arbitration in accordance
with the Arbitration Agreement.
Finally, Prostek requests that the Court stay or send her
representative PAGA claim to arbitration because of the pendency of
the case styled Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. S274671, 2022 Cal.
LEXIS 5021. The Defendants acknowledge the significance of the
pending Adolph decision and do not oppose staying Prostek's
representative PAGA claim. Given the parties' agreement, the Court
finds that the appropriate course is to stay the pendency of
Prostek's representative PAGA claims. The Plaintiff's
representative PAGA claim will remain pending in this case until
the California Supreme Court issues a decision in Adolph.
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 21, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/2p9aznrt from Leagle.com.
LOWE'S HOME: Rodriguez Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUAN RODRIGUEZ, an individual; ALEXANDRIA
BLACKWELL, an individual; BRYANT HERNANDEZ, an individual; CHARLENE
CANNON, an individual; ERIC GREIMANN, an individual; ISABELLA
ISLAS, an individual; LISA LEON, an individual; and SKYMEISHA
GLAMOURS, an individual; each as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
f/k/a Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00453, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California to
the United States District Court for the Southern District Of
California on March 13, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00461-H-BGS to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs bring this class and collective action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the Fair Labor Standards Act against
Defendants for, among other things: failure to provide complaint
rest and meal breaks; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to
maintain accurate records of hours worked and wages earned; failure
to pay wages when due; failure to furnish accurate wage statement;
failure to reimburse work-related expenses incurred in the
discharge of job duties; and failure to pay all wages due upon
termination.
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC retails home improvement, building
materials, and home appliances.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Katherine V. A. Smith, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7107
Facsimile: (213) 229-6107
E-mail: ksmith@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: (949) 451-3945
Facsimile: (949) 475-4668
E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com
MARS INC: Chocolate Contains Lead and Cadnium, Prescott Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PRESCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-01352 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2023) is an action alleging
that the Defendant's Dove Promises Deeper Dark Chocolate 70% Cacao
contain alarming levels of dangerous heavy metals that pose serious
health risks to consumers.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant deceives
the Plaintiff and consumers by failing to disclose that the
products contain cadmium and lead, placing consumers at risk of
serious health conditions. Reasonable consumers have no way of
knowing, nor do they have a reason to know or believe, that the
Products pose threats to their health. The Defendant's failure to
disclose this information is material because consumers would not
purchase the Products if the lead and cadmium content in the
products were clearly disclosed, says the Plaintiff.
MARS, INC. manufactures packaged food products. The Company
produces confectionery, beverages, pet food, and other food
products, as well as animal care services. Mars serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Alan Gudino, Esq.
Ryan D. Ardi, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com
rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com
MCELROY METAL: Pitts' BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled WALTER PITTS, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCELROY METAL MILL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2023CH01107, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on March 14, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01588 to the proceeding.
Plaintiff Walter Pitts filed his class action complaint on February
3, 2023, alleging violations of Illinois' Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
McElroy Metal is a manufacturer of metal roofing, metal siding, and
substructural components with locations across the United
States.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Josh M. Kantrow, Esq.
Thomas M. Wolf, Esq.
LEWISBRISBOIS
550 West Adams Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 463-3445
Facsimile: (312) 345-1778
E-mail: Josh.Kantrow@lewisbrisbois.com
Thomas.Wolf@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Eric R. Miller, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM APLC
4605 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 906-4250
Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
E-mail: EM@kullmanlaw.com
- and -
M. Rebecca Cooper, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM APLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1600
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 524-4162
Facsimile: (504) 596-4189
E-mail: mrc@kullmanlaw.com
MDL 2913: Allegan Area ESA Sues Over E-Cigarettes' Deceptive Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEGAN AREA ESA, v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.,ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES,
LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
and JOHN DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:23-cv-01358 (N.D. Cal.,
Mar. 23, 2023) alleges that the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, and product design targets minors, especially school
age minors, which dramatically increased the use of e-cigarettes
amongst the student body of the Allegan Area ESA.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conduct has caused many
students to become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its students on
the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent
the possession and use of the Defendants' e-cigarette products on
the Plaintiffs' property.
Accordingly, because e-cigarettes are subject to more relaxed
regulation than cigarettes, Altria was able to market its products
in ways it could not have done for traditional tobacco products.
Altria marketed its e-cigarettes in flavors that would appeal to
youth: Strawberry Brulee, Apple Cider, Hazelnut Cream, Spiced
Fruit, Piña Colada, Glacier Mint, and Mardi Gras (apparently a
mixed berry flavor). Most of these flavors were marketed with the
Elite and Apex products, Altria's "pod" e-cigarettes.
Altria's push to gain the youth market gained the attention of the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On September 12, 2018, the
FDA sent a warning letter to Altria, requesting that Altria respond
with a "detailed plan" to address and mitigate the widespread use
of its e-cigarette products by minors, says the suit.
JLI and Altria worked together to implement their shared goal of
growing a youth market in the image of the combustible cigarette
market through a multi-pronged strategy to:
(1) create an highly addictive product that users would not
associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the
lucrative youth market,
(2) deceive the public into thinking the product was a fun
and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help
smokers quit,
(3) actively attract young users through targeted marketing,
and
(4) use a variety of tools, including false and deceptive
statements to the public and regulators, to delay
regulation
of e-cigarettes.
The public nuisance created and maintained by the Defendants has
resulted, and continues to result, in significant damage and
annoyance to the Plaintiff. Again, the FDA and others have
recognized that teen vaping is an epidemic and that the Defendants'
actions are at the heart of that epidemic, added the suit.
The Allegan suit has been consolidated in JUUL LABS, INC.
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The
lead case is Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO. The MDL is assigned to the
Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III.
The actions in the MDL share factual questions relating to "the
development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products,
and the alleged risks posed by the use of those products."
Allegan Area ESA is a public school district that educates 368
pre-kindergarten through 12th-grade students.
Altria Group produces and markets tobacco products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 West Broadway, Suite 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com
kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Cassopolis Schools Sues Over E-Cigarettes' Deceptive Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
CASSOPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES, LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:23-cv-01362
(N.D. Cal., Mar. 23, 2023) alleges that the Defendants' marketing
strategy, advertising, and product design targets minors,
especially school age minors, which dramatically increased the use
of e-cigarettes amongst the student body of the Cassopolis Public
Schools.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conduct has caused many
students to become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its students on
the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent
the possession and use of the Defendants' e-cigarette products on
the Plaintiffs' property.
Accordingly, because e-cigarettes are subject to more relaxed
regulation than cigarettes, Altria was able to market its products
in ways it could not have done for traditional tobacco products.
Altria marketed its e-cigarettes in flavors that would appeal to
youth: Strawberry Brulee, Apple Cider, Hazelnut Cream, Spiced
Fruit, Piña Colada, Glacier Mint, and Mardi Gras (apparently a
mixed berry flavor). Most of these flavors were marketed with the
Elite and Apex products, Altria's "pod" e-cigarettes. Altria's push
to gain the youth market gained the attention of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). On September 12, 2018, the FDA sent a
warning letter to Altria, requesting that Altria respond with a
"detailed plan" to address and mitigate the widespread use of its
e-cigarette products by minors, says the suit.
JLI and Altria worked together to implement their shared goal of
growing a youth market in the image of the combustible cigarette
market through a multi-pronged strategy to:
(1) create an highly addictive product that users would not
associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the
lucrative youth market,
(2) deceive the public into thinking the product was a fun
and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help
smokers quit,
(3) actively attract young users through targeted marketing,
and
(4) use a variety of tools, including false and deceptive
statements to the public and regulators, to delay
regulation
of e-cigarettes.
The public nuisance created and maintained by the Defendants has
resulted, and continues to result, in significant damage and
annoyance to the Plaintiff. Again, the FDA and others have
recognized that teen vaping is an epidemic and that the Defendants'
actions are at the heart of that epidemic, the suit added.
The Cassopolis suit has been consolidated in JUUL LABS, INC.
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The
lead case is Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO. The MDL is assigned to the
Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III.
The actions in the MDL share factual questions relating to "the
development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products,
and the alleged risks posed by the use of those products."
Cassopolis Public Schools is a public school district that educates
891 pre-kindergarten through 12th-grade students.
Altria Group produces and markets tobacco products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 West Broadway, Suite 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com
kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Owendale-Gagetown Area Sues Over E-Cigarettes' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
OWENDALE-GAGETOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.,
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
3:23-cv-01363 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 23, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff alleging that the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, and product design targets minors, especially school
age minors, which dramatically increased the use of e-cigarettes
amongst the student body of the Owendale-Gagetown Area School
District.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conduct has caused many
students to become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its students on
the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent
the possession and use of the Defendants' e-cigarette products on
the Plaintiffs' property. Accordingly, because e-cigarettes are
subject to more relaxed regulation than cigarettes, Altria was able
to market its products in ways it could not have done for
traditional tobacco products, says the suit.
Altria marketed its e-cigarettes in flavors that would appeal to
youth: Strawberry Brulee, Apple Cider, Hazelnut Cream, Spiced
Fruit, Piña Colada, Glacier Mint, and Mardi Gras (apparently a
mixed berry flavor). Most of these flavors were marketed with the
Elite and Apex products, Altria's "pod" e-cigarettes. Altria's push
to gain the youth market gained the attention of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). On September 12, 2018, the FDA sent a
warning letter to Altria, requesting that Altria respond with a
"detailed plan" to address and mitigate the widespread use of its
e-cigarette products by minors, the suit contends.
Allegedly, JLI and Altria worked together to implement their shared
goal of growing a youth market in the image of the combustible
cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to:
(1) create an highly addictive product that users would not
associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the
lucrative youth market,
(2) deceive the public into thinking the product was a fun
and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help
smokers quit,
(3) actively attract young users through targeted marketing,
and
(4) use a variety of tools, including false and deceptive
statements to the public and regulators, to delay
regulation
of e-cigarettes.
The Owendale-Gagetown Area School District suit has been
consolidated in JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No.
19-md-02913-WHO. The MDL is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H.
Orrick III.
The actions in the MDL share factual questions relating to "the
development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products,
and the alleged risks posed by the use of those products, the suit
added.
Owendale-Gagetown Area School District is a public school district
that educates 160 pre-kindergarten through 12th-grade students.
Altria Group produces and markets tobacco products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 West Broadway, Suite 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com
kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com
MEMPHIS, TN: Class Suit Over Rape Kit Backlog Certified
-------------------------------------------------------
Shay Arthur of WREG reports that a judge ruled March 22, 2023 that
thousands of rape victims in the city of Memphis can join in one
class action lawsuit.
It's a case WREG has covered extensively since first uncovering the
rape kit backlog more than a decade ago.
There was happiness in the hallway outside court March 22, 2023
afternoon. Attorneys told us the ruling has been nine years in the
making. They acknowledged the time spent fighting for this win but
also acknowledged this was a big case.
"The class is certified so it's a question of how many not hundreds
but how many thousands of persons will be included into the class,"
said attorney Daniel Lofton.
Judge Gina Higgins spoke to the room March 22, 2023 saying there
has been much going on behind the scenes and cited the pandemic.
In part of her lengthy ruling about the victims and the backlog of
rape kits this issue has centered around, Judge Higgins said "The
city invited them to submit to sexual assault rape kits, a very
intimate and personal, invasive procedure. The city involved them
in the city's duty to the public with an expectation that the city
would do more for them."
Celia Reynolds, who has been involved throughout the years, said
she's happy after years of waiting for this moment.
"It shouldn't have took this long. It should have been done before
now and all of these women have suffered years of pain, anxiety,
depression. They just don't know how much agony we have been
through with this. By being classified, I am very, very happy,"
Reynolds said.
"It’s been a long time and the reason it's bittersweet is because
it's been so long," said Debby Dalhoff, another woman involved in
the case. "We deserve the certification so hopefully now we can get
to the end. We know that's probably going to take some more time
but we’re going to get there, we’re going to get there. "
As for when to have another court date to move forward, that's
unclear. The victim's attorney said there are now a lot of new
things to start working on. [GN]
METHODIST LE BONHEUR: Fails to Pay Dispatchers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Banks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare, Case No.
2:23-cv-02156-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn., Mar. 23, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as
well as seeks declaratory relief, unpaid back wages, liquidated
and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law, and attorney's
fees, costs, and expenses.
The Plaintiff brings this Complaint as a collective action on
behalf of all non-exempt Security Department dispatchers and
telephone operators who were or are employed by the Defendant for
the period of three years prior to the commencement of this action
to the present, and who were not compensated at one-and-one-half
times the regular rate of pay for all work performed in excess of
forty hours per week. On average, Ms. Banks has worked 68 hours per
week during the relevant period, says the suit.
The Defendant also improperly deducted meal time hours from the
timesheets of Ms. Banks and those employees similarly situated to
her. Ms. Banks was told by her supervisor Patricia McGowan, as
agent of the Defendant, not to report meal times untaken to the
Defendant. The Defendant thus willfully failed and refused to pay
Ms. Banks and similarly situated employees for all hours worked and
an overtime premium for all hours worked over forty in any given
workweek, the suit adds.
Plaintiff Felicia Banks was hired by the Defendant as a Dispatcher
in its Security Department in November 2016.
Methodist is an integrated, not-for-profit healthcare system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan G. Crone, Esq.
Philip Oliphant, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor,
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (844) 445-2387
Facsimile: (901) 474.7926 (fax)
E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: $1.75M Class Deal in Baten Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDY BATEN, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHIGAN LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a
DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a
DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, WESTERN DELIVERY & LOGISTICS, LLC, d/b/a
DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, and LARRY BROWNE, Defendants, Case No.
CV 18-10229-GW-MRWx (C.D. Cal.), Judge George H. Wu of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California grants the
Plaintiff's Motions for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,
and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
Baten, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, moved
the Court for final approval of a $1.75 million non-reversionary,
class action settlement of the wage and hour case against
Defendants Michigan Logistics, Inc., California Logistics, Inc.,
Western Delivery & Logistics, Inc., and Larry Browne, for approval
of a $10,000 Enhancement Payment, and for approval of Class
Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs.
The Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary
approval on Dec. 6, 2022. On March 8, 2023, the Court issued a
tentative ruling granting in full the Plaintiff's Motions for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, and for Attorneys' Fees and
Costs. It conducted a final fairness hearing on March 9, 2023, at
which the counsel for the parties appeared and the Court adopted
its tentative ruling as its Final Ruling.
Having read and considered the unopposed moving papers, having
conducted a final fairness hearing as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e), and good cause appearing, Judge Wu finds
that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and warrants
final approval.
The certified settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c) consists of the members of the class that the Court
certified by order, dated Oct. 25, 2021, who did not exclude
themselves from the settlement, and who worked at least one workday
with Defendants between Nov. 2, 2014 and May 31, 2022 as reflected
in Defendants' records. There are 82 Settlement Class Members. No
Settlement Class Member objected to the settlement or requested
exclusion.
All Settlement Class Members who did not timely and properly
exclude themselves are bound by the Order and Judgment.
Judge Wu approves (i) the Class Counsel's request for an award of
attorneys' fees of $583,333.33 or one-third of the Maximum
Settlement Amount, and for reimbursement of their actual
out-of-pocket litigation costs and expenses of $42,126.47, to be
paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount; (ii) the Plaintiff's
request for a $10,000 Enhancement Payment; and (iii) the Settlement
Administrator's payment of up to $26,000 in Administrative Costs to
administer the Settlement through its conclusion, including
disbursement of the Maximum Settlement Amount and all associated
tax reporting.
The Defendants have a total of 48 months from Sept. 21, 2022, to
tender the Maximum Settlement Amount (Payment Period).
The Effective Date of the settlement will be 30 days from the date
of the Order. The Effective Date will also constitute the
Defendants' Initial Payment Date.
The Defendants' Initial Payment will be calculated by dividing the
Maximum Settlement Amount by the number of months remaining in the
Payment Period as of the Initial Payment Date. Beginning the month
following the Initial Payment, the Defendants will make Monthly
Payments on or before the 10th day of each month until they have
fully paid the Maximum Settlement Amount.
The Defendants will be entitled to an Accelerated Payment Discount
if they accelerate their payments and satisfy their obligation to
pay the Maximum Settlement Amount by: (i) June 1, 2023, a $105,000
Accelerated Payment Discount; and (ii) June 1, 2024, a $52,500
Accelerated Payment Discount. If an Accelerated Payment Discount is
applied, it will be applied proportionately to all amounts except
for the Enhancement Payment and Administrative Costs.
The Settlement Administrator will issue the first round of
Settlement Checks to Settlement Class Members on a pro rata basis
within 14 days of the Defendants' third payment into the Qualified
Settlement Fund. The Settlement Administrator will issue the second
round of Settlement Checks to Settlement Class Members on a pro
rata basis within 14 days of Defendants' sixth payment. Thereafter,
the Settlement Administrator will issue Settlement Checks to
Settlement Class Members on a pro rata basis at the end of the
second quarter of each subsequent year of the Payment Period,
subject to the Accelerated Payment Discount.
The Settlement Administrator will pay (i) the Class Counsel their
Attorneys' Fees and Costs on a pro rata basis at the same times
that the payments are made to the Settlement Class Members; and
(ii) the Plaintiff his Enhancement Payment at the same time that
the first round of checks are mailed to Settlement Class Members.
While any balance of the Maximum Settlement Amount remains
outstanding, the Defendants will not pay management fees to its
parent corporation in excess of $102,750 per month, or in an amount
that would reduce available cash, after the Monthly Settlement
Payment, to less than zero, whichever is less; will defer any
distributions to Larry Browne and/or to other Diligent officers or
companies; and will not change accounting practices.
Upon request, the Defendants will provide the Class Counsel with
reasonably detailed profit and loss statements and balance sheets
on a quarterly basis beginning in the first quarter following
execution of the Settlement Agreement and on a quarterly basis
thereafter; as well as annual state and federal tax filings during
the period in which any balance of the Maximum Settlement Amount is
owed. The Class Counsel and/or their expert(s) or consultant(s)
will have a right to conduct a commercially reasonable audit of
financial statements of the Defendants on a quarterly basis
beginning in the first quarter following execution of the
Settlement Agreement at Class Counsel's expense. Such audits will
be conducted at a mutually agreed upon date and time, and such
audits will not unreasonably interfere with the Defendants' regular
business operations.
Upon the Effective Date and upon the Defendants' complete and
timely payment of the Maximum Settlement Amount, all the Settlement
Class Members who have not opted out will release the Defendants
and the Released Parties from all claims that were pled in the
Complaint in the Action, or which could have been pled in any of
the Complaints in the Action based on the factual allegations
therein, that arose between Nov. 2, 2014 and Dec. 6, 2022, and that
relate to the Settlement Class Members' work as delivery drivers
with the Defendants.
Upon entry of the Order and Judgment, the Parties will effectuate
all terms of the Settlement Agreement based on the provisions and
timelines set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
In the event of the Defendants' uncured breach of Sections 3.1.2
and/or 3.2.1 of the Settlement Agreement and following 10 business
days' written notice to their counsel, they will be obligated to
make an immediate payment to the Plaintiffs of $1.75 million any
payments already made by the Defendants, plus interest at a rate of
10% per year from the date of the first violation, all as provided
in the Settlement Agreement. Enforcement of this portion of the
judgment will be stayed while the Defendants are timely making
payments, and the Court retains jurisdiction to lift the stay upon
a showing that the Defendants have been provided written notice of
breach and have failed to cure said breach within 10 business days
thereof.
Judgment is entered consistent with the Settlement Agreement.
Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court retains
jurisdiction over the action and the parties to construe,
interpret, implement, and enforce the Settlement Agreement and the
Order and Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Order & Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4fz73e6m from Leagle.com.
Rachel Bien -- rachel@osclegal.com -- OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP,
Pasadena, CA, Chauniqua D. Young -- cyoung@outtengolden.com --
(admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, New York, New York,
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class.
Adam Koshkin -- akoshkin@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP,
San Francisco, CA, Troy L. Kessler -- tkessler@kesslermatura.com --
(admitted pro hac vice) Marijana Matura --
mmatura@kesslermatura.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) KESSLER MATURA
P.C., Melville, New York, Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the
Class.
MIKE WALNUT: Faces Kepler Suit Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the complaint, Andrea Kepler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mike Walnut, Inc dba Fantasy Castle
Gentlemen's Club, a California Corporation; Mike Mudaris, an
individual; Doe Managers 1-3; and Does 4-10, inclusive, Case No.
8:23-cv-513 (C.D. Cal., March 21, 2023), Kepler alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California
Labor Code, and the Code of Federal Regulations.
She claims that the defendants evaded the mandatory minimum wage
and overtime provisions of FLSA and illegally absconding with her
tips. She asserts that Mudaris, as well as the other Defendants
herein, refuse to pay her and other dancers-entertainers minimum
wage and earned overtime, by mischaracterizing them as "independent
contractors."
Fantasy Castle is a California corporation with its principal place
of business located at 2800 Walnut Avenue, Signal Hill, CA. Mike
Mudaris is one of the owners, controlling shareholders, and exerts
day-to-day management over the defendant entity Fantasy Castle
through which he exerts operational and management control over
Fantasy Castle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Justice D. Turner, Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 W. Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
8827 W. Olympic Blvd
Telephone: (310) 273-1230
E-mail: kristensen@cz.law
jturner@cz.law
kristensenteam@cz.law
MOVE INC: Must Defend Against Faucett's Robocall Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California denies the motion to dismiss filed by Move,
Inc. d/b/a Realtor.com in the case caption as PRIESTLEY FAUCETT,
Plaintiff, v. MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-04948-ODW (ASx), (C.D. Cal.).
Priestley Faucett has a cellular telephone number ending in 5272,
which is registered with the national "do not call" registry.
Sometime in May 2022, Realtor.com began making phone calls to and
leaving voice messages for Faucett at the Number. When Faucett
answered his phone, a prerecorded voice prompted him to hold for a
live representative. When a live representative appeared on the
line, Faucett "told [Realtor.com] to stop calling in an attempt to
opt-out of any further communications with [Realtor.com]."
Faucett brings this putative class action against Move, Inc. d/b/a
Realtor.com for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. In his First Amended Complaint, Faucett alleges
four causes of action under the TCPA on behalf of three putative
classes: (1) violation of the prerecorded voice provision; (2)
knowing or willful violation of the prerecorded voice provision;
(3) violation of the "do not call" provisions and regulations
against telephone solicitations; and (4) knowing or willful
violation of the "do not call" provisions and regulations against
telephone solicitations.
Now, Realtor.com moves to dismiss Faucett's first and second causes
of action on the basis that Faucett consented to the calls from
Realtor.com.
According to the Court, "Dismissal is inappropriate because whether
Faucett provided prior express consent, written or otherwise, is a
question properly reserved for the summary judgment stage. . . To
begin with, Faucett alleges that he did not provide express written
consent to be contacted by Realtor.com with a prerecorded voice
message. . . Although Realtor.com argues that the Transcriptions
indicate that Faucett submitted an online inquiry expressing his
interest in connecting with a real estate agent, that alone is
insufficient to establish that Faucett consented to receiving
prerecorded messages from Realtor.com. . . To conclude that the
Transcriptions invalidate Faucett's allegation would require the
Court to make several assumptions in Realtor.com's favor, including
assumptions regarding the completeness of the Transcriptions. The
Court is not permitted to make such assumptions at this phase. More
specifically, the Court must not assume the truth of the
[Transcriptions] if such assumptions only serve to dispute facts
stated in a well-pleaded complaint. Because that is the very
purpose for which Realtor.com presents the Transcriptions,
dismissal on the basis of the Transcriptions is inappropriate."
Realtor.com also argues that Faucett's third and fourth causes of
action alleging violations of the "do not call" provisions and
regulations against telephone solicitations fail because the calls
at issue do not constitute "telephone solicitations." Realtor.com
asserts that it merely offered a free service -- connecting Faucett
with a real estate agent -- and did not seek to secure a purchase
on the calls at issue.
The Court notes that "the TCPA prohibits an entity from making more
than one 'telephone solicitation' to the same person within a
twelve-month period. The term 'telephone solicitation' means the
initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of
encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property,
goods, or services." In this case, the Court determines that
"Faucett alleges, and Realtor.com concedes, that Realtor.com called
him in order to connect him with a real estate agent. Realtor.com
encouraged Faucett to purchase property or services by attempting
to connect him to a real estate agent and, as such, Faucett's
allegations that Realtor.com's messages constitute "telephone
solicitations" under the TCPA are sufficient."
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 17, 2023, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ysc8ncmu from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Colon Suit Over Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action complaint, Joseph Colon, Shannon Ray, and Kyle
McKinley, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, an
unincorporated association, Case No. 1:23-at-00245 (E.D. Cal.,
March 21, 2023), Colon et al. allege that the National Collegiate
Athletic Association and its member schools have antitrust
violations for engaging in a contract, combination, and conspiracy
to exercise the association’s admitted monopsony market power in
the labor market for coaches.
The Plaintiffs were volunteer coaches who frequently work full
time, weekends, early mornings, and late nights and perform many,
if not all, of the same job duties as the paid coaches working out
of the same set of Athletic Department offices. Allegedly, the NCAA
and its member schools abuse their monopsony power by agreeing all
will accept the benefits these coaches bring to their respective
institutions and student-athletes but to pay the coaches nothing
for it. The agreements between NCAA and its member schools, in
antitrust terms, make the member schools a buyer-side cartel: a
group of competitors agreeing to abide by naked horizontal pricing
restraints to purposefully restrict competition in the labor market
for valuable college coaching services so they can collectively
reduce their costs. The very purpose and actual effect of this
horizontal agreement was to fix and suppress salaries so as to make
them unresponsive to a competitive marketplace or even one in which
basic wage and hour laws are respected. This amounts to an unlawful
restraint under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, says the suit.
This suit seeks to recoup the damages sustained by the plaintiff
class of volunteer coaches as a result of these collusive and
illegal practices. It seeks actual and treble damages under the
Clayton Act and injunctive relief.
NCAA is an unincorporated association that maintains its principal
place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. It has approximately
1,100 member schools. Its membership includes most of the public
and private universities and colleges that conduct athletic
programs in the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Darryl J. Horowitt, Esq.
COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP
499 West Shaw, Suite 116
Fresno, CA 93704
Telephone: (559) 248-4820
Facsimile: (559) 248-4830
E-mail: dhorowitt@ch-law.com
- and -
Dennis Stewart, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 595-3299
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
Noah L. Cozad, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
jrissman@gustafsongluek.com
ncozad@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
Marko Radisavljevic, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
600 B Street, Suite 2110
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 784-1442
E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com
mradisavljevic@kmllp.com
- and -
Leonard B. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON P.C.
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 818-0644
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: lens@rgrdlaw.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Final Settlement in ACH Suit Heard on May 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Nationstar agreed to a $5 million
settlement to resolve claims it sent incorrect automated clearing
house, or ACH, entries to mortgage borrower bank accounts in April
2021.
The settlement benefits consumers whose mortgages were or are
serviced by Nationstar and who were affected by the incorrect ACH
debit and credit entries sent April 23, 2021.
In April 2021, mortgage borrowers with loans serviced by Nationstar
allegedly experienced incorrect ACH debit and credit entries on
their bank accounts. These inaccurate entries allegedly caused
consumers to overpay on their mortgages and sustain other financial
damages.
Nationstar, now known as Mr. Cooper, is a mortgage lender and
servicer. ACI, another defendant in the case, is an ACH clearing
company.
Nationstar and ACI haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the ACH
claims.
Under the terms of the ACH settlement, class members can receive a
cash payment. The settlement guarantees payments of at least $100
for all class members but allows claimants to seek additional
compensation for unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses they sustained
as a result of the ACH incident.
Class members whose overpayment was already reimbursed may have
their payments reduced. The $100 payments may also be reduced
depending on the number of approved claims.
In addition to providing cash payments, Nationstar and ACI agreed
to forgive any entitlement they may have to recover from class
members. This includes $2.86 million in overpayments and around
$190,000 in damages.
ACI agreed to implement several business practices to prevent
future ACH incidents. These changes are valued at $1 million.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 29, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the ACH settlement is scheduled for
May 31, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Nov. 13, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Consumers whose mortgages were or are serviced by Nationstar and
who were impacted by the incorrect ACH debit and credit entries
sent on April 23, 2021.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of out-of-pocket expenses.
Claim Form Deadline
11/13/2023
Case Name
Dugan, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al., Case No.
1:21-CV-00341, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina.
Final Hearing
05/31/2023
Settlement Website
ACHLoanPaymentLitigation.com
Claims Administrator
ACH Litigation Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@ACHLoanPaymentLitigation.com
855-645-0554
Class Counsel
Norberto J. Cisneros
MADDOX & CISNEROS LLP
Marc E. Dann
DANNLAW
George Haines
FREEDOM LAW FIRM LLC
Scott C. Harris
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Michael Kind
KIND LAW
Edward H Maginnis
MAGINNIS HOWARD
Joel R Rhine
RHINE LAW FIRM PC
Thomas A Zimmerman Jr.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC
Defense Counsel
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
JONES DAY [GN]
NEVADA: District Court Denies Lopez's Bid to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTORIANO LOPEZ, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NEVADA, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00732-RCJ-CSD (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and their motion to
certify a question of constitutionality of state law.
Judge Denney denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class
action, finding that the Plaintiff is proceeding with a single
claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under
the Eighth Amendment based on alleged denial of recommended
cataract treatment. There are no allegations in the amended
complaint that would result in the Court finding a basis to proceed
with a class action. The action is also beyond the dispositive
motions stage and is set for a settlement conference to see if the
parties may be able to resolve the matter before proceeding to
trial.
In addition, Judge Denney denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify
a question of constitutionality of state law because the Plaintiff
is not proceeding with a state law claim, but only a single claim
under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/srdj83h7 from Leagle.com.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bunts Alleges Train Derailment's Chemical Spills
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action complaint, Bunts et al v. Norfolk Southern Railway
Co and Norfolk Southern Corp. and John Doe(s) 1-20 and ABC Corp(s)
1-20, Case No. 4:23-cv-00586-SL (N.D. Ohio, March 21, 2023), seeks
redress for residents, property owners, and businesses located near
the scene of a train derailment near the Village of East Palestine,
Columbiana County, Ohio.
According to the complaint, the representative plaintiffs and the
class members are among the hundreds of persons who were adversely
exposed to, among other things, toxic chemicals, fumes, and
carcinogens, many of whom were ordered to evacuate from their
residences and businesses as a result of defendants' train
derailment and resulting chemical spills, explosions, and fires.
Moreover, the plaintiffs and class members seek equitable relief in
the form of a medical monitoring program and establishment of a
medical monitoring fund, and further request injunctive relief
compelling defendants to finance the medical monitoring program and
address issues as they develop during program administration. As a
direct and proximate result of defendant’s wrongful conduct, they
have been exposed to toxic substances, toxic fumes and carcinogens
and thereby suffer, and will continue to suffer a significantly
increased risk of serious injury and diseases. This increased risk
makes periodic diagnostic medical testing and examinations
necessary, says the suit.
Norfolk Southern Corp. (NSC) is a publicly traded corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Virginia with a principal
place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. NSC owns all of the common
stock of and controls Norfolk Southern Railway Co.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
1640 Roundwyck Lane
Columbus, OH 43065-8416
Telephone: (440) 452-7100
E-mail: eric@zagrans.com
- and -
Steven M. Goldberg, Esq.
GOLDBERG LEGAL CO., LPA
31300 Solon Road, Suite 12
Solon, OH 44139
Telephone: (440) 519-9900
E-mail: steven@goldberglpa.com
OAK HARBOR: Aguirrie Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEVANTAE AGUIRRIE, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff
v. OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINES, INC., a Washington corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0000378, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
March 17, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00516-WBS-DB to the proceeding.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
Defendant (i) failed to pay all overtime wages due in violation of
the California Labor Code; (ii) failed to provide off-duty meal
periods or pay compensation in lieu thereof in violation of the
Labor Code; (iii) failed to provide off-duty rest periods or pay
compensation in lieu thereof in violation of the Labor Code; (iv)
failed to pay all minimum wages due in violation of the Labor Code;
(v) failed to pay all wages due at the time of termination from
employment in violation of the Labor Code; (vi) failed to provide
accurate wage statements in violation of the Labor Code; (vii)
failed to reimburse employees for business expenses in violation of
the Labor Code; and (viii) violated California's Unfair Competition
Law.
Oak Harbor Freight Lines is a freight forwarding service in Auburn,
Washington.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Drew Hansen, Esq.
NOSSAMAN LLP
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 833-7800
Facsimile: (949) 833-7878
E-mail: dhansen@nossaman.com
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Zimmerman Sues Over Royalty Payment Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ZIMMERMAN; ANTHONY DEVITO; and SEAN DONNELLY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL; COMEDY PARTNERS; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02409 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2023) is an action arising
from Defendants' efforts to wrongfully commandeer the Plaintiffs'
royalties in contravention of both the parties' recording
agreements and the Copyright Act in 1995 and 1998.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in undisclosed direct licensing agreements with entities
such as SiriusXM Radio without the Plaintiffs' knowledge or
consent. Defendants' agreements usurped Plaintiffs' royalties while
increasing the Defendants' royalties beyond what they were
statutorily entitled to receive. In violation of the Plaintiffs and
the Class Member Contracts, the Defendants entered into undisclosed
negotiations and direct licensing agreements with satellite radio
provider SiriusXM and potentially other parties, for the
exploitation of the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' intellectual
property. The Defendants have systematically failed to disclose,
account for, or pay the full amount owed of the revenue generated
from the exploitation of the Class Members' comedic musical
performances on SiriusXM as provided for in the Recording
Agreements, the Plaintiffs say.
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL operates as a media company. The Company produces
and distributes entertainment content through studios, networks,
streaming services, live events, and merchandise. Paramount Global
serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLC
201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80206
Telephone: (646) 964-9600
Email: skamber@kamberlaw.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP
1145 Bower Hill Drive, Ste 104
Pittsburgh, PA 15243
Telephone: (412) 857-5350
Email: ben@nshmlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
Margaret A. Parker, Esq.
NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP
33 W. Mission Street, Suite 201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-2345
Email: jonathan@nshmlaw.com
alison@nshmlaw.com
meg@nshmlaw.com
PEARSON EDUCATION: Discloses Subscribers' Info, Collins Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN COLLINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-02219 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023) arises from Defendant
Pearson Education's surreptitious disclosure of its subscribers'
personally identifying information in violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Pearson uses a "Pixel" tracking cookie
to disclose to Meta Platforms, Inc., (formerly known as Facebook) a
record of its digital subscribers' identities side-by-side with the
specific videos its digital subscribers requested or obtained.
Pearson does so without the subscribers' "informed, written
consent," says the suit.
Plaintiff Collins is a victim of Pearson's misconduct. Pearson
disclosed to Facebook Plaintiff's personally identifiable
information, including his Facebook ID, along with specific video
titles and the videos' URLs identifying specific videos Plaintiff
requested or obtained. He brings this case as a class action,
seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated.
Pearson Education is a British-owned education publishing and
assessment service to schools and corporations, as well for
students directly.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Fl.
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: dcuthbertson@lchb.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Fl.
New San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (212) 956-1000
Facsimile: (212) 956-1008
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
- and -
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Jared W. Connors, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
jconnors@meyerwilson.com
- and -
Brian Levin, Esq.
LEVIN LAW, P.A.
2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2b
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 402-9050
Facsimile: (305) 676-4443
E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Move to Dismiss Mackey Complaint Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois denies the Motion to Dismiss filed by
PeopleConnect, Inc. in the case captioned as SCOTT MACKEY, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
PEOPLECONNECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 C 342, (N.D. Ill.).
Scott Mackey brings a putative class action against PeopleConnect,
Inc., alleging PeopleConnect violates the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act and is unjustly enriched by using his name and
likeness from his high school yearbook to advertise subscriptions
to Classmates.com without his consent. PeopleConnect owns
Classmates.com, a website that maintains a database of school
yearbooks.
Mackey has never visited Classmates.com nor registered as a member
but the site generates advertisements for its subscription services
when someone clicks on his photo. Mackey alleges PeopleConnect has
used his own high school yearbook photo to offer paid subscriptions
to Classmates.com. This practice, according to Mackey, misleads the
public into believing he endorses Classmates.com's subscription
product when he has not consented to his photo's use. There is no
opt-out mechanism.
PeopleConnect moves to dismiss for improper venue under
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(3), arguing that Mackey is bound to
arbitrate individually any claims against PeopleConnect. In the
alternative, PeopleConnect moves to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.
PeopleConnect argues Mackey ratified by retaining the benefits of
an agreement Benjamin Osborn (one of Mackey's attorneys) made
nearly two years before they met. PeopleConnect submits Mackey is
bound to arbitrate because his attorney, Osborn, created a
Classmates.com account in August 2019 and failed to opt out of the
Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which Mackey then ratified by
accepting the benefits of his counsel's prior agreement.
The Court denies PeopleConnect's Motion to dismiss for improper
venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and declines to order further discovery
on arbitrability. The record is sufficient to show Mackey has not
ratified any agreement of his counsel to arbitrate claims against
PeopleConnect. The Court finds "Mackey never personally agreed to
arbitrate claims against PeopleConnect because he never accepted
Classmates.com's TOS. He denies ever visiting Classmates.com, let
alone agreeing to its TOS through registering for an account. . .
Mackey never knew any arbitration agreement had existed between
PeopleConnect and Osborn before filing his lawsuit. He did not have
"full knowledge of the act" that he supposedly ratified."
PeopleConnect argues Mackey should have known about this
arbitration agreement when (1) his counsel sent a pre-suit letter
to PeopleConnect's counsel disclaiming any arbitration agreement
existed, and (2) when he reviewed the Complaint prior to filing.
The Court finds that "neither document contains any reference to
Osborn's personal Classmates.com account that he opened in 2019. .
. both documents would naturally have confirmed Mackey's belief
that he had authorized his counsel solely to litigate in federal
court rather than to arbitrate." The Court points out that: "The
Court, rather than an arbitrator, resolves whether an agreement to
arbitrate exists. . . Agreements to arbitrate remain 'a matter of
contract'. . . Just as in any contract, a party must have agreed to
an arbitration provision to be bound by it."
The Court considers the information Mackey pleads "on information
and belief" to be within the defendant's unique control.
Notwithstanding Mackey's allegations on information and belief, the
Court finds his Complaint satisfies Rule 8(a)'s notice-pleading
standard. The Court further finds that federal law does not bar
Mackey's IRPA claim as pleaded.
A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion & Order dated March 17,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/32zzbfpv from
Leagle.com.
PINE TREE PARK: Homeowners Sue Over Mobile Home Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF PINETREE PARK, INC., a Florida non-profit
corporation, Plaintiff v. PINE TREE PARK CO-OP, INC, a Florida
non-profit corporation, MOBILE HOME MANAGEMENT FL, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, PINE TREE PARK PROPERTIES, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company and ROBERT MILLER, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. CACE-23-003393 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., March 13, 2023) is an action for damages arising from
securities fraud, common law fraud, misrepresentations and
reliance, and violations of the Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, or
"the mobile home act."
In 2007, third party real estate companies became interested in
acquiring the Pine Tree Park Land. In such event, the third-party
entity would have the ability to disproportionately raise rents
and/or "non-renew" other leasehold interests. The increase in rent
and/or non-renewal of other tenancies would have resulted in the
removal of the mobile homes and, therefore, could have created a
valuable asset; the vacant land. The vacant land is subject to
development at a higher rate of return but, on the other hand,
would have displaced those that reside in the Pine Tree Park and
call it home, says the complaint.
According to the complaint, the defendant cooperative, by and
through its principals, have orchestrated a scheme to defraud the
putative plaintiff association. The principals have made certain
representations regarding the cooperative and the benefits of the
putative plaintiff association that were false and known to be
false at the time that the representations were made. The putative
plaintiff association detrimentally relied on the false statements
of material fact by purchasing the mobile homes. The putative
plaintiff association was lead to believe that they were acquiring
an investment through the purchase of the applicable mobile home.
They were told that the investment was secured by the cooperative
and that the cooperative runs with the land. In reliance on those
representations, those affiliated with the putative plaintiff
association purchased their mobile homes for good and valuable
consideration and invested capital and time into the beautification
of the Pine Tree Park Community. The putative plaintiff association
was lied to. While it is true that the Pine Tree Park Community
does have protection through the cooperative structure, those
members of the putative plaintiff association were not offered
membership certificates from the defendant cooperative. Instead,
the defendant cooperative maintained the same number of issued
shares, or 91, and the value of those issued shares increased
because those affiliated with the putative plaintiff association
invested capital into the Pine Tree Community; believing that their
capital was secured by the cooperative structure, the complaint
alleges.
Homeowners Association of Pinetree Park, Inc. is a Florida
non-profit corporation as per Chapter 617 Florida Statutes. It is
domiciled and doing business in Broward County, Florida to provide
the administration and governance for those that were issued
membership certificates into the Pine Tree Park Community.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geoffrey D. Ittleman, Esq.
GEOFFREY D. ITTLEMAN P.A.
955 S. Federal Highway Suite 339
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 462-8340
Facsimile: (954) 462-8342
E-mail: geoffrey@ittlemanlaw.com
PINNACLE PROPERTY: Longboy Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEVIN MICHAEL D. LONGBOY, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company;
INTERSOLUTIONS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23-CIV-00301, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 17, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-01248 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed this putative class action complaint on January 24,
2023, against Defendants in the Superior Court, wherein he alleges
the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages;
(2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide
meal periods; ( 4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5)
failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; (6) failure to
timely pay final wages at termination; (7) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and (8) violation of the
California Business and Professions Code.
Pinnacle Property Management Services provides residential and
commercial property management services.[BN]
Defendant Pinnacle Property Management Services is represented by:
Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP
4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90807
Telephone: (213) 452-0510
Facsimile: (213) 452-0514
E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com
PRICE-SIMMS INC: Watkins Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAMARA WATKINS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v.
PRICE-SIMMS, INC., a California corporation; PRICE-SIMMS
MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation; PRICE-SIMMS FAIRFIELD,
LLC, a California limited liability company; PRICE-SIMMS FORD, LLC,
a California limited liability company; PRICESIMMS PA, LLC, a
California limited liability company; PRICE-SIMMS PSM, LLC, a
California limited liability company; PRICESIMMS PSSJ, LLC, a
California limited liability company; PRICE-SIMMS WALNUT CREEK RE,
LLC a California limited liability company; PRICE-SIMMS WALNUT
CREEK LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV2300340, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Marin, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 17, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-01258 to the proceeding.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, eight total causes of action, seven of
which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and
one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business &
Professions Code.
Price-Simms, Inc. is a privately held automotive group in Northern
California.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam F. Sloustcher, Esq.
Stephanie Reynolds, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
E-mail: asloustcher@fisherphillips.com
sreynolds@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Abby H. Putzulu, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 490-9000
Facsimile: (415) 490-9001
E-mail: aputzulu@fisherphillips.com
PRIORITY CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tidwell Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOAH TIDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRIORITY CONTRACTING & ROOFING LLC d/b/a PRIORITY
ROOFING, Case No. 4-23-cv-01046 (S.D. Tex., March 22, 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 Tidwell was employed by the Defendants as project
manager.
PRIORITY CONTRACTING & ROOFING LLC d/b/a PRIORITY ROOFING offers
residential and commercial roofing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Altimeo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants in part the motion to dismiss
filed by Hongyi Zhou in the case captioned as ALTIMEO ASSET
MANAGEMENT and ODS CAPITAL LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY CO.
LTD., HONGYI ZHOU, XIANGDONG QI, and ERIC X. CHEN, Defendants, Case
No. 19 Civ. 10067 (PAE), (S.D.N.Y.).
Lead plaintiffs Altimeo Asset Management and ODS Capital LLC bring
suit on behalf of a putative class comprised of owners of Qihoo
securities who sold shares during the class period, or who tendered
those shares for the Merger consideration. The Plaintiffs allege
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
implementing rule of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Plaintiffs claim that internet company Qihoo 360 Technology Co.
Ltd. and three of its leaders carried out a scheme to depress the
price of Qihoo's American Depositary Shares and stock to enable
them to pay Qihoo shareholders an unfairly low price when they took
the company private in 2016 (the Merger). The three leaders are:
Qihoo's co-founder and chief executive officer Hongyi Zhou;
co-founder and president Xiangdong Qi; and director and special
committee chair Eric Chen.
The Plaintiffs allege that at the time the Go-Private Merger was
announced, the Defendants had a concrete plan eventually to relist
Qihoo on a Chinese stock exchange, but did not disclose this
information. The Defendants' non-disclosure of their plan to revive
Qihoo as a public company, the Plaintiffs claim, depressed the
market price of Qihoo shares, harming shareholders who (1) sold
shares in the open market before the Merger or (2) traded their
shares in at a negotiated price as part of the Merger. They allege
that Qihoo made various false and misleading statements regarding
the Merger between Dec. 18, 2015, the day the Merger was announced
in a press release, and July 15, 2016, the Merger's effective date
(the "class period").
The Plaintiffs bring suit on behalf of a putative class comprised
of owners of Qihoo securities who sold shares during the class
period ("seller shareholders"), or who tendered those shares for
the Merger consideration ("tenderer shareholders"). The Plaintiffs
allege violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and the
implementing rule of the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5").
In an earlier decision, this Court granted Qihoo and Chen's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC") for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) and 9(b). The Court held that the FAC did not plausibly
allege that the Defendants, as of the Merger, had in place a
concrete plan to relist, which was the factual premise on which its
claims of material misrepresentations and omissions all turn. The
Second Circuit vacated that decision (Altimeo Asset Mgmt. ("Altimeo
II"), 19 F.4th). The Circuit held that the FAC alleged facts
plausibly supporting the inference that, as of the shareholder plan
to approve the Go-Private Merger, the Defendants had an undisclosed
plan in place to relist. The Circuit remanded the case for further
proceedings.
Hongyi Zhou now moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC under
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), making arguments both
specific to him and of broader applicability. First, he argues that
-- although the FAC has been held to plead plausibly that Qihoo's
statements not disclosing a plan to relist are actionable -- the
other three sets of statements on which it bases its claims under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act are not. These (1) presented the
Merger as "fair" to shareholders or in an otherwise positive light,
(2) set out the reasons for the Merger, and (3) addressed the
absence of strategic alternatives that would be more beneficial to
Qihoo shareholders. Second, Zhou argues -- with distinct analyses
for the tenderer shareholders and the seller shareholders -- that
the FAC does not plausibly allege a causal link between Qihoo's
actionable statement(s) and a shareholder loss.
The Court grants the motion to dismiss as to the Section 10(b)
claims based on the Defendants' statements concerning strategic
alternatives to the Merger. The Court determines that "there are no
facts pled suggesting that an alternative plan existed -- let alone
was viable -- whereby all shareholders could have retained their
interests in Qihoo once private so as to be able to capitalize on a
future relisting. . . The FAC's theory that the proxy materials
omitted an alternative available to shareholders thus lacks factual
support." This claim is dismissed with prejudice, as to all
Defendants.
The Court grants the motion to dismiss as to all claims on behalf
of the tenderer shareholders. The Court finds that "the FAC's
theory that events following the rejection of a Merger would have
transpired so as to reward plaintiffs for their shares at a price
exceeding $77/ADS is far too contingent and anchored in guesswork
to support a viable Section 10(b) claim. . . the FAC's allegations
as to loss and loss causation -- that but for the allegedly
actionable features of the proxy materials, lead plaintiffs would
have obtained more than $77/ADS share -- are too speculative to
state a plausible claim." This claim is dismissed with prejudice,
as to all Defendants.
In addition, the Court finds and concludes that the FAC's claim
under Section 20A of the Exchange Act fails "because it does not
plead a predicate insider trading violation of the Exchange Act, in
addition to pleading 'sufficient facts showing that the defendant
traded the security at issue contemporaneously with the plaintiff.'
The FAC has not plausibly -- but instead has only speculatively --
pled such a loss as to the tenderer shareholders, the only
shareholders remaining as of the time of the Merger. And the seller
shareholders who had relinquished their ADS shares prior to the
point of the Merger -- and who, by definition, could not have
traded with Zhou at the point of the Merger -- cannot claim a
cognizable loss at Zhou's hands, either." As such, Section 20A
claim is dismissed with prejudice, as to all Defendants.
The Court sustains both Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims
against Zhou. The Court has sustained the FAC's claims of
misstatements or omissions as to proxy material statements (1) not
disclosing the Buyer Group's intention to relist; (2) presenting
the Go-Private Merger as "fair" or in an otherwise positive light;
and (3) setting out the reasons for the Merger.
A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated March 21, 2023, is
available https://tinyurl.com/266k9xjb from Leagle.com.
QUALCOMM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Sales, Licensing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy of Yahoo.com reports that a federal judge has ruled that
shareholders suing chip maker Qualcomm Inc for allegedly hiding
anticompetitive sales and licensing practices may bring their
claims as a class action.
The lawsuit filed in San Diego, California, alleges Qualcomm and
its executives repeatedly described its businesses of selling chips
and licensing its technology to other companies as separate, when
in fact the company bundled them in a bid to stifle competition.
The investors leading the case claim the misrepresentations
artificially inflated the price of Qualcomm shares between 2012 and
2017.
Qualcomm has called the allegations meritless.
U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta on March 27, 2023 rejected
Qualcomm's argument that the sales practices were already publicly
known.
Qualcomm's responses to antitrust allegations by regulators
revealed "far more detail" about the practices and the customers
affected, she wrote.
The class covers investors who bought Qualcomm common stock between
Feb. 1, 2012 and Jan. 20, 2017 and incurred losses.
Qualcomm paid the Korea Fair Trade Commission 1.03 trillion won
($912.34 million) in 2017 for what the regulator called unfair
business practices in licensing and chip sales.
The San Diego-based company also faces a consumer lawsuit in
California alleging its practices violated state law.
The case is Shah v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al., U.S. District
Court, Southern District of California, No. 17-121. [GN]
R.S. WOODWORKS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Munoz Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILSON JARA MUNOZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. R.S. WOODWORKS INC. and RUHI SOYTURK, Case
No. 2:23-cv-02249 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 23, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants paid the Plaintiff at his regular hourly rate of $25
for all hours worked each workweek, regardless of the actual number
of hours that the Plaintiff worked each workday and each workweek.
The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at a rate
not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit.
The Defendants also failed to timely pay the Plaintiff "on a weekly
basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the
week in which the wages are earned" as required by NYLL section
191. The Defendants frequently paid Plaintiff's wages late, the
Plaintiff claims, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter from
2019 to November 2022.
R.S. Woodworks is engaged in the construction industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
RATEGENIUS LOAN: Vandever Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
KASSANDRA VANDEVER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RATEGENIUS LOAN SERVICES, INC. and
THE SAVINGS GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00279 (W.D.
Tex., March 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
by terminating approximately 139 employees at a facility located in
Austin, Texas on January 11, 2023 without providing 60 days advance
written notice.
Ms. Vandever was employed by RateGenius since April 4, 2022.
RateGenius Loan Services, Inc. is a nationwide vehicle refinance
platform that connects consumers with lending partners,
headquartered in Austin, Texas.
The Savings Group, Inc. is the parent company of RateGenius Loan
Services, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
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
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Firm File Motion to Quash Subpoena
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that class action and mass tort
critics have been griping for years about television advertising by
plaintiffs' lawyers who spend hundreds of millions of dollars a
year on TV ads exhorting purported victims to sign up and file
lawsuits.
I haven't seen similarly intense criticism from groups like the
American Tort Reform Association and the U.S. Chamber's Institute
for Legal Reform to a newer - and, arguably, more sophisticated -
form of trial lawyer advertising: internet sites that aggregate
information about class actions and mass torts, allowing
plaintiffs' lawyers to reach out to prospective plaintiffs via
webpages describing "investigations" of potential claims.
That's why I was so intrigued by a filing from the plaintiffs' firm
Berger Montague on March 21, 2023 in federal court in Manhattan.
Berger Montague is trying to quash Robinhood Financial LLC's
subpoena demanding information from the parent company of the
website ClassAction.org.
The website, as the quash brief makes clear, facilitated Berger
Montague's selection of lead plaintiffs for a Seattle federal court
class action accusing Robinhood of breaching Washington state
consumer law by sending unsolicited text messages to contacts of
the trading platform's customers.
Both of the lead plaintiffs in the class action have said in
declarations that they heard about the case from a webpage
announcement at ClassAction.org. The online notice, which said that
Robinhood text recipients in Washington state could be eligible for
$500 or more, invited consumers to fill out an online form.
The information they supplied, the ad said, would "be forwarded to
Berger Montague, who has sponsored this investigation." Both lead
plaintiffs said they signed retainer agreements with the firm after
making contact through the ClassAction.org ad.
Robinhood is now demanding to know, via a subpoena to
ClassAction.org parent Season 4 LLC, who else responded to the
online ad. The subpoena also calls for Season 4 to disclose its
communications about the ad with Berger Montague.
Robinhood lawyers Kenneth Payson and Lauren Rainwater of Davis
Wright Tremaine did not respond to my email query on the subpoena
but they are presumably looking for information related to class
certification in the spam text case. U.S. District Judge Barbara
Rothstein of Seattle denied the company's dismissal motion last
August. Berger Montague's class certification brief is due in
September. [GN]
SACKCLOTH & ASHES: Feliz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA FELIZ, Plaintiff v. SACKCLOTH & ASHES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 152348/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., March 13, 2023) is
a class action brought by the Plaintiff in both an individual
capacity and on the behalf of other similarly situated blind and/or
visually impaired people due to Defendant's website,
sackclothandashes.com, that contained access barriers when
purchasing products in violation of the New York State Human Rights
Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human
Rights Law.
By failing to operate a website that is readily accessible and
usable to individuals because of their disability, when viewed in
its entirety, Defendant has demonstrated a policy, practice, or
procedure that has refused, withheld from, or denied Plaintiff and
members of the Class, each of whom qualify as a member of a
protected group under the provisions of the state laws, any of the
accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of the
website, asserts the complant.
The Defendant is an online retail company that sells blankets
through its website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
SCHUTZER GROUP: Debt Letter "Misleading," Vyacheslav Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TKACH VYACHESLAV and EKATERINA BALAKIREVA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE SCHUTZER
GROUP, PLLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02166
(S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to comply with
the Regulation F of FDCPA by failing to include: (1) an itemization
date of any kind or any reference to an itemization date; (2)
specific date that the debt collector will consider the end date of
the validation period during which a consumer may verify the debt;
and (3) other required disclosures and statements.
The Schutzer Group, PLLC is a debt collector based in New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Faces Zelaya Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA ZELAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-02132
(C.D. Cal., Mar. 22, 2023) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant, arising from
its deceptive bait-and-switch scheme of covertly adding a so-called
4% "Supply Chain Charge" on sales receipts after purchases are
consummated.
The Plaintiff contends that Sherwin-Williams' in-store displays are
not the true prices for those products. In fact, the true prices
are 4% higher than listed. Accordingly, after consumers select
in-store items based on listed prices and customize those in-store
items with colors and other specifications, and after the purchase
process is substantially complete, the Defendant surreptitiously
imposes a so-called "Supply Chain Charge" as a line item on
receipts, amounting to an additional 4% added to the in-store
prices on all purchases. This late addition of a so-called "Supply
Chain Charge" substantially changes the in-store prices upon which
the Plaintiff and other purchasers rely while shopping, says the
suit.
Worse, the so-called "Supply Chain Charge" is never reasonably
disclosed to consumers until it shows up as a line item on their
receipts—after the purchase is complete, the lawsuit claims.
Moreover, the "Supply Chain Charge" is itself a misnomer and a
deception. Defendant knows full well that average consumers do not
understand the meaning of the term "supply chain" nor the indirect
effect that economists understand it has on prices.
Sherwin-Williams intentionally chose a technical-sounding term in
order to falsely convey to consumers that it was passing through an
out-of-pocket cost it paid, the lawsuit adds.
Sherwin-Williams did not pay the "supply chain" an additional 4%.
Rather, the fee disguises a simple truth: Sherwin-Williams wanted
to raise prices on all of its products, uniformly. The Defendant's
triple-edged deception—first, touting in-store prices that are
false; second, misdescribing its in-store price inflation as a
"Supply Chain Charge"; and third, never reasonably disclosing the
"Supply Chain Charge" until after a purchase is complete (and only
then, only on a small line item on a receipt)—gives it an unfair
advantage over honest sellers in the marketplace. The triple-edged
deception makes it impossible for consumers to comparison shop
meaningfully, and hinders the operation of a free and fair
marketplace, added the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks damages and, among other remedies, injunctive
relief that fairly allows customers to decide whether they will
pay Sherwin-Williams' Surcharge.
Plaintiff Sonia Zelaya made a purchase of paint at a
Sherwin-Williams store located in Montclair, California on November
24, 2021, in the total amount of $43.21, and on December 18, 2021,
in the amount of $27.59. Without her knowledge, Ms. Zelaya was
assessed a 4% Surcharge for each gallon.
Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Cleveland, Ohio–based
company in the paint and coating manufacturing industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street., NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
STATE FARM: M.D. Florida Dismisses RICO Claims in Sanchez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida grants in part the motions to dismiss filed by
the Defendants in the case captioned as CARMEN DANIELLE MORA
SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, HIDAY
& RICKE, P.A., JEFF RICKE, an individual, ROBERT HIDAY, an
individual, and JENNIFER REISS, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-372-TJC-LLL, (M.D. Fla.).
The lawsuit is a class action case arising out of a challenge to
the Defendants' debt collection practice of seeking to suspend
drivers' licenses of judgment debtors. Plaintiff Carmen Danielle
Mora Sanchez is a judgment debtor to State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company as a result of her liability in an automobile
accident. At the time of the accident, Progressive Insurance
Company insured Sanchez and State Farm insured the other driver.
After State Farm paid its insured's property damage claim, it hired
Hiday & Ricke, P.A. to enforce its subrogation right against
Sanchez.
In her Amended Complaint, Sanchez alleges four counts on behalf of
the class: Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) (Counts I, II) against all the Defendants;
Abuse of Process under Florida Law (Count III) against all
Defendants; and Relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Count
IV) against Defendant Hiday & Ricke. The Defendants: State Farm,
Hiday & Ricke, Jeff Ricke, Robert Hiday, and Jennifer Reiss --
moved to dismiss all counts except Count IV.
The Court determines that Count IV is related to claims in the
action within the Court's original jurisdiction such that they form
part of the same case or controversy. While Section 1367(c)6
provides the Court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction,
the Court finds it imprudent to do so given the interplay between
Count IV and the remaining federal and state counts.
Without determining the proper interpretation of Chapter 324, the
Court cannot decide whether Sanchez's other claims are cognizable.
The procedural posture of this case necessitates that the Court
consider the statutory arguments as raised in Count IV. Thus, the
Court uses Count IV as a vehicle to address those statutory
arguments, leaving for another day whether a formal declaratory
judgment is appropriate.
The Court determines that "the plain language of Section 324.131 is
ambiguous. . . Based on. . . DMV's reading of the statute, the
persuasive authority of the Florida Attorney General Opinion, and
the Williams case, because Sanchez carried the minimum insurance
required by law, her license should not have been suspended based
on the judgment entered in the personal injury action. . . it is
undisputed that Hiday & Ricke knew that Sanchez had the required
insurance when it sought suspension of Sanchez's license. Indeed,
Progressive paid Sanchez's $10,000 policy limit directly to Hiday &
Ricke as part of the mediated settlement. Thus, Hiday & Ricke's
actions were in contravention of the statute."
With regard Sanchez's RICO claims, the Court finds several
potential issues with her RICO allegations, but the Court
elaborates on only one: whether Sanchez has alleged the existence
of an enterprise. A RICO enterprise is 'any individual,
partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and
any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a
legal entity.' The Court mentions the case of Ray v. Spirit
Airlines, Inc., 836 F.3d 1340, 1355 (11th Cir. 2016), where the
Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that "the racketeering
enterprise and the defendant must be two separate entities." As
alleged, Hiday & Ricke, Hiday, Ricke, and Reiss were acting as
agents of State Farm, and Sanchez does not allege that they were
acting outside the scope of their employment as such agents.
Therefore, State Farm and its agents Hiday & Ricke, Hiday, Ricke,
and Reiss cannot constitute an enterprise in and of themselves.
Because the Court finds that Sanchez has failed to plead the
existence of an enterprise, it is unnecessary for the Court to
analyze the remaining elements of Sanchez's RICO claims. The Court
is skeptical that Sanchez will be able to allege a viable RICO
claim. However, Sanchez will be given one final opportunity to
plead her RICO claims if she so chooses.
As to Sanchez's Abuse of Process (Count III) claim, the Court
explains that "there is no abuse of process ... when the process is
used to accomplish the result for which it was created, regardless
of an incidental or concurrent motive of spite or ulterior purpose.
In other words, the usual case of abuse of process involves some
form of extortion." Here, the procedure laid out in Chapter 324 for
suspending judgment debtors' licenses is neither wholly judicial
nor wholly executive. While the DMV executes the final suspension,
the DMV has no discretion; once it receives the judgment it must
suspend the license. That cannot occur without a court judgment or
without the court sending a certified copy of the judgment to the
DMV, which could be seen as the equivalent of the issuance of
process. While the use of an abuse of process theory in this
context is novel, the Court is not prepared to dismiss Count III on
the pleadings.
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 21, 2023 is available
https://tinyurl.com/3e4y8rpm from Leagle.com.
STATE FARM: W.D. Kentucky Dismisses Pedroso's Claims Under MVRA
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as CLARA ARREBATO PEDROSO AND KATHERINE
HERNANDEZ ARREBATO, Individually and as Class Representatives,
Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-540-CHB, (W.D. Ky.), Judge
Claria Horn Boom of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and
denies each of the three motions filed by the Plaintiffs.
Clara Arrebato Pedroso, Katherine Hernandez Arrebato, and D'Ella
Irvin each suffered injuries in automobile accidents occurring
between 2010 and 2015. To compensate for their injuries, Pedroso,
Arrebato, and Irvin each sought Personal Injury Protection benefits
under their policies with State Farm.
State Farm initially paid only a portion of Pedroso, Arrebato, and
Irvin's claims for PIP benefits. State Farm denied the remainder of
their claimed PIP benefits based on a "paper review" of each claim.
A paper review occurs when an insurance company relies on a report
prepared by a third-party medical provider (hired by the insurer)
to evaluate the insured's claim, without conducting a medical
examination. In 2019, Pedroso, Arrebato, and Irvin brought this
action on behalf of themselves and all insured in Kentucky who were
similarly denied PIP benefits based solely on a paper review
between August 31, 2004 and 2019.
Now, the Plaintiffs have filed three motions. The Plaintiffs
request for Oral Argument, apparently seeking a hearing on their
Motion to Certify. As the sole basis for their request for oral
argument, the Plaintiffs state that they "believe oral arguments
would be of assistance in this matter." Next, the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify the following questions the Supreme Court of
Kentucky: (1) What is the remedy for a no-fault claimant when her
no-fault benefits have been unilaterally and unlawfully terminated
by the reparation obligor's utilization of a 'paper review,'
rendering the remaining no-fault benefits unusable? and (2) Given
that the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act mandates 18%
interest on no-fault benefits that have been unreasonably denied,
are the plaintiffs owed 12% or 18% interest on the balance of their
unusable no-fault benefits? Finally, the Plaintiffs' asks the Court
to hold State Farm's Motion to Dismiss in abeyance pending a ruling
on the Motion to Certify.
The Court finds that each of the pending motions can be resolved
without oral argument. The Court further finds that there is "no
conflict that would warrant certification of the Plaintiffs'
proposed questions. A plain reading of the MVRA makes clear that
the MVRA does not permit recovery of the so-called 'unusable
benefits,' nor does it allow for recovery of interest (whether at
12% or 18%) unless the insurance company failed to timely pay
medical bills actually submitted by the insured. . . a clear
application of Kentucky law answers the very question that
Plaintiffs wish to submit to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. As
such, there is no need to certify that question." As the Court has
now ruled on the Motion to Certify, it will deny the Motion for
Stay as moot.
The issue at the heart of Plaintiffs' claim for 18% interest and
fees -- i.e., whether State Farm had a reasonable basis for denying
the claims for PIP benefits -- was actually litigated and actually
decided by this Court in the case entitled Irvin v. State Farm
Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 3:19-CV-690-CHB, 2020 WL 4004808] -- a case
involving these Plaintiffs and State Farm. The Court's
determination that State Farm had acted with a reasonable
foundation based on Kentucky law in existence at the time was
necessary to the Court's ultimate dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
claim. The Plaintiffs now seek to raise the exact same claim and
issue to this Court. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel,
however, they are barred from doing so.
The Court understands that Plaintiffs claim for: declaratory
relief; for injunctive relief; violation of the MVRA and seeking
monetary damages in the form of the alleged "unusable benefits";
"18% statutory interest on the balance of the unused benefits, and
attorney fees." However, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs lack
standing to assert these claims. Further, even if the Plaintiffs
had standing, these claims, as alleged, cannot survive Rule
12(b)(6) scrutiny or would otherwise be barred by res judicata.
Lastly, to the extent the Plaintiffs attempt to allege a claim for
18% interest and attorneys' fees on their unpaid benefits, that
claim is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and must be
dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March
21, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/2jch3uaw from
Leagle.com.
SUFFOLK AUTO DRIVING: Faces Collette Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Raymond Collette, on behalf of himself, individually,
and all other persons similarly situated, v. Suffolk Auto Driving
School, Inc., Twin County Driving School, Inc. and Joseph Curatolo,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02149 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2023), Collette alleges
that the defendants violated several provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
He seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and unpaid minimum wages
under FLSA and NYLL from the defendants who failed to pay him wages
for all hours worked at his agreed upon rates of pay under the
NYLL. Among other violations, the defendants allegedly failed to
provide wage statements for each period and to furnish a wage
notice upon his hire, the Plaintiff added.
Suffolk Driving School is and was a domestic business corporation
with a principal place of business located at 30 Vernon Valley
Road, East Northport, NY 11731. Suffolk Driving School and Twin
County Driving School, Inc. (TCDS) are two corporations that
operate jointly as a common enterprise. Joseph Curatolo owns and
operates the Suffolk Driving School and TCDS.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
SUMMIT UTILITIES: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Billing Practices OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Glisovic of Katv reports that a federal judge has granted
the motion to dismiss this lawsuit, effectively dissolving the
Temporary Restraining Order granted by a Pulaski County judge
earlier this month.
The TRO allowed for customers to refuse to pay their monthly gas
bills.
A motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit against Summit
Utilities was filed on Tuesday (March 21).
The motion, filed in the U.S. Eastern District Court of Arkansas,
seeks to dismiss the case to allow the Arkansas Public Service
Commission (APSC) to investigate claims made against the gas
company.
As Seven On Your Side previously reported, a class action lawsuit
filed earlier this month claimed the gas company is not working in
good faith and is price-gouging its customers.
The Poynter Law Group initially filed the lawsuit, in the Pulaski
County Circuit Court, on behalf of customers in Arkansas and stated
it's to help customers from skyrocketing gas bills and improper
billing practices.
Attorney Scott Poynter explained that they voluntarily dismissed
the suit because the APSC "is entitled to the first opportunity to
address our clients' claims" in accordance with federal law. "With
our dismissal in federal court, we will file papers with the
commission for it to address our clients' claims. Once there, we
hope to work hand in hand with the attorney general to bring quick
and fair relief to our clients," Poynter said.
In January, 7OYS uncovered billing errors as part of our
investigation into complaints we received on Summit. Our initial
investigation began in December when we discovered transition
troubles within the company's internal system.
In February, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin discovered
issues with auto-draft payments.
Last week, a Pulaski County judge granted a Temporary Restraining
Order filed by the plaintiff's in the class action suit, shortly
after Summit's attorney filed a motion to move the case to federal
court.
Just days later, AG Griffin filed a motion with the APSC to
investigate how Summit Utilities purchases its gas and if there are
any potential violations related to the gas company's billing
process.
Griffin said his office has received at least 2,800 complaints
related to billing practices and gas prices.
7OYS reached out to Summit for comment and Senior Vice President of
Corporate Affairs, Lizzy Reinholt, released this statement:
"At Summit, providing exceptional and safe service to our customers
and communities is our top priority," said Reinholt. "We are
working hard to address customer concerns so we can provide the
service our customers expect of us and we expect of ourselves. As a
result, call wait times are down, and our customer service team
stands ready to help customers address their needs.”
"As a regulated utility, Summit does not profit from the cost of
natural gas, and the Arkansas Public Service Commission reviews our
gas purchasing plans and cost of gas filings annually," added
Reinholt. "In addition, we know that customers are struggling with
high energy costs this winter and expect a significant decrease in
the cost of gas when we make our next required cost of gas filing
at the end of this month."
This motion does allow for this suit to be refiled in the future.
In the meantime, Summit's suspension of late fees and
disconnections continue. The company has told 7OYS if they make any
changes to that suspension, they will provide customers with a
30-day notice. [GN]
SZECHUAN MOUNTAIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Portillo Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SILVESTRE PORTILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SZECHUAN MOUNTAIN HOUSE NY LLC d/b/a
SZECHUAN MOUNTAIN HOUSE; and JUNPING REN, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-02130 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.
Plaintiff Portillo was employed by the Defendants as kitchen
helper.
SZECHUAN MOUNTAIN HOUSE NY LLC owns and operates a restaurant
located at New York, under the name Szechuan Mountain House. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yale Pollack, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
66 Split Rock Road
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 634-6340
Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com
- and -
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
TELEFLORA LLC: Duhigg TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled RANDI DUHIGG, individually on and behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELEFLORA LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2023CA000246, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Seminole County, Florida,
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on March 16, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:23-cv-00497 to the proceeding.
On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff Duhigg filed her initial complaint
in the state court alleging Defendant violated federal law under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and state law under the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited text
message marketing.
Teleflora LLC is a floral wire service company which brokers order
to local florists for delivery.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ian M. Ross
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 391-5100
E-mail: iross@sidley.com
THERMO FISHER: Dechirico Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE DECHIRICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01909 (E.D.N.Y., March 13, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class on a timely
basis as required by the New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges that due to Defendant's violations of the
NYLL, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover from
Defendant the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest as provided for by the NYLL.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a pressman in Bohemia,
New York from approximately May 2008 to January 2023.
Thermo Fisher Scientific is an American supplier of scientific
instrumentation, reagents and consumables, and software
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Price Gauging Tickets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Bloom of Pitchfork reports that a Canadian law firm has
filed a class action lawsuit against Ticketmaster over allegedly
price gauging tickets for Drake's upcoming tour, the Toronto Star
reports. The Montreal-based firm LPC Avocat Inc. claims that the
ticketing behemoth "intentionally misleads consumers for [its] own
financial gain."
According to the complaint, obtained by the Toronto Star, a
Montreal man purchased two "Official Platinum" seats for Drake's
July 14 concert at the Bell Centre, each costing $789.54. The
following day, a new show (on July 15) was allegedly added to
Ticketmaster with the same seats listed at roughly $350 less.
In the suit, LPC Avocat Inc. alleges that Ticketmaster knew about
the July 15 Drake concert in advance, but withheld the information.
It also alleges that the "Official Platinum" seats were ordinary
seats sold "at an artificially inflated premium in bad faith."
The Toronto Star reports that plaintiffs are seeking "compensatory
damages in the aggregate amount of the difference between the
prices charged for 'Official Platinum' tickets and what their
regular price ought to have been," per the complaint. They are also
seeking $300 per customer in punitive damages.
Ticketmaster is currently facing multiple lawsuits over fraud,
price-fixing, anticompetitive behavior, and more—especially with
regards to the fiasco surrounding Taylor Swift's Eras Tour ticket
sales. The company has also faced a congressional hearing and an
antitrust investigation for abuse of power. Swift, the Cure, Neil
Young, and others have publicly criticized Ticketmaster for
misusing its monopoly in the ticketing field.
Pitchfork has reached out to representatives for Ticketmaster and
Drake for further information and comment. [GN]
TOPHAT LOGISTICAL: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Williams Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEAROY WILLAMS and JONATHAN MORNING, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOPHAT LOGISTICAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC and ATLAS LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01573 (N.D. Ill., March 14, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, wage deductions in violation of the Iowa
Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act, and unreimbursed business expenses pursuant to the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Plaintiff Williams was employed by TopHat as a delivery driver from
approximately 2020 until approximately November 2022.
Plaintiff Morning was employed by TopHat as a delivery driver from
approximately 2019 until approximately September 2022.
TopHat Logistical Solutions, LLC is a delivery company, with its
headquarters in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.
Atlas Logistics, Inc. is a commercial logistics company, with its
headquarters in Evansville, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
500 Lake Cook Rd., Suite 350
Deerfield, IL 60015
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
- and -
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
TRANSATLANTIC DIRECT: Motion to Dismiss Conrad Fraud Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Davidson LLP reports that by order of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, dated November 17, 2022, the proposed class
action, Conrad v. TransAtlantic Direct et al (Ontatrio Court File
No: 19-68132) has been dismissed.
The proposed class action against TransAtlantic Direct,
TRD-Euromarkets S.L., Stewart Price (a.k.a. Mark Singer), Martin
Schwartz (a.k.a. Bernard Sevilla) [the "TransAtlantic Defendants"],
and Corus Entertainment Inc. ["Corus"] was commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on January 22, 2019. The class action was
brought on behalf of all persons who invested funds with
TransAtlantic following TransAtlantic's appearance on various radio
shows run on stations owned and operated by Corus. The lawsuit
claimed:
Corus operated radio stations which aired programs which purported
to be public information programs providing information and advice
to listeners on financial matters and investing.
The TransAtlantic Defendants appeared on these programs providing
financial advice and investing recommendations.
On the basis of these recommendations class members invested money
with the TransAtlantic Defendants.
The TransAtlantic Defendants were in fact frauds and
misappropriated class members' investments Corus and the
TransAtlantic Defendants represented that the members of
TransAtlantic Direct were competent, licensed investors when in
fact they were not
The TransAtlantic Defendants and Corus made misleading statements
for the purpose of promoting their business interests Corus
permitted TransAtlantic Direct access to its listening audience,
and The TransAtlantic Defendants and Corus were negligent and
failed in their duties to class members.
Corus has denied all of these allegations. The TransAtlantic
Defendants have not responded to the allegations. The proposed
class action has not been certified, and there has been no
adjudication on the merit of the claims in the proposed class
action. Limitation periods for people to file their own legal
action against Corus and The TransAtlantic Defendants were
suspended upon commencement of this proposed class action on
January 22, 2019. However, since the proposed class action has been
dismissed, limitation periods have resumed running as of November
17, 2022. If there is any time left on any limitation period that
applies to you, on the expiry of your limitation period, a right to
sue or complain may be extinguished.
If you require further information regarding your legal rights, it
is recommended that you obtain legal advice from a lawyer of your
choice. You are responsible for your own legal fees. [GN]
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Ouranitsas Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
NESTOR OURANITSAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION;
MIGUEL FERNANDEZ; CASSANDRA HARRIS; and MARIELA MATUTE, Defendants,
Case No. 6:23-cv-00511-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla., March 20, 2023) is a
class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Tupperware securities between March 10, 2021 and
March 16, 2023, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the reports filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission were materially false and
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the
following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Tupperware did not disclose its serious issues with internal
controls; (2) Tupperware's financial statements, from its 2020
Annual Report to the present, included misstatements, particularly
as it related to the Company's accounting for income taxes; (3) as
a result, Tupperware would need to restate its previously filed
financial statements for certain periods; and (4) as a result, the
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit.
Tupperware's stock declined by $0.19 cents a share, or 7.7%, on
March 17, 2023. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.
TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION provides houseware products. The
Company offers bottles, plate set, storage, and other related
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
U.S. SECURITY: Summary Adjudications in Stone Class Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT STONE, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
B318986 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Five, affirms the trial court's judgment entered
in favor of Respondent U.S. Security Associates, Inc. (USSA)
granting USSA's separate motions for summary adjudication.
Appellants Robert Stone and Abraham Aguayo appeal from a judgment
entered in favor of USSA granting USSA's separate motions for
summary adjudication on the putative class action complaint
alleging a single cause of action for a violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA; 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.). The
complaint alleged that USSA violated the FCRA by failing to use a
separate disclosure form when it procured a consumer report on
Stone, Aguayo, and other putative class members during the
employment hiring process.
USSA is a private security company that operates approximately 160
branches across the country and employs over 50,000 people. It
presented evidence that in July 2018, it was purchased by another
security company, Allied Universal, which was created in 2016 by
the merger of two security companies, Allied Barton Security
Services and UPS.
In 2013, UPS hired Stone as a security guard and post commander in
Los Angeles. He was terminated in early 2014. In February 2014,
Stone applied to USSA for a position as a security guard. During
the employment hiring process, USSA conducted a background check on
Stone and obtained consumer reports on him.
In February 2015, Stone submitted a demand for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association against UPS (AAA case). Among his
claims, Stone alleged violations of California's wage and hour
laws, individually and on behalf of other putative class members.
Stone sought unpaid wages, compensatory damages, restitution and
disgorgement, and legal fees. In December 2018, Stone entered into
a settlement agreement to resolve the AAA case claims.
On Dec. 15, 2015, Stone filed a class action complaint against USSA
(now before the Court of Appeals) alleging that USSA violated the
FCRA because the company failed to use a separate disclosure form
when procuring the consumer report on him and other putative class
members during their employment hiring process (disclosure claim).
He sought statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees
(Stone's FCRA case). USSA filed an answer to the complaint.
In January 2016, USSA filed a notice of removal of Stone's FCRA
case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. At the parties' request, the district court
subsequently transferred the FCRA claim to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.
Stone's federal FCRA putative class action was consolidated with
another putative class action against USSA filed by Michael DeCaro.
DeCaro was a former USSA employee who, on June 3, 2015, filed a
putative class action suit against USSA in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Like Stone,
DeCaro had alleged that USSA violated the FCRA by failing to make
the required disclosure before procuring a consumer report on him.
DeCaro's complaint also contained a second putative class action
claim, alleging that USSA fired him in April 2015 based on the
information in the consumer report (adverse action claim).
The Georgia district court ordered Stone and DeCaro to file a
consolidated complaint. In July 2016, they filed a consolidated
complaint that included the disclosure claim and the adverse action
claim on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of plaintiffs
as to whom USSA, within five years of the complaint, had procured a
consumer report for employment purposes or had taken adverse
employment action against based on the information contained in the
report (the federal case).
On May 3, 2017, USSA filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action claims that arose more than two years before the
filing of the Plaintiffs' original complaints. In their response,
Stone and DeCaro agreed not to challenge the two-year versus
five-year look back period argument Defendant raised in its
Motion.
A federal magistrate judge prepared a recommendation that recited
the parties' respective positions and recommended that the district
court judge grant the motion. The district court judge adopted the
magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the Plaintiffs'
class claims that seek to extend the FCRA statute of limitations to
five years. It did not rule on whether the date DeCaro filed his
original complaint, June 3, 2015, or the date Stone filed his
original complaint, Dec. 15, 2015, commenced the running of section
1681p's two-year statute of limitation on the disclosure claims.
Stone and DeCaro moved for class certification. USSA filed a motion
for summary judgment, arguing that the federal courts did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over the disclosure claim.
The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion on DeCaro's
disclosure claim and denying the certification of DeCaro's adverse
action class. The magistrate judge also recommended that Stone's
FCRA disclosure claim be remanded to the Los Angeles Superior
Court. On Sept. 25, 2019, the district court judge adopted the
magistrate's recommendation, denied Stone's motion to certify the
class and remanded Stone's disclosure claim to the Los Angeles
Superior Court.
After that Stone revived the original complaint, which had been
filed in December 2015 with Stone as the sole class representative,
in the Superior Court. In January 2020, the superior court granted
USSA leave to supplement its answer to allege the affirmative
defense of release.
Stone then filed a motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint to add two new named class representatives so that the
action can proceed without Stone. He sought to add Aguayo and
Derryck Dawson as named putative class representatives. USSA
opposed the motion to amend the original complaint.
In its order granting Stone leave to amend, the trial court
specifically declined to rule on the statute of limitation issue.
On Aug. 19, 2020, Stone filed the first amended complaint, adding
Aguayo and Dawson as class representatives. Like the original
complaint in Stone's FCRA case, the amended complaint alleged only
a single claim for violation of the FCRA and alleged that USSA
obtained the consumer report on Stone in December 2015.
USSA filed a motion for summary adjudication on the ground that
Stone released his claim against USSA in December 2018 when he
settled his claims in the AAA case against UPS and its related
corporations and affiliates, which included USSA. Stone opposed the
motion, objecting to USSA's evidence and asserting USSA had failed
to present admissible evidence that USSA and UPS were under "common
control" by Allied Universal. The trial court granted USSA's motion
for summary adjudication to Stone, overruling Stone's evidentiary
objections.
USSA also filed a motion for summary adjudication and summary
judgment as to Aguayo. It argued that summary adjudication was
proper on Aguayo's individual claim because Aguayo was not a
putative class member and could not serve as a class representative
based on the two-year statute of limitations and the five-year
statute of repose governing the FCRA claims in section 1681p.
Aguayo opposed the motion.
The trial court granted USSA's motion for summary adjudication. It
ruled Aguayo was judicially and collaterally estopped from
asserting that June 3, 2015, rather than Dec. 15, 2015, was the
controlling date to determine the timeliness of the disclosure
claim.
On Feb. 16, 2022, the trial court entered judgment for USSA. Stone
and Aguayo timely appealed the judgment. On appeal, Stone argues
the trial court erred in granting the motion, asserting USSA did
not present admissible evidence to prove the requisite corporate
relationship between UPS and USSA, as necessary to establish that
the release of his claims against UPS also released his claim
against USSA. Aguayo also argues the trial court erred in granting
the motion because his claim was timely filed based on (1) a date
established by agreement of the parties and prior court order and
(2) the principles of equitable tolling or the relation back
doctrine.
The Court of Appeals opines that neither Stone's nor Aguayo's
arguments have merit. USSA carried its burden on its respective
defenses to Stone's and Aguayo's claims. USSA demonstrated it was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and neither Stone nor
Aguayo presented a triable issue of material fact warranting a
trial. Thus, the trial court properly granted USSA's motions, and
the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment. U.S. Security
Associates, Inc. is awarded its costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 14, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/957xhskp from Leagle.com.
The Dion-Kindem Law Firm, Peter R. Dion-Kindem --
peter@dion-kindemlaw.com; The Blanchard Law Group and Lonnie C.
Blanchard III -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- for the Plaintiffs
and Appellants.
Hunton Andrews Kurth, Jason P. Brown -- brownj@HuntonAK.com --
Robert T. Quackenboss -- rquackenboss@HuntonAK.com -- Trevor S. Cox
-- tcox@HuntonAK.com -- and Cameron L. Davis -- cdavis@HuntonAK.com
-- for the Defendant and Respondent.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Settlement Claims Filing Set April 14
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Assendelft of Michigan.gov reports that two key dates for
eligibility must be met for payout consideration.
Michigan residents who believe they were wrongly accused from
2013-15 of falsely receiving unemployment insurance benefits should
be aware of two upcoming deadlines to join a $20 million class
action settlement with the State of Michigan.
The important deadlines to submit forms are:
April 5, 2023: The registration form which determines eligibility
for an award from the Compensation Fund.
April 14, 2023: Claim forms, opt outs and objections to the
settlement.
Links to key case deadlines and additional background information
in the Bauserman v. Unemployment Insurance Agency class action
lawsuit are posted to the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency's
(UIA) website at Michigan.gov/UIA.
In January, the Michigan Court of Claims approved a $20 million
class action settlement and also established dates for
participation in the settlement process.
The settlement is the result of a 2015 lawsuit filed on behalf of
unemployment benefit claimants who experienced wrongful collection
activities by the State of Michigan after being erroneously found
to have committed fraud through an auto-adjudication process in
connection with receiving unemployment benefits from Oct. 1, 2013,
to Aug. 31, 2015.
Those seeking further information or wishing to submit a claim can
go to UIAClassAction.com, call 1-833-438-5028, or email
info@UIAClassAction.com.
"We urge anyone who believes they were affected by these
circumstances to register to be considered part of the settlement,"
UIA Director Julia Dale said. "This settlement is one of the many
reforms the agency is implementing to create a UIA that will be a
national model for fair, fast and fraud-free service."
An important component of Director Dale's reforms is installing a
new computer system to replace one that is a decade old. The
hallmarks of the modern, innovative system will be ease of use,
speedier claims processing and a human-centered design for workers
and businesses who access UIA's online services and programs.
When Director Dale took over leadership of the UIA, she was the
11th director in as many years. Since being appointed in October
2021, Dale has:
Created the UIA Modernization Workgroup, consisting of labor,
business and jobless advocates to advise the UIA on significant
improvements in how it can better serve Michigan workers and
employers.
Collaborated with the Attorney General's office as well as local,
state and federal law enforcement to bring bad actors to justice
and combat fraud at the agency. To date, 115 individuals have been
charged in connection with unemployment benefits fraud.
Rebuilt to nearly $1.8 billion (and growing) the UI Trust Fund from
which weekly benefits are paid to workers.
Approved more than 76,000 overpayment waivers of state and federal
benefits paid out during the global pandemic, waiving more than
$555 million.
Halted overpayment collections on claims filed since March 1, 2020,
while the agency addresses pending protests and appeals.
Identified initiatives and processes that would ease access to
jobless benefits for workers in underserved communities under a
$6.8 million equity grant from the U.S. Department of Labor
(USDOL).
Reassigned staff and resources to address the largest categories of
claims that are contributing to the agency's case backlogs.
Identified necessary changes to correspondence to add a
human-centered approach to make letters easier to understand for
claimants and employers.
Implemented new ethics and security clearance policies for
employees and contractors.
Workers who need assistance or have a question about unemployment
are encouraged to schedule a phone, in-person or virtual
appointment at Michigan.gov/UIA. They also can call UIA's Customer
Service line at 1-866-500-0017 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday. [GN]
USA TIRES: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Moreno Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIRO MORENO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. USA TIRES CORP., a New York corporation, and JOHN DOE,
an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-02266 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 23, 2023)
sues the Defendant for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for violations of the New York
Labor Law and for violations of the Spread of Hours Wage Order.
The Plaintiff worked six days a week, 63 hours per week. He was
paid a standard rate of $9.00 per hour. The Defendants allegedly
failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime premium (time and a half)
for hours worked over 40 in each workweek. The Defendants also
allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which he worked 10 hours or more, says
the suit.
The Defendants have willfully engaged in a pattern, policy and
practice of unlawful conduct, in violation of the federal and state
rights of the Plaintiffs, similarly situated individuals, and
members of the proposed Class by misclassifying them as independent
contractors when the Plaintiff was, in fact, an employee, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as auto shop employee from
October to December 2022.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
USERTESTING INC: Dickerson Alleges Misleading SEC Proxy Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the civil action, Brenna Dickerson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Andy Macmillan, Darrell
Benatar, Andrew Braccia, Tatyana Mamut, Shannon Nash, Cynthia
Russo, Alexander Wong, Jon Pexton, and Usertesting, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-1320 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 2023), Dickerson seeks to
recover the damages caused by the defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Ms. Dickerson brings this action against UserTesting, Inc. and the
members of the company's board of directors for their violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
connection with the acquisition of of UserTesting by affiliates of
Thoma Bravo, L.P. and Sunstone Partners Management, LLC.
On Oct. 26, 2022, UserTesting entered into an agreement and plan of
merger pursuant to which company shareholders would receive $7.50
for each share of common stock they owned. On Dec. 6, 2022, to
convince UserTesting shareholders to vote in favor of the
acquisition, the Defendants authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A proxy statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, says the suit.
UserTesting is a Delaware corporation with principal executive
offices located in San Francisco. It traded its common stock under
the ticker symbol USER.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Bower, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (310) 446-6652
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
USIC LOCATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Nelson Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JASON NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USIC LOCATING SERVICES, LLC; USIC, LLC;
RECONN HOLDINGS, LLC; and PROTEK HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00091 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 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 Nelson was employed by the Defendants as utility worker.
USIC LOCATING SERVICES, LLC provides infrastructure protection
services. The Company offers underground utility locating services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com
mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
VISALUS INC: Appeals 9th Cir. Ruling in Wakefield Suit to Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
VISALUS, INC. has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court a ruling
entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the
lawsuit entitled Lori Wakefield, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ViSalus, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 21-35201 (9th Cir.).
The Plaintiff brings two causes of action against the Defendant.
The first is an individual claim under the general private right of
action enforcement provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), alleging that the Defendant violated the TCPA's
implementing regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200(c), by initiating more than one telemarketing call within a
12-month period to her landline telephone number that had been
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30
days. Her second claim is a class claim, alleging that the
Defendant violated Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (b)(1)(B)1 of the
TCPA by improperly using an artificial or prerecorded voice in
telemarketing calls to people's residential landline or cellular
telephones without their prior express consent.
After a brief class discovery period, Wakefield moved to certify
her TCPA claims for class treatment. The district court thereafter
granted the motion in part, and certified a class defined as: "All
individuals in the United States who received a telephone call made
by or on behalf of ViSalus: (1) promoting ViSalus's products or
services; (2) where such call featured an artificial or prerecorded
voice; and (3) where neither ViSalus nor its agents had any current
record of prior express written consent to place such call at the
time such call was made."
ViSalus filed a motion to decertify class, which was denied by the
district court. The Defendant appealed the district court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
In October 2022, the Ninth Circuit:
(a) affirmed the district court's denial of ViSalus's
post-trial motion to decertify class;
(b) affirmed the district court's denial of ViSalus's
post-trial motion to grant judgment as a matter of law, or
grant a new trial; and
(c) vacated and remanded the district court's denial of
ViSalus's post-trial motion challenging the
constitutionality of the statutory damages award to permit
reassessment of that question guided by the applicable
factors.
The appellate case is captioned ViSalus, Inc., Petitioner vs. Lori
Wakefield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. 22-920, in the Supreme Court of United States,
filed on March 21, 2023. [BN]
WATCHMAN SECURITY: Houston Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Deandrae Houston, individually, and on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated current and former employees
v. Watchman Security, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02153 (W.D. Tenn.,
March 21, 2023), Houston asserts that the Watchman Security, LLC.
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay him and
those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 per week
within weekly pay periods at one and one-half their regular hourly
rate of pay.
This lawsuit is brought against Watchman Security as a collective
action under the FLSA to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
other damages owed to Houston and other similarly situated security
guards.
Watchman Security, LLC is an inactive Tennessee Limited Liability
Company with its principal offices located at 253 Walnut Trace
Drive, Cordova, TN. The company provides security services to
businesses and other entities in Memphis, TN and surrounding areas.
Houston has been employed by the company as an hourly-paid security
guard.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
XE HOLDING: Brink ADA Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL BRINK, et al. Plaintiffs v. XE HOLDING, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:11-cv-01733, was transferred from
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on March 14, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Virginia assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00325-RDA-LRV to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs, 31 civilian government contractor employees (and/or
their surviving relatives), bring this purported class action
against 23 defendants, which include United States government
contractors and their insurance carriers. The Plaintiffs allege
violations of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and several common law tort
claims, based upon Defendants' handling of Plaintiffs' claims for
medical benefits under the Defense Base Act.
XE Holding is a private security company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Avi Schick, Esq.
SNR DENTON US LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 398-8456
E-mail: avi.schick@troutman.com
- and -
Benito Delfin, Esq.
SNR DENTON US LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 892-2883
- and -
John Pfaehler, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1900 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 408-6468
Facsimile: (202) 496-7756
E-mail: kenneth.pfaehler@dentons.com
- and -
Sandra D. Hauser, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americes
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 768-6802
Facsimile: (212) 768-6800
E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com
- and -
David Ira Ackerman, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
401 9th Street NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 849-4962
E-mail: dackerman@motleyrice.com
ZOLL MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Pettaway Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QUINYOTTA N. PETTAWAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10605-GAO (D. Mass., March 20, 2023) is
a class action arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and
data breach on Zoll's network that resulted in unauthorized access
to patient data.
The complaint alleges that as a result of the Data Breach, the
Plaintiff and approximately 1,004,443 Class Members1 suffered
ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of
their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack.
The Plaintiff suffered damages due to the Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding, including failure to encrypt, of her and Class
Members' Private Information that the Defendant collected and
maintained, and for Defendant's failure to (1) provide timely and
adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their
Private Information had been subject to the unauthorized access of
an unknown third party, and (2) identify precisely what specific
type of information was accessed, says the suit.
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION develops and markets medical devices and
software solutions. The Company offers products that are used by
health care professionals to provide pacing and defibrillation.
Zoll also designs and markets software that automates collection
and management of data for emergency medical service providers.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
[^] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Speakers Named
----------------------------------------------------------------
Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics
Conference! The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie
Club, New York City, on Monday, May 8, 2023.
This year's event boasts of an All-Star lineup of speakers:
* Michael P. Canty, Partner, Labaton Sucharow LLP
* Neil Kornswiet, CEO, Optium Capital LLC
* Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP
* Edward E. Neiger, Esq., Co-Managing Partner, Ask LLP
* Graham Newman, Partner, Chappell, Chappell & Newman
* Bola Oyesanya, Managing Director and Private Banker, Citi
Law Firm Group
* Paige Richardson, Director of Operations, Milestone
* Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP
* Daniel Stefany, Associate, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
* Thomas R. Waskom, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Ms. Oyesanya is this year's conference chair.
The value-packed event features special presentations from keynote
speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and
networking with other professionals.
This year's conference sponsors are:
* Premier Sponsor:
Citi
* Major Sponsors:
Baird Mandalas Brockstedt
Bock Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC
Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A.
* Patron Sponsors:
Huntington
* Advocate Sponsors:
Atticus
Battea Class Action Services
Simpluris
Interested in becoming a speaker in May? Contact:
Bernard Toliver, CMP
(240) 629-3300 ext. 149
E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com
Visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information.
The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Int'l. Has 227 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., was named a defendant in numerous personal
injury proceedings brought in the US courts, alleging that certain
talc products the company sold in the past were contaminated with
asbestos., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2022, there were 227
individual active cases pending against the Company, for which
associated costs and estimated liabilities have been included in
current liabilities of discontinued operations on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet. During the three months ended December 31, 2022, 39
new cases were filed and 23 cases were dismissed, settled or
otherwise resolved. During the year ended December 31, 2022, 128
new cases were filed and 52 cases were dismissed, settled or
otherwise resolved."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/40mZaQP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Faces Product Liability Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
FG Group Holdings Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product
liability claims based principally on allegations of past
distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that
may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate
defendants in addition to us. In our experience, a large percentage
of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have
been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered any
adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos
claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. As of
December 31, 2022, the Company has a loss contingency reserve of
approximately $0.2 million, which represents the Company's estimate
of its potential losses related to the settlement of open cases.
During 2022 and the first quarter of 2023, the Company settled
three cases, which resulted in payments totaling $53 thousand. When
appropriate, the Company may settle additional claims in the
future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3lNjrQA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Has 3,383 Pending Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company, Inc., with respect to asbestos
litigation, as of December 31, 2022, had 3,383 individual cases and
56 multiple-plaintiff cases pending that allege actual or potential
asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or exposure to
products allegedly sold by them, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against
us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne
virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation
and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability
with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the
continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that
could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed
against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these
claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in
federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement
amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Moreover,
any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of
these uncertainties, we believe that our asbestos reserves
represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes,
over an extended period of time, less than or equal to recorded
corresponding anticipated recoverable insurance proceeds. As part
of the process to develop these off-setting estimates of future
asbestos costs and insurance proceeds, a range of long-term cost
and recovery models of future asbestos costs was developed. These
models are based on national studies that predict the number of
people likely to develop asbestos related diseases and are
influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for
indemnity payments and defense costs, as well as other variables
previously mentioned. Because any of these factors may change, our
future exposure is unpredictable, and it is possible that we may
incur costs that would have a material adverse impact on our
liquidity, financial position, or results of operations in future
periods."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3THLwVZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J to Appeal Texas Two-Step Case to Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dunleavy, writing for fiercepharma.com, reports that Johnson
& Johnson will do the two-step all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
After an unsuccessful bid to get its appeal reheard in the Third
Circuit Court, the company said it will make one last appeal to the
Supreme Court to legitimize its strategy to funnel more than 38,000
talc lawsuits into a company it created with the intent to declare
it bankrupt.
J&J faces claims that its talcum products—including its iconic
baby powder—cause cancer. After assigning the lawsuits to a
subsidiary called LTL Management and filing for bankruptcy
protection, J&J earmarked corporate funds for LTL to resolve the
claims en masse.
"Today's ruling ignores the facts established during the Bankruptcy
Court’s trial regarding the appropriateness of LTL Management's
(LTL) formation and filing, as well as the company's intention to
efficiently resolve the cosmetic talc litigation for the benefit of
all parties, including current and future claimants," J&J said in a
statement. "We will immediately move for a stay of this opinion so
we can seek review directly from the U.S. Supreme Court."
The company has maintained throughout the process that its talc
products are safe and free of asbestos. J&J removed its baby powder
from shelves in North America in 2020 and is stopping its sales
worldwide this year. Instead, the company has shifted to a
cornstarch version.
The legal ploy, known as the Texas two-step, has been used by
companies to resolve asbestos lawsuits. J&J set up LTL in Texas in
2021 and moved it to North Carolina before making its bankruptcy
claim. The tactic has frozen the lawsuits for 17 months.
In 2022, J&J made a $2 billion offer to resolve the cases, but a
company lawyer at the time said the drugmaker could raise its
offer.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 99 Exposure Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in approximately 99
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 162 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3 million
compensatory and $1 million punitive damages; one count at $1
million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for
three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory
damages for the fifth cause of action. In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of $10.0 million, for ten separate causes of action.
"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3FWrXnd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Subsidiary Has 109 Pending PI Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, 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 NL. 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. To date, NL has not been
adjudicated liable in any of these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/40sUGaW
*********
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 ***