/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230404.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 4, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 68
Headlines
1ST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Dunn Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
5.11 INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ATHIRA PHARMA: $10MM Securities Suit Settlement for Court Nod
B.C. HATS INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Faris Class Settlement Gets Final Nod
BALTIMORE BUILDERS: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
BAMWEST LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BANCO POPULAR: Soto-Melendez Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
BARCLAYS PLC: Faces May Suit Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
BARREIRO INTERESTS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BCE-MACH II LLC: Scott Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
BI-COUNTY SOLID WASTE: Davis Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
BIOVENTUS INC: Ciarciello Files Bid for Class Certification
BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Regan Suit Granted
BP EXPLORATION: Wins in Part Bid for Summary Judgment in Brown Suit
CALIFORNIA: Cote Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
CALIFORNIA: Sykes Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
CEREBRAL INC: Harman Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
CHOCMOD USA: Scheduling Conference in James Continued to May 15
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Warmack-Stillwell Appeals BIPA Suit Dismissal
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH: Crossroads, et al., Seek to Certify Class
COINMARKETCAP OPCO: Cox Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
COMPUTER MERCHANT: Bartek Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONCENTRIX CORP: Helwig Seeks to Certify Adverse Action Class
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Court Junks Bid for Filing Class Cert Motions
EAGLE NATIONAL: Class Certification Gets Approval in Wilson Suit
EASSIT INC: District of Utah Tosses Lewis FLSA Suit W/o Prejudice
FLUENT HOME: Arbitration & Dismissal Bids in Stover Suit Dismissed
FOR LOVE AND LEMONS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FORBES MEDIA LLC: Passariello Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
FRONTIER MANAGEMENT: Collective Action Settlement Get Final Nod
GEICO: Russo Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
GLAMORISE FOUNDATIONS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE LLC: Brown, et al., File Bid to Certify Class
GORDON LANE: Parrish Files Bid for Class Certification
GRASS SHACK: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HAUPPAUGE HOTELS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Matias Alleges
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Sept. 15
ICOT HOLDINGS: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class in Bank TCPA Suit
IDAHO: Stonecipher Directed to File Amended Complaint
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Fisher Files Suit in S.D. Florida
INDIAN HARBOR: Moore Bid to Compel Granted in Part
J. RITTER LAW: Church FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
JFK ROGER'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Manzanares Suit Alleges
KERN COUNTY, CA: Carlisle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KROGER CO: April 19 Extension for Class Cert Briefing Sought
KROGER CO: Solano Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due April 28
LABORATORY CORP: Nolan Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
LANDRYS PAYROLL INC: Salmas Suit Removed to C.D. California
LANGUAGE LINE: Rouse's Counsel to Submit More Info on Settlement
LEADING LADY INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LILIUM NV: Continues to Defend Gnanaraj Class Suit in S.D. Fla.
LOGISTICS GROUP: Court Approves Bid to Certify Class in Zhibri
MDL 2542: Distribution of Settlement Fund in Antitrust Suit Allowed
MDL 2670: Bid to Modify Class Definition OK'd in Antitrust Suit
MDL 2873: Durst Sues Over PFAS Exposure From Toxic AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Johnson Claims PFAS Exposure From Toxic AFFF Products
MDL 2913: Cumberland School Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Avoyelles Parish Says
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Beal City Public Says
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Grant Parish Claims
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Holmes County Claims
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, New Buffalo Claims
MDL 2913: Gladwin Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Hamilton Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Kent County Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Natchitoches Parish Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Ontario-Montclair School Alleges Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Linden Community Alleges
MDL 2913: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Northville Public Says
MDL 2913: Reese Public Schools Alleges E-Cigarette Youth Crisis
MDL 2913: Southfield Public Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Summit School Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: West Feliciana Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in Frawley Gets Initial Nod
MISS CIRCLE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Dark Chocolate Contains Lead, Kermani Alleges
NEVADA STATE: Lopez Loses Bid Certify Class Action
NEW FORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
NEW JERSEY: Galicki Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
NEW YORK GYPSUM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 19
NMCI MEDICAL: Class Action Final Approval Bid Partly Granted
NORCAL ACTION SPORTS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Loyd Sued Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill
OAK HALL INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OLE MEXICAN: La Barbera Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
OLE MEXICAN: La Barbera Seeks to Certify Two Classes
OPTIMUM LOGISTICS: Zhibri Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
OTG MGMT: Filho Parties to File Schedule for Settlement by April 4
PBF HOLDING: Goldstein Sues Over Refinery Mishap
PEI WEI: Wins Bid to Decertify Clarke FLSA Collective Action
PFIZER INC: Class Cert Expert Deposition Extended to April 7
PHILO INC: May Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info to Facebook
PLANSOURCE FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miora Alleges
PREMIERFIRST HOME: Hourly Employees Get Collective Certification
PRIDE OF STEEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Mendoza Alleges
PUGET SOUND: Cheney Must File Class Certification Bid by Sept. 29
QUALVOICE LLC: Class Settlement in Frederick Suit Wins Prelim. OK
R&L CARRIER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 17
REVELRY SUPPLY: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAM'S CLUB: April 4 Extension to File Class Cert Response Sought
SHINY LUCKY CAT: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SKANSKA USA: Class Certification Scheduling Order Entered in Ndege
SNAKE OIL PROVISIONS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
STATE FARM FIRE: Novak Sues Over Appraisal Clause Application
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Yancey Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
SUPERIOR TANK CO: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TOM JAMES COMPANY: Armstrong Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
TOYOTA MOTOR: Kesselman Must File Class Cert Bid by June 9
TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Anderson's $407K Cy Pres Distribution Granted
TRINE UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRUEACCORD CORP: Howard Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
TSCHETTER SULZER: Court Won't Review Denial of Bid to Toss Warden
TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Schmidhauser Seeks Class Certification
TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Schmidhauser Seeks to Impound Class Cert Exhibits
TWIST N PUFF: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Brewer Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
UNITED STATES: Deadlines in Enriquez v. USCIS Extended by 30 Days
UNITED STATES: Hunter Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Hoelzer Loses Class Cert. Bid
VERMONT MUTUAL: Martins Loses Bid for Class Certification
VI-JON LLC: Moreno Must File Fourth Amended Complaint by April 10
VILLAGE CAREGIVING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 1
VISTAMAR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Argueta Alleges
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Court Dismisses Pheiffer Class Suit
WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
WESTERN GOVERNORS: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Tjahjono Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
WHELAN EVENT: Class Action Settlement in Gorman Gets Final Nod
YOUTUBE LLC: Bid to Seal Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Sought
ZOLL MEDICAL: Becker Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
ZUFFA LLC: Bloom Must File Class Cert Bid by June 2
*********
1ST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Dunn Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1st Franklin
Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Mark Dunn,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1st
Franklin Financial Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00052-RWS (N.D.
Ga., March 24, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
1st Franklin Financial Corporation -- https://www.1ffc.com/ --
operates as financial company. The Company offers residential
mortgage loans and home loan solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq.
SHIVER HAMILTON CAMPBELL LLC
3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 593-0020
Fax: (888) 501-9536
Email: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com
5.11 INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5.11, Inc. The case
is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. 5.11, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02561
(S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
5.11 Tactical -- http://www.511tactical.com/-- is an American
apparel brand of outdoor clothing, footwear, uniforms and tactical
equipment, primarily targeting the market of military, law
enforcement and public safety personnel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawpc.com
ATHIRA PHARMA: $10MM Securities Suit Settlement for Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
Athira Pharma Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 23, 2023, that the $10 million
settlement in the consolidated securities class suits is subject to
the approval of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.
On June 25, 2021, plaintiffs Fan Wang and Hang Gao filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and its former
chief executive officer, Dr. Leen Kawas, captioned Wang v. Athira
Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00861. Plaintiffs Wang and Gao
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging
that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements
and omitted material adverse facts regarding its business.
Specifically, the Wang plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
disclose to investors that certain research conducted by Dr. Kawas
was allegedly tainted by scientific misconduct during her doctoral
work at WSU including the manipulation of data, and that as a
result, the defendants' positive statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading. The Wang
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees.
That same day, on June 25, 2021, plaintiff Harshdeep Jawandha filed
a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company,
Dr. Kawas, its chief financial officer, certain members of its
board of directors at the time of its IPO, as well as the IPO
underwriters, captioned Jawandha v. Athira Pharma, Inc., et al.,
No. 2:21-cv-00862. The Jawandha complaint asserts violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, or Securities
Act, alleging that that its IPO registration statement was
materially false and misleading because it omitted to state that
certain of Dr. Kawas's published doctoral research papers at WSU
contained allegedly improperly altered images, that the research
was allegedly foundational to Athira's efforts to develop
treatments for Alzheimer's, that, as a result, and that the
defendants' positive statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading. The Jawandha plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Also on June 25, 2021, plaintiffs Timothy Slyne and Tai Slyne filed
a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company,
Dr. Kawas, its chief financial officer, and the same members of its
board of directors and underwriters as in the Jawandha complaint,
captioned Slyne v. Athira Pharma, Inc. et al., No. 2:21-cv-00864.
The Slyne complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, alleging that purported issues with Dr. Kawas'
doctoral research at WSU should have been disclosed in the
Company's IPO registration statement. The Slyne plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, and injunctive and other equitable
relief.
On August 9, 2021, the court issued an order consolidating the
three cases. On October 5, 2021, the district court issued an order
appointing lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead and
liaison counsel.
On January 7, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and Sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the Securities Act. The consolidated amended complaint is
brought against the Company, Dr. Kawas, its chief financial
officer, certain members of its board of directors at the time of
our IPO and secondary public offering, or SPO, and the IPO and SPO
underwriters.
As with the previous complaints, it is based on allegations that
the IPO and SPO registration statements and/or other public
statements were materially false and misleading because they
omitted to state that certain of Dr. Kawas's published doctoral
research papers at WSU contained allegedly improperly altered
images. Lead plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, as
well as equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
the purported class.
On March 8, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss lead
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim under the federal securities laws.
On July 29, 2022, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss. The order dismissed the
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims arising under the Exchange
Act, dismissed the Section 11 claim arising under the Securities
Act as to all defendants other than the Company and Dr. Kawas,
dismissed the Section 12(a)(2) claim arising under the Securities
Act as to the lead plaintiffs, and dismissed the Section 15 claim
arising under the Securities Act against all defendants other than
Dr. Kawas.
The order permitted lead plaintiffs until August 19, 2022 to file a
second consolidated amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs did not file
a second consolidated amended complaint.
On August 12, 2022, defendant Dr. Kawas filed a motion for partial
reconsideration of the court's July 29, 2022 order.
On October 4, 2022, the court denied the motion.
On October 24, 2022, the parties filed a (1) joint status report
and discovery plan and (2) stipulation and case scheduling order,
wherein the parties proposed deadlines for material case events,
including the completion of fact discovery, expert discovery, and
dispositive motion practice.
On November 2, 2022, the court entered an order setting certain
case deadlines.
On November 4, 2022, the Company and Dr. Kawas filed their
individual answers to the consolidated amended complaint.
In mid-November 2022, the parties began conducting fact discovery.
On December 19, 2022, the underwriter defendants filed a motion for
entry of judgment.
On February 17, 2023, the court issued an order directing the
parties to provide briefing on the court's proposed form of partial
judgment.
On February 28, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to resolve all claims in the class action lawsuit.
Under the proposed settlement, the parties agreed to make a
one-time payment of $10.0 million.
As a result, the Company recorded a legal settlement expense of
$10.0 million within operating expenses on its consolidated
statements of operations and comprehensive loss in the fourth
quarter of 2022 and an accrued liability of $10.0 million for this
settlement on our consolidated balance sheets.
The proposed settlement is subject to the parties finalizing a
stipulation of settlement and preliminary and the final approval of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Athira Pharma is a late clinical stage American biopharmaceutical
company developing small molecules to restore neuronal health and
stop the neurodegeneration brought on by diseases such as
Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.
B.C. HATS INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B.C. Hats, Inc. The
case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. B.C. Hats, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02497 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bill Conner's hats (BC Hats) -- https://connerhats.com/ -- has
created quality hats with innovative designs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Faris Class Settlement Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY FARIS, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01338-FB-PK
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order denying
the Plaintiff's motion to strike and granting the U.S.'s motion to
supplement.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the
purposes of settlement and for final approval of the class
settlement is granted.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the proposed award
of attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice to renewal
on the terms set forth in the memorandum and order.
The Settlement was negotiated based on an estimated class size of
188,897. It allowed each class member to choose between a coupon
and cash, with the Defendants agreeing to provide a $10 coupon to
each coupon recipient in the class, but only $100,000 pro rata
among the class members opting for cash.
Had every class member chosen cash, each would have received less
than 53 cents ($100,000/188,897). The Settlement, as contemplated,
was a textbook example of why coupon settlements are looked upon
with suspicion.
As it happened, however, only 10,373 class members made a claim,
with 6,136 taking the cash option. Consequently, each of those
class members is projected to receive $15.85. The result is
sufficient to satisfy the Court of the Settlement's overall
fairness, but it still means that class counsel would receive
approximately ten times more than the class.
Recall that one canister of ADEG costs $39.95. A full refund to
each of the class members claiming cash would total $245,133.20
($39.95 x 6,136). The Settlement Fund is not sufficient to provide
that relief as currently structured but would be if class counsel's
fee was reduced by $145,333.20.
The result would be a more palatable split of approximately 75% to
class counsel and 25% to the class. In sum, a $145,333.20 increase
in the cash available to class members will provide something
approaching complete relief to a significant portion of the class
members who have made a claim and, at the same time, partially
rectify an unacceptable disparity in the share of the Fund going to
attorneys' fees.
This putative multi-state class action stems from harm allegedly
suffered by the Plaintiffs who purchased and consumed All Day
Energy Greens ("ADEG"), a dietary supplement that they claim caused
them to become ill.
After years of litigation and settlement negotiations aided by a
mediator, the parties have reached a proposed class settlement (the
"Settlement"). Now, the parties seek the Court's final approval of
that Settlement. For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiffs'
motion to approve the Settlement is granted in all respects except
as to proposed attorneys' fees.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on January
10, 2022. The Settlement dictates that eligible class members who
opt in may elect to receive either
(i) a coupon worth $10 toward the future purchase of any
of the the Defendants' products, redeemable for a period
of
three years, or
(ii) a cash payment, which is projected to be approximately
$15.85.
Separately, the class representatives are to receive service awards
of $5,000 each. Class counsel have also moved for a payout of
$1,194,657.34 in attorneys' fees and costs.
Through the Department of Justice's ("DOJ") Consumer Protection
Branch and the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern
District of New York (E.D.N.Y.), the United States (the "U.S.") has
objected to the Settlement. It argues that it is unfair for two
reasons: (i) because it primarily benefits class counsel instead of
class members, and (ii) because the representatives of the class
will receive disproportionate awards compared to the rest of the
class members.
The Settlement defines the proposed class as
"all Persons in the United States who purchased one or more
canisters of ADEG that were manufactured as part of the
Recalled Lots, except for Excluded Persons."
The Plaintiffs estimate that the proposed class consists of
approximately 188,897 individuals.
In order to satisfy the awards to class members, the Defendants
have agreed to the following distributions:
i) IVL will give a $10 coupon to any class member entitled
to one, up to the estimated class size, and
ii) the Defendants will transfer $1.725 million in cash into a
common settlement fund (the "Settlement Fund").
The Settlement Fund consists of:
i) $100,000 designated to satisfy the cash payments to class
members who selected this option, and
ii) $1.625 million designated for attorneys' fees and costs,
service benefit awards of $5,000 for each of the Class
Representatives, and additional administrative costs.
Bactolac is in the Nutraceutical industry, specializing in full
turn key supplement manufacturing.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lF5mED at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
Peter Samberg, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew Philip Kates, Esq.
Christian H. Gannon, Esq.
Janine J. Wong, Esq.
Joel Merchant, Esq.
Matthew D. Kelly, Esq.
SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY
850 Third Avenue, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10022
- and -
Cameron W. Brown, Esq.
STACKPOLE AND FRENCH LAW OFFICE
225 Maple Street
Stowe, VT 05672
- and -
Howard A. Fried
MCGIVNEY KLUGER CLARK & INTOCCIA, P.C.
80 Broad Street, 23 rd Floor
New York, NY 10004
- and -
Karen Campbell, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS
77 Water Street, 21 st Floor
New York, NY 10005
- and -
Sheila Carmody, Esq.
Courtney Henson, Esq.
Jennifer Hadley Catero, Esq.
SNELL AND WILMER L.L.P.
400 East Van Buren Street
Suite 1900
Phoenix, AZ 85004
- and -
John A. Anselmo
TYSON & MENDES
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2800
New York, NY 10017
BALTIMORE BUILDERS: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON R. MILLER, On behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BALTIMORE BUILDERS
SUPPLY & MILLWORK, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04867-EAS-EPD
(S.D. Ohio), the Parties file a joint motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.
The Parties also seek to:
(1) approve a proposed notice to potential Settlement Class
Members;
(2) appoint Scott & Winters Law Firm as interim Class
Counsel; and
(3) schedule a Fairness Hearing.
The Class Action Settlement Agreement calls for an opt-out
Settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. for allegations pertaining
to overtime wage law claims. The Settlement will apply to Named
Plaintiff Devon R. Miller and to all other members of the proposed
Settlement Class.
The class definition reads as follows:
"All individuals listed in the Preliminary Class Member List and
Allocation Schedule attached as Exhibit E, which includes all
present and former hourly non-exempt employees of Defendants during
the period of September 30, 2019 to November 19, 2021 who worked
overtime hours during one or more workweeks and who were not paid
overtime compensation at one and one-half times the employee's
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40)
hours per workweek.
The Settlement resolves a bona fide dispute involving overtime
compensation under the overtime provisions of Ohio wage-and-hour
law. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other non-exempt hourly
employees of Defendants are owed unpaid overtime compensation.
The Defendants denied Plaintiff's claims and asserted affirmative
defenses.
Tje Plaintiff . Miller commenced this action on September 30, 2021
against Baltimore Builders Supply & Millwork, Inc., Hometown
Hardware, Inc., Richard E. Foreman,and Robin L. Hayes, seeking all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff's complaint alleged that he and other similarly
situated employees were willfully paid their regular, straight time
hourly rates for all hours worked, including overtime hours that
should have been paid at "one and one-half times" the employees'
"regular rate[s]" in violation of federal and state law, and are
owed liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the
FLSA.
-- The Proposed Settlement Payments and Distributions of Total
Settlement Amount.
A. Defendants have agreed to pay the total settlement
amount of $85,500.00 as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
That sum will be used to make settlement payments to the
Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Settlement
Class which shall constitute adequate consideration for
the Settlement and will be made in full and final
settlement of:
(1) the claims released by Plaintiff and other Class
Members;
(2) attorneys' fees and reimbursed litigation expenses;
(3) costs of administration; and
(4) any other obligations of Defendants under the
Settlement Agreement.
B. The Payments to Settlement Class Members. From the total
settlement amount, Class Members will be paid the total
allocated amount of $49,000.00 as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, resulting in payments equating to
an average of approximately 117% of the damages
calculated by the Plaintiff's and Defendants' Counsel.
C. Attorneys' Fees and Cost Reimbursements
Class Counsel will receive attorneys' fees and costs in
the amount of $28,500.00 as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/40nHlkiat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Morris L. Hawk, Esq.
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
1375 East Ninth Street
One Cleveland Center, 10th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 623-0150
Facsimile: (216) 623-0134
E-mail: mhawk@ralaw.com
BAMWEST LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bamwest, LLC. The
case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Bamwest, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02500-KPF (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bamwest, LLC doing business as No Rest For Bridget --
https://www.norestforbridget.com/ -- is a leading women's fashion
retail chain with stores in Orange County, Los Angeles, Boston and
San Francisco.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
BANCO POPULAR: Soto-Melendez Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO SOTO-MELENDEZ, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BANCO
POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO, Case No. 3:20-cv-01057-JAG (D.P.R.), the
Hon. Judge Jay A. Garcia-Gregory entered an order granting
plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action
settlement, final certification of settlement class, and attorneys'
fees, expenses and class representative service awards.
-- Class certification
For purposes of the Settlement and this Final Approval Order
and Judgment, the Court finally certifies for settlement
purposes only the following Settlement Class:
"All holders of Accounts who during the Class Period paid
and were not refunded an NSF and/or OD Fee in connection
with an ACH or check transaction that was presented for
payment more than once, in the following instances:
(1) for ACH transactions, if the ACH transaction was
resubmitted by the merchant or the merchant's bank with
a "RETRY" payment indicator after the initial request
for payment was declined and it was either:
a) returned by BPPR again for insufficient funds
resulting in a NSF fee; or,
b) paid by BPPR against insufficient funds resulting in
an OD fee.
(2) for ACH transactions, if the ACH transaction is preceded
by a returned ACH entry submitted by the same merchant
in the same amount within the last ten calendar days,
even if the merchant did not use the "RETRY" payment
indicator.
(3) for paper check transactions, if the check was
resubmitted for payment after the initial request for
payment was declined and it was either:
a) returned by BPPR again for insufficient funds
resulting in a NSF fee; or
b) paid by BPPR against insufficient funds resulting in
an OD fee.
Excluded from the Settlement Class is Defendant, its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, all Settlement
Class members who make a timely election to opt-out, all judges
assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members, and
holders of accounts at a BPPR branch located in the British Virgin
Islands who do not also have an account at a BPPR branch located in
the United States.
-- Attorneys' fees, expenses, and class representative service
awards
The Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(h).
The Plaintiffs' award of $1,815,000 in fees and $48,200.29
in expenses is fair and reasonable in light of the result
obtained, the time and labor devoted to the case by Class
Counsel, the skill, experience, reputation and ability of
Class Counsel, the contingent nature of the fee requested,
the hours spent and hourly rate of Class Counsel, a
consideration of comparable settlements in other bank fee
class actions, and the overwhelmingly favorable reaction of
the Settlement Class.
These attorneys' fees shall be paid from the Settlement Fund
in accordance with the Settlement.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K056tb at no extra charge.[CC]
BARCLAYS PLC: Faces May Suit Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DR. RUTH C. MAY; and DR. DONNA E. LEDGERWOOD, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BARCLAYS PLC;
and BARCLAYS BANK PLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02583
(S.D.N.Y., March 27, 22023) seeks compensation for the Securities
sold pursuant to a defective registration statement filed by the
Defendants in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs purchased Securities
pursuant to the 2018 and 2019 Shelf Registrations which were
deficient in that they did not cover the issued Securities. The
2018 and 2019 Shelf Registrations included material
misrepresentations. Both registration statements falsely stated the
aggregate amount of securities intended to be registered and sold.
Both registration statements omitted the material fact of the true
amount to be issued and that no internal controls were in place
around the real-time tracking of securities being offered or sold
off them, says the suit.
Barclays PLC is a global financial services provider engaged in
retail banking, credit cards, wholesale banking, investment
banking, wealth management, and investment management services.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4900W
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 432-2899
Facsimile: (214) 853-4367
Email: mas@sbaitilaw.com
BARREIRO INTERESTS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barreiro Interests,
Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Barreiro Interests, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-02507 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barreiro Interests, Inc. doing business as Clay Imports --
https://clayimports.com/ -- is a showroom showcasing Mexican tile,
including Talavera, Alhambra & Saltillo styles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
BCE-MACH II LLC: Scott Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Frederick M. Scott, III, Trustee of the Scott
Family Trust; Wake Energy LLC; on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BCE-Mach II LLC, Case No. CV-23-00001
was removed from the Roger Mills County District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on March 24,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00264-R to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is state as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
BCE-Mach II LLC is the second collaboration between Mach and
BCE.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
Harry S. Jordan, IV, Esq.
BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1320
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 293-3029
Email: brady@BLSmithlaw.com
skeeter@blsmithlaw.com
- and -
Randy C. Smith, Esq.
BRANDON S NICHOLS PC
211 N Robinson, Suite 1350B
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 212-2786
Email: randy@rcsmithlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Katherine Marie Crowley Jimenez, Esq.
Patrick L. Stein, Esq.
Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq.
MCAFEE & TAFT
211 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 552-2314
Fax: (405) 235-0439
Email: katie.crowley@mcafeetaft.com
patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com
Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com
BI-COUNTY SOLID WASTE: Davis Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bi-County Solid Waste
Management Systems, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Davis,
individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
current and former employees v. Bi-County Solid Waste Management
Systems, Montgomery County, Tennessee, Stewart County, Tennessee,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00265 (M.D. Tenn., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Bi County Solid Waste Management System was founded in 1975. The
Company's line of business includes the collection and disposal of
refuse systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT (MEMPHIS)
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
BIOVENTUS INC: Ciarciello Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CIARCIELLO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
BIOVENTUS INC., KENNETH M. REALI, MARK L. SINGLETON, GREGORY O.
ANGLUM, WILLIAM A. HAWKINS III, PHILLIP G. COWDY, GUIDO J. NEELS,
GUY P. NOHRA, DAVID J. PARKER, SUSAN M. STALNECKER, and MARTIN P.
SUTTER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934:
1. appointing him as Lead Plaintiff on behalf of a class
consisting of:
"all persons and entities other the Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired (i) Bioventus Inc. Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about Feb. 11, 2021;
and/or (ii) Bioventus securities between Feb. 11, 2021 and
Nov. 21, 2022, both dates inclusive;" and
2. approving Ponmerantz LLP as Lead Counsel and Craige
Jenkins Liipfert & Walker LLP as Liaison Counsel for the
Class.
Bioventus is a global leader of innovations for active healing and
surgical orthobiologics
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3nd5yeTat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ellis B. Drew, III, Esq.
CRAIGE JENKINS LIIPFERT & WALKER LLP
110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Telephone: (336) 725-2900
E-mail: BoD@craigejenkins.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahoodn@pomlaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL FIRM
2049 Century Parl East, Ste. 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Regan Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT LELAND REGAN, III, ET AL. v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: H, Civil Action No. 13-2378
(E.D. La.), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary
Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Lack of Causation Evidence.
The Motion was filed by Defendants BP America Production Co.; BP
Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP p.l.c.; Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc.; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Holdings,
LLC; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH.
The case is one 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 ("MDL") 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. This case was reassigned to Section H.
Plaintiffs Robert Leland Regan, III and Laura Guillory Regan allege
exposure to oil and dispersants starting in May 2010. Plaintiff
Robert Leland Regan, III claims to suffer from a host of medical
conditions because of the exposure, including syncope and collapse,
dizziness, food reaction, chemical sensitivity, toxic
encephalopathy, immune deregulation, malabsorption, dyspnea,
difficulty breathing, respiratory seizures, pneumonia, wheezing,
chronic sinusitis, cough, and postnasal drip.
Plaintiff Laura Guillory Regan also claims to suffer from a host of
medical conditions including sore throat, sinus congestion, nasal
drip, rhinitis, cough, upper respiratory illness, bronchitis,
facial pain/sinus pain, hearing loss, difficulty communicating,
memory loss, confusion, poor coping ability, depression, anxiety,
cognitive disorder, and dizziness. The Plaintiffs assert claims
under the general maritime law of negligence, negligence per se,
and gross negligence with respect to the spill and its cleanup.
Now before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants argue
that the Plaintiffs have failed to produce any expert evidence to
prove that exposure to oil or dispersants caused their alleged
injuries. The Plaintiffs oppose.
The Plaintiffs have 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. Their
burden with respect to causation in a toxic tort case involves
proof of both general causation and specific causation. General
causation is whether a substance can cause a particular injury or
condition in the general population, while specific causation is
whether a substance caused a particular individual's injury.
The Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was the
legal cause of their alleged injuries. The Plaintiffs respond that
they produced two expert opinions for each Ms. and Mr. Regan. Both
Plaintiffs had an expert opinion produced by Dr. William J. Rea,
M.D. from the Environmental Health Center and a second opinion by
Dr. Nancy A. Didriksen, Ph.D. 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. As such,
Judge Milazzo addresses the admissibility of each expert opinion in
turn.
The Defendants argue that Dr. William J. Rea's expert report is
inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 as he away
before either party could perpetuate his testimony.
Judge Milazzo holds that Dr. Rea's testimony was not perpetuated
and thus, his expert opinion is inadmissible hearsay that does not
fall within any exception. As hearsay evidence inadmissible at
trial cannot be used to create a genuine issue of material fact to
avoid summary judgment, Dr. Rea's expert opinion does not provide
the evidence that the Plaintiffs need.
Even if Dr. Rea's report were admissible, the medical records
provided fail to establish a causal connection between the
Plaintiffs' alleged exposure and their medical conditions. Judge
Milazzo says Dr. Rea's opinion does not identify a particular
chemical to which the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed or the dose.
As such, even if the opinion were admissible, it would not suffice
to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to their
claim that their injuries were caused by exposure to oil and
dispersants.
The Defendants also argue that Dr. Didriksen's expert opinion does
not address causation.
Judge Milazzo finds that the Plaintiffs were referred to Dr.
Didriksen for a neuropsychological consultation and the expert
opinion focuses on their personality traits, memory, and other
behavioral qualities. The opinion does make any attempt to analyze
the Plaintiffs' probable level of exposure or opine on the minimum
level of exposure that could cause Plaintiffs' physical conditions.
As such, Dr. Didriksen's opinion does not meet the minimal
requirements, and therefore, her report does not provide the
evidence Plaintiffs need to prove either general or specific
causation.
Beyond Dr. Rea and Dr. Didriksen, the Plaintiffs have presented no
other expert opinions. In a toxic tort case like this, expert
medical opinion is required to show causation, and the Plaintiffs
have no admissible medical expert testimony. Therefore, they have
failed to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to
their claims that their injuries were caused by exposure to oil and
other contaminants. As a result, the Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims.
For these reasons, Judge Milazzo grants the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. She dismisses all of the Plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/36c8e4fa from Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Wins in Part Bid for Summary Judgment in Brown Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHER GRIFFIN BROWN, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC. ET AL., SECTION: "H," Civil Action No. 17-3516 (E.D. La.),
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants in part the Motion for Summary
Judgment for Lack of Specific Causation Evidence.
The Motion was filed by Defendants BP America Production Co., BP
Exploration & Production, Inc., BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Holdings,
LLC, and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.
The case is one 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 ("MDL") 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. This case was eventually reassigned to Section H.
Brown was employed in the DWH oil spill response as a shoreline
cleanup worker on the beaches of Biloxi, Gulfport, and Pascagoula,
Mississippi. She allegedly performed beach cleanup work, picking up
oil and tar balls. The Plaintiff initially alleged that exposure to
crude oil and chemical dispersants caused her to develop a long
list of adverse medical conditions, including constipation,
headaches, and sinus problems.
Pursuant to the Court's Order on April 19, 2022, the Plaintiff
identified the medical conditions for which she would present
expert evidence, as sore throat, hypertension, chest pain,
headaches, and joint pain. She asserts claims under the general
maritime law of negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence
with respect to the spill and its cleanup.
Now before the Court is the BP Parties' Motion for Summary
Judgment. The BP Parties argue that the Plaintiff has failed to
produce sufficient evidence to prove specific causation. The
Plaintiff opposes.
The BP Parties allege that the Plaintiff has produced no admissible
expert testimony addressing specific causation, and in a toxic tort
case such as this, expert testimony as to specific causation is
required. The Plaintiff does not contest that Dr. Cook's expert
report fails to address specific causation. Rather, she argues that
Dr. Cook's general causation report in conjunction with specific
evidence of her exposure is sufficient to permit a jury to conclude
that her symptoms were caused by toxicants in the oil and
dispersants.
Judge Milazzo finds that hypertension, chest pain, and joint pain
are injuries that are neither within the common knowledge of lay
people nor classified as transient or temporary. Without expert
evidence on specific causation, the Plaintiff cannot meet her
burden of proof as to these injuries. The remaining medical
conditions, headache, and sore throat, are likely within the
knowledge of lay people. Therefore, the Plaintiff does not require
an expert on specific causation for these particular medical
conditions.
For these reasons, Judge Milazzo grants in part the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment. She dismisses the Plaintiff's claims
with prejudice except for the claims for headaches and sore
throat.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mpj27rvk from Leagle.com.
CALIFORNIA: Cote Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alexander Cote filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated March 13, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled ALEXANDER
COTE, Plaintiff v. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-04056-HSG, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
California on July 12, 2022.
The suit is brought over alleged civil rights violations of the
Defendants.
On March 13, 2023, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
granting Defendants' August 5, 2022 motions to dismiss the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Alexander Cote v. Office of the
California State Controller, et al., Case No. 23-15375, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
March 14, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Alexander Cote Mediation Questionnaire was due on
March 21, 2023;
-- Appellant Alexander Cote opening brief is due on May 15,
2023;
-- Appellees Office of the California State Controller and Betty
T. Yee answering brief is due on June 15, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALEXANDER COTE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Defendants-Appellees OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER, et
al., are represented by:
Jay Russell, Esq.
AGCA - OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
CALIFORNIA: Sykes Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JENNIFER I. SYKES filed an appeal from a district court
order and judgment dated March 13, 2023 entered in her lawsuit
entitled Jennifer I. Sykes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Office of the California State
Controller, Betty T. Yee, in her official capacity as California
State Controller, Case No. 4:22-cv-04133-HSG, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on July 14, 2022.
The case challenges the constitutionality of the California
Unclaimed Property Law, California Code of Civil Procedure. The
Plaintiff alleges that California's Unclaimed Property Law is an
unconstitutional taking of property in violation of the state and
federal constitutions because it does not compensate claimants for
the time value of money during the time it is in the State's
possession.
On March 13, 2023, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an Order
granting Defendants' August 5, 2022 motions to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Sykes v. Office of the
California State Controller, et al., Case No. 23-15377, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
March 14, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Jennifer I. Sykes Mediation Questionnaire was due
on March 21, 2023;
-- Appellant Jennifer I. Sykes opening brief is due on May 15,
2023;
-- Appellees Office of the California State Controller and Betty
T. Yee answering brief is due on June 15, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JENNIFER I. SYKES, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Defendants-Appellees OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER, et
al., are represented by:
Jay Russell, Esq.
AGCA - OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
CEREBRAL INC: Harman Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerebral, Inc. The
case is styled as Daniel Harman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cerebral, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00211
(E.D. Va., March 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Cerebral -- https://cerebral.com/ -- offers online therapy, mental
health assessments and expert care on your schedule.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devon James Munro, Esq.
MUNRO BYRD P.C.
120 Day Ave. SW, First Floor
Roanoke, VA 24016
Phone: (540) 283-9343
Fax: (540) 328-9290
Email: dmunro@trialsva.com
CHOCMOD USA: Scheduling Conference in James Continued to May 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James v. Chocmod USA Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01435 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila
K. Oberto entered an order continuing the initial scheduling
conference to May 15, 2023.
The Court says, "The parties shall file their joint scheduling
report 7 days prior to the conference. Given that this case is a
putative class action, the parties' joint scheduling report shall
include a proposed deadline for class certification discovery, the
class certification motion briefing schedule, and a hearing date
before the undersigned (as well as a deadline for initial
disclosures if they have not already been completed)."
No other dates or deadlines are required to be proposed, as the
Court will set all remaining deadlines at a further scheduling
conference following resolution of the class certification issue,
the Court adds.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Chocmod manufactures chocolate and cocoa products.[CC]
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Warmack-Stillwell Appeals BIPA Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Delma Warmack-Stillwell filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Feb. 10, 2023, entered
in the lawsuit entitled Delma Warmack-Stillwell, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Christian
Dior, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04633, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
Plaintiff Warmack-Stillwell has filed the putative class action
against Christian Dior under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the
Defendant's website and used a virtual try-on tool ("VTOT") that
allowed her to see how its sunglasses would look on her face, as if
she were trying the glasses on in a brick-and-mortar store. The
VTOT is accessed by clicking a button that appears next to images
of eyewear for sale.
The VTOT is "powered by" an application created by another entity
called FittingBox. When a consumer uses the VTOT, a facial geometry
scan is performed and the data is collected and transferred to
FittingBox's server, and possibly defendant's server too, where it
is stored for an uncertain amount of time. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant profits from the process of collecting, storing,
and using consumers' facial geometry scans because it improves
customers' experiences purchasing eyewear from defendant online.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Elaine
E. Bucklo of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
entered an order on Feb. 10, 2023, granting in part and denying in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, Judge
Bucklo opined that the allegation in paragraph 137 of the complaint
makes it plausible that the Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's
biometric information for profit deprived her of the opportunity to
profit from her biometric information. And contrary to the
Defendant's suggestion, it is not necessary to infer that this
means the Plaintiff would have wanted a profit-sharing agreement
with the Defendant, which itself may run afoul of section 15(c)'s
categorical bar on third parties using biometric data for profit
and give rise to redressability concerns under Article III.
For these reasons, Judge Bucklo denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of standing under Federal Rule Civil Procedure
12(b)(1). She granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6). Given this disposition, she did not reach the Defendant's
remaining arguments for dismissal.
The appellate case is captioned as Delma Warmack-Stillwell v.
Christian Dior, Incorporated, Case No. 23-1468, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 13,
2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript information sheet was due March 27, 2023; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before April 24, 2023 for
Delma Warmack-Stillwell.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DELMA WARMACK-STILLWELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLC
Ten N. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Defendant-Appellee CHRISTIAN DIOR, INCORPORATED is represented by:
Connor T. Gants, Esq.
BARACK, FERRAZZANO, KIRSCHBAUM & NAGELBERG LLP
200 W. Madison Street
Chicago, IL 60606-3459
Telephone: (312) 984-3184
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH: Crossroads, et al., Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE CROSSROADS GROUP, LLC,
et al., v. CITY OF CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OHIO, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00184-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the following class:
"All individuals and businesses who, subsequent to January
1, 2019, have paid one or more $100 annual assessments to
the City of Cleveland Heights in response to the City's
surcharge on those who lease dwellings while residing beyond
the boundaries of Cuyahoga County."
The City of Cleveland Heights impermissibly imposes, at the threat
of criminal penalty and revocation of one's Certificate of
Occupancy, annual penalties on homeowners who simply lease their
homes while residing beyond the borders of Cuyahoga County.
Pursuant to this "Outsiders Penalty," the City has, since January
1, 2019, collected over $400,000 in assessments from approximately
1,300 homeowners. And it continues to impose the Penalty at the
time of this filing.
A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March
14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/42C54Px at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maurice A. Thompson, Esq.
1851 CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
122 E. Main Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 340-9817
E-mail: MThompson@OhioConstitution.org
COINMARKETCAP OPCO: Cox Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ryan Cox filed an appeal from a district court's February
10, 2023 order entered in the lawsuit entitled Ryan Cox, Plaintiff
v. CoinMarketCap OpCo LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-21-08197-PCT-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.
The case involves the alleged artificially suppressed ranking of
the HEX cryptocurrency on CoinMarketCap's website. The Plaintiff
filed the class action lawsuit, alleging that from Sept. 27, 2020,
to the present ("the Suppression Period"), the Defendants
"artificially suppressed" the value of HEX by "artificially
inflating" the value of other cryptocurrencies.
The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on behalf of all persons who sold
HEX during the Suppression Period which they had acquired prior to
the Suppression Period. Specifically, he alleges the following: (1)
a private right of action against all the Defendants under the
Commodity Exchange Act "CEA" for manipulation of commodity prices
and provision of false, misleading, or knowingly inaccurate reports
tending to affect the price of commodities (7 U.S.C. Sections 9(1),
9(3), 13(a)(2)); (2) strict liability against Defendants BCM and
Binance.US for violations of the CEA; (3) violation of the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act against all corporate Defendants; (4) control
person liability for violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act
("ACFA") against all Defendants except CoinMarketCap; and (5) an
antitrust claim against all corporate defendants.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Susan M.
Brnovich of the District of Arizona entered an order on Feb. 10,
2023, granting three separate motions filed on May 23, 2022:
a. Defendant BAM Trading Services Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint;
b. Defendants Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd., Changpeng
Zhao, Yi He, and Ted Lin's Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint; and
c. CoinMarketCap's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint.
Judge Brnovich found that the Plaintiff has failed to allege
personal jurisdiction over CoinMarketCap. CoinMarketCap prevails in
demonstrating that it would be unreasonable for the Court to
exercise specific jurisdiction over it. Judge Brnovich, therefore,
granted CoinMarketCap's motion for lack of personal jurisdiction
and have not reached the Defendant's arguments for dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as they are moot.
The appellate case is captioned as Ryan Cox v. CoinMarketCap OpCo,
LLC, et al., Case No. 23-15363, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 13, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Ryan Cox Mediation Questionnaire was due on March
20, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by April 10, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on May 9, 2023;
-- Appellant Ryan Cox opening brief is due on June 20, 2023;
-- Appellees BAM Trading Services, Inc., Binance Capital
Management Company, Ltd., CoinMarketCap OpCo, LLC, Catherine Coley,
Yi He, Ted Lin and Changpeng Zhao answering brief is due on July
20, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant RYAN COX, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, is represented by:
Alexander Kolodin, Esq.
KOLODIN LAW GROUP PLLC
3443 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1009
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 730-2985
- and -
George Robinson Wentz, Jr., Esq.
THE DAVILLIER LAW GROUP, LLC
935 Gravier Street, Suite 1702
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 458-7143
Defendants-Appellees COINMARKETCAP OPCO, LLC, et al., are
represented by:
Andrea Suzanne Tazioli, Esq.
NCP LAW PLLC
3200 N Central Ave., Ste. 2550
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 428-3010
- and -
Roberto Gonzalez, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
- and -
Michael J. Gleason, Esq.
HAHN, LOESER & PARKS, LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 2800
Cleveland, OH 44114-2301
Telephone: (216) 621-0150
- and -
Ann-Elizabeth Ostrager, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
COMPUTER MERCHANT: Bartek Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Computer
Merchant, LTD., et al. The case is styled as Greta Bartek, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. The Computer Merchant, LTD., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2023-00336866-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March
24, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
The Computer Merchant -- https://itstaffing.com/ -- has been a
leading IT staffing firm, providing high-quality technology
staffing solutions for over 40 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-255-9047
Fax: 858-404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
CONCENTRIX CORP: Helwig Seeks to Certify Adverse Action Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID K. HELWIG, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CONCENTRIX CORP.,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00920-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Adverse Action Class
"All persons within the United States (including all
territories and other political subdivisions of the United
States):
(a) who were the subject of a consumer report furnished to
Concentrix from April 29, 2018 through the date of
certification; and (b) against whom Concentrix took
adverse employment action based in whole or in part on
the consumer report without allowing a chance to
address the report;"
2. deeming Helwig an adequate representative of the class,
and
3. appointing Matthew A. Dooley and Stephen M. Bosak as class
counsel.
In late January 2020, Mr. Helwig applied for a technical support
position with Concentrix's Work@Home program. Mr. Helwig accepted
the position on that same day. (Id.). Concentrix requested Mr.
Helwig's background check from Sterling and received the results on
February 14, 2020.
Mr. Helwig's background report included two misdemeanor
convictions: a five-year-old disorderly conduct and a six-year-old
aggravated trespass. Apparently, Concentrix deemed these
misdemeanor convictions to be disqualifying for a remote,
work-from-home technical support position because, on February 17,
2020, Concentrix sent Mr. Helwig an email communicating an
unequivocal adverse action.
Indeed, Concentrix has already substantially identified the class
via the spreadsheet prepared during this litigation. This
spreadsheet, which combines data from both Concentrix's applicant
tracking system and Sterling, can be duplicated for the entire
class period in accordance with the class definition.
Concentrix is an American business services company specializing in
customer engagement and business performance.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated March 14, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n2cmf9 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
Stephen M. Bosak, Esq.
DOOLEY GEMBALA McLAUGHLIN
& PECORA CO., LPA
5455 Detroit Road
Sheffield Village, Ohio 44054
Telephone: (440) 930-4001
Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
Email: mdooley@dooleygembala.com
sbosak@dooleygembala.com
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Court Junks Bid for Filing Class Cert Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fernandez v. CoreLogic
Credco, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01262 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order that the filing of a motion
related to the class certification practice would not be
appropriate at this time.
The parties are, therefore, advised that all further motion
practice related to class certification is stayed pending the
outcome of the mediation.
On March 14, 2023 the court received a call from the Plaintiffs
counsel regarding the filing of a motion related to the class
certification process. Counsel was reminded that the court has
granted three requests for extensions of time and recently reset
the hearing on both the pending Motion to Deny Class Certification
and Motion for Class Certification from March 20, 2023 to June 5,
2023. The recent extension was based on the parties joint
representations that they wished to conserve resources in advance
of the private mediation set for April 27, 2023.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.
CoreLogic is a third-party consumer credit reporting agency that
provides merged credit reports to a number of mortgage lenders.CC]
EAGLE NATIONAL: Class Certification Gets Approval in Wilson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAM WILSON, JR., et al.,
v. EAGLE NATIONAL BANK, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01344-JRR (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie R. Rubin entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
-- The Court found that Plaintiffs Sam Wilson, Jr., John
Unthank, Jackie Unthank, and the proposed Class and
Subclasses, satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), as follows:
1. The proposed Eagle Class and Antitrust and RESPA
Subclasses are ascertainable, such that it is
administratively feasible to identify the members of the
proposed class and subclasses and provide notice;
2. The proposed Eagle Class and Antitrust and RESPA
Subclasses are so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable;
3. There are issues of fact and law common to the proposed
Eagle Class and Antitrust and RESPA Subclasses;
4. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the
proposed Eagle Class and Antitrust and RESPA Subclasses;
5. The named Plaintiffs have the same interests as the
proposed Eagle Class and Antitrust and RESPA Subclasses,
and are adequate Class and Subclass representatives;
6. Melissa English and Michael Smith, of Smith, Gildea &
Schmidt LLC, and Timothy Maloney and Veronica Nannis, of
Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., are qualified and
adequate class counsel;
7. Questions of law or fact common to the members of the
Eagle Class and Antitrust and RESPA Subclasses
predominate over questions affecting only individual
members; and
8. A class action is a superior method of adjudicating the
claims of the members of the Eagle Class and Antitrust
and RESPA Subclasses.
The following "Eagle Class and subclasses (the "Antitrust Subclass"
and the "RESPA Subclass") are certified under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
-- The Eagle Class is comprised of all individuals in the
United States who were borrowers on a loan originated or
brokered by Eagle National Bank or Eagle Nationwide
Mortgage Company for which All Star Title, Inc. provided a
settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the
borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009, and December
31, 2011. Exempted from this class is any person who,
during the period of January 1, 2009 through December 31,
2011, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of
Defendants Eagle National Bank, Eagle Nationwide Mortgage
Company, Eagle National Bancorp Inc., ESSA Bank & Trust,
Inc., ESSA Bancorp Inc., or All Star Title, Inc.; and any
judicial officer who handles this case, and the immediate
family members of such judicial officer(s).
-- The Antitrust Subclass is comprised of all members of the
Eagle Class.
The RESPA Subclass is comprised of all individuals in the
United States who were borrowers on a federally related
mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. section 2602) originated or
brokered by Eagle National Bank or Eagle Nationwide
Mortgage Company for which All Star Title, Inc. provided a
settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the
borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009, and December
31, 2011.
The Plaintiffs John and Jackie Unthank, and Plaintiff Sam
Wilson, Jr. are appointed class representatives.
Melissa English and Michael Smith, of Smith Gildea &
Schmidt LLC, and Timothy Maloney and Veronica Nannis, of
Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., are appointed class
counsel.
Eagle National is a full-service bank. The bank accepts deposits,
makes loans and provides other services for the public
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JYVijp at no extra charge.[CC]
EASSIT INC: District of Utah Tosses Lewis FLSA Suit W/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA LEWIS, an individual, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EASSIT, INC.
D/B/A EASSIST DENTAL SOLUTIONS, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-CV-00121-HCN-DAO (D. Utah), Judge Howard C. Nielson,
Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah grants
eAssist's motion to dismiss.
Ms. Lewis, a former remote dental billing specialist for eAssist,
brings the action on behalf of herself and a putative class of
similarly situated individuals, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. eAssist seeks dismissal on the ground that Ms.
Lewis failed to engage in mediation before bringing the action as
required by the eAssist Independent Contractor Service Agreement,
to which Ms. Lewis agreed before beginning her work with eAssist.
Although Ms. Lewis concedes that this provision requires mediation,
she contends that it does not state that this must be done prior to
initiating litigation. In support, she emphasizes that the
agreement requires mediation as an express precondition for
proceeding with further legal action, which, she maintains, implies
that some previous legal action will have already occurred.
Judge Nielson disagrees. He explains that the parties' agreement
explicitly states that "any and all disputes arising from, or
relating to, this Agreement will first be attempted to be resolved
through good faith, non-binding mediation." The explicit temporal
and sequential language of the provisions cannot be reconciled with
Ms. Lewis' argument that a party may first file suit and then
engage in mediation. And when the language on which she relies is
read in context, it undercuts rather than supports her argument,
for as used by the agreement "further legal action" means any legal
action other than the mediation which is "an express precondition"
for such further action.
In the alternative, Ms. Lewis argues that the mediation requirement
cannot be enforced because it is unconscionable.
Judge Nielson rejects this argument. She says (i) the agreement
requires the parties to attempt to resolve disputes through "good
faith, non-binding mediation; (ii) the Plaintiffs have not held
that cost-splitting provisions like the one at issue are improper;
and (iii) the mediation requirement does not amount to a collective
action waiver in all events.
Ms. Lewis also contends that she should be excused from compliance
with the mediation requirement under the doctrines of impossibility
and frustration of purpose. Her argument is premised on her
contentions that the mediation requirement is impossible,
impractical, or at least pointless when, as here, a party seeks to
prosecute a collective action.
Judge Nielson concludes that these doctrines do not excuse Ms.
Lewis from her contractual obligations. The mediation requirement
does not foreclose Ms. Lewis from pursuing a collective action. Any
additional difficulty and cost required to prosecute a collective
action does not amount to either "excessive and unreasonable cost,"
or the total or nearly total destruction of the purpose. Nor do the
additional difficulty and cost render Ms. Lewis' compliance with
the mediation requirement to which she agreed "impossible,"
"impracticable," or "pointless."
Finally, Ms. Lewis requests that if the Court determines that she
must engage in mediation before pursuing litigation, it stay the
action pending mediation rather than grant the Defendant's motion
to dismiss. The parties, however, contracted for a certain dispute
resolution procedure. By failing to engage in mediation prior to
filing suit, Ms. Lewis has thus denied the Defendant the benefit of
their bargain. Judge Nielson cannot countenance such a clear
disregard for a party's contractual obligations. He accordingly
enforces the parties' agreement and dismisses the action without
prejudice rather than granting Ms. Lewis' request for a stay.
For these reasons, Judge Nielson grants the motion to dismiss and
dismisses the action without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Memorandum Decision
& Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye32vr93 from
Leagle.com.
FLUENT HOME: Arbitration & Dismissal Bids in Stover Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HILMA STOVER, on behalf of herself and a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FLUENT HOME, LLC, THE BANK
OF MISSOURI, d/b/a Fortiva Retail Credit, ATLANTICUS SERVICES
CORPORATION, and FORTIVA FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 5:21-cv-00191 (S.D.W. Va.), Judge Frank W. Volk of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
Beckley:
a. denies without prejudice Lending Defendants Atlanticus
Services Corp. and Fortiva Financial, LLC's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Dismiss First Amended Class Action
Complaint, filed May 6, 2022;
b. denies without prejudice Defendant Fluent Home, LLC's
Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on
May 9, 2022; and
c. denies as moot Lending Defendant The Bank of Missouri's
("TBOM") Motion to Compel Arbitration and the Lending
Defendants' Motions to Stay Discovery.
On Oct. 12, 2020, a salesperson for Fluent, Larry Araiza,
approached Ms. Stover about purchasing a home security system.
After some discussion between the two, Ms. Stover decided to have
the system installed, believing she could cancel the service within
30 days and receive a refund. Later that evening, another employee
from Fluent began the installation, but Ms. Stover, unsatisfied
with the work, ordered him to stop.
After attempting to cancel the service, Ms. Stover alleges she
discovered that her purchase had been financed using a
Fortiva-branded credit card. TBOM issues Fortiva-branded accounts
as part of its private-label credit program, Fortiva Retail Credit.
This program, which is managed by Atlanticus and Fortiva, finances
purchases from certain merchants, including Fluent.
As a result of these events, Ms. Stover filed suit against Fluent
and TBOM in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia, on
Feb. 26, 2021. On March 29, 2021, TBOM removed the case to the
Court. On May 14, 2021, Fluent filed a motion to compel
arbitration. Ms. Stover thereafter moved to amend her complaint on
Oct. 12, 2021.
On March 17, 2022, the Court denied Fluent's motion to compel
arbitration, concluding there was a genuine issue of material fact
regarding the existence of a binding arbitration agreement. As a
result, it ordered a summary trial on that issue pursuant to 9
U.S.C. Section 4. Following a disagreement over TBOM's
participation in the trial, TBOM separately moved to compel
arbitration on April 22, 2022.
However, before ruling on TBOM's motion, on April 25, 2022, the
Court granted Ms. Stover's motion to amend her complaint, allowing
Atlanticus and Fortiva to be added as defendants. In response, the
Lending Defendants jointly moved to compel arbitration on May 6,
2022. Fluent subsequently renewed its motion to compel arbitration
on May 9, 2022, but raised no new arguments. The Lending
Defendants, thereafter on Sept. 19, 2022, filed a motion to stay
discovery pending a ruling on their motion to compel arbitration,
which they renewed on Nov. 7, 2022.
In support of their motion to compel arbitration, the Lending
Defendants contend that Ms. Stover entered into their Cardholder
Agreement when she signed up for Fluent's home security system. The
arbitration provision in that agreement, the Lending Defendants
argue, prohibits Ms. Stover from bringing this lawsuit. Ms. Stover
responds, however, that a genuine dispute of material fact exists
as to whether she entered into the Cardholder Agreement. Moreover,
she also claims that TBOM has waived its right to arbitrate and
that Atlanticus and Fortiva were not parties to agreement.
As a preliminary matter, because Fluent raises no new arguments in
support of its renewed motion to compel arbitration, Judge Volk
again denies that motion as the Court did in its Memorandum Opinion
and Order issued on March 17, 2022. Next, he turns to the Lending
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
At issue is whether there is a written agreement between the
parties containing an arbitration clause. Examining the evidence in
the light most favorable to Ms. Stover, Judge Volk finds that a
genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether a binding
arbitration agreement was formed between the Lending Defendants and
Ms. Stover. While the Lending Defendants infer from their business
records that Ms. Stover completed the Fortiva application, Ms.
Stover insists credit was never discussed, indicating she never
reviewed the application.
Accordingly, given these contradictory statements, a genuine
dispute exists over whether Ms. Stover ever completed the
application and thus entered into the Cardholder Agreement. Judge
Volk therefore denies the Lending Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.
In light of these rulings, Judge Volk concludes that the contract
formation issues involving Ms. Stover and all the Defendants must
be resolved by a summary trial pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 4. The
Court of Appeals has noted that the determination of appropriate
pretrial procedures is reserved to the able lawyers for the parties
and the sound discretion of the district court. He thus will set a
pretrial conference at which those procedures will be established.
The parties are ordered to consult respecting proposed procedures
on April 5, 2023. The counsel should discuss, inter alia, whether
minimal discovery is necessary and the timing of the required
summary trial. The parties are additionally ordered to file no
later than April 10, 2023, a joint report setting forth the
procedures agreed upon and any remaining disagreements.
For these reasons, the Lending Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint and
Fluent's Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint are denied without
prejudice; TBOM's Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied as moot;
and the Lending Defendants' Motions to Stay Discovery are denied as
moot. The pretrial conference is scheduled for May 12, 2023, at
11:00 a.m. in Beckley, West Virginia.
Judge Volk directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of his written
Opinion and Order to the counsel of record and any unrepresented
party.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3uds29uf from
Leagle.com.
FOR LOVE AND LEMONS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against For Love and Lemons,
LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. For Love and Lemons, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02509 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
For Love and Lemons, LLC -- https://forloveandlemons.com/ -- make
enchanting clothing for the vibrant muse unafraid to take risks,
forge their own way and embrace a bit of adventure.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
FORBES MEDIA LLC: Passariello Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Salomon Passariello, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Forbes Media LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-08908 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on March 25, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02544-JLR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Forbes -- https://www.forbes.com/ -- is a global media company,
focusing on business, investing, technology, entrepreneurship,
leadership, and lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Carolin K. Shining, Esq.
Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq.
Jesse Song Chen, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jleinbach@glancylaw.com
- and -
Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq.
UMHOFER, MITCHELL & KING LLP
11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (213) 394-7979
Email: jonas@umklaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew Klair, Esq.
Ashley L. Shively, Esq.
HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP
50 California Street Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (719) 588-0091
Fax: (415) 743-6910
FRONTIER MANAGEMENT: Collective Action Settlement Get Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA WRIGHT, LORETTA
STANLEY, HALEY QUAM, and AIESHA LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, FRONTIER
SENIOR LIVING, LLC, and GH SENIOR LIVING, LLC dba GREENHAVEN
ESTATES ASSISTED LIVING, Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Mendez entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class and collective
action settlement.
Frontier manages senior housing and offers senior care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LZ9ZED at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
mlim@schneiderwallace.com
GEICO: Russo Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN RUSSO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A GEICO, Case No. 2:21-cv-17234-BRM-JBC
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting
the case to move forward as a Rule 23 Class Action and to supervise
notification of the putative class members pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.
GEICO is a private American auto insurance company with
headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 13,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3nd5jAvat
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
- and -
Andrew Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
GLAMORISE FOUNDATIONS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glamorise
Foundations, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Glamorise
Foundations, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02510 (S.D.N.Y., March 24,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Glamorise Foundations, Inc. -- https://glamorise.com/ -- is a
sportwear manufacturer in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
GOOGLE LLC: Brown, et al., File Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASOM BROWN, WILLIAM
BYATT, JEREMY DAVIS, CHRISTOPHER CASTILLO, and MONIQUE TRUJILLO
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03664-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying under Rule 23(c)(4) the
same liability issues that will necessarily be decided in
connection with the claims certified under Rule 23(b)(2).
The classes' claims for injunctive relief are set for trial this
November 2023, along with the named the Plaintiffs' damages claims.
As part of that trial, the jury will necessarily make
determinations regarding Google's liability in connection with each
of the seven claims.
The Plaintiffs now move to certify common liability issue classes
under Rule 23(c)(4), covering the same issues to be decided for
purposes of assessing Google's liability for the certified Rule
23(b)(2) classes and the Plaintiffs' request for damages. Issue
certification materially advances the efficient disposition of this
litigation as a whole. This approach is consistent with the intent
and requirements of Rule 23(c)(4), which are satisfied by this case
having met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2), and
because issue certification materially advances the resolution of
the remaining issues in the case, as recognized by the Ninth
Circuit and the majority of Federal Circuits.
On December 12, 2022, the Court certified all seven of the
Plaintiffs' claims for both classes under Rule 23(b)(2).
Google had not disputed any of the Rule 23(a) requirements.
The Court nevertheless analyzed the Rule 23(a) requirements and
concluded each were met. Addressing commonality, the Court reasoned
that "Google's form contract is proof that could resolve the
question of whether Google promised not to collect, save, and use
users' private browsing data. Having found at least one common
question among the class members' claims, the Court need not
consider, for commonality purposes, the other questions."
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company focusing
on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing,
computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial
intelligence, and consumer electronics.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 14,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40c5TNE
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark C. Mao, Esq.
Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq.
Erika Nyborg-Burch, Esq.
James W. Lee, Esq.
Rossana Baeza, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
40 Washington Square South
New York, N.Y. 10012
Telephone: (212) 998-6580
E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com
si13@nyu.edu
brichardson@bsfllp.com
enyborg-burch@bsfllp.com
jlee@bsfllp.com
rbaeza@bsfllp.com
- and -
Amanda K. Bonn, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: abonn@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Bill Carmody, Esq.
Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
Steven Shepard, Esq.
Alexander P. Frawley, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32 nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
srabin@susmangodfrey.com
sshepard@susmangodfrey.com
afrawley@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 222-4736
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
rmcgee@forthepeople.com
mram@forthepeople.com
GORDON LANE: Parrish Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL PARRISH by and
through Successor in Interest, Monica Parrish v. GORDON LANE
HEALTHCARE, LLC; SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES; IRVING BAUMAN; FRANK
JOHNSON; ELI MARMUR; WILLIAM PRESNELL and DOES 1-250, inclusive,
Case No. 8:22-cv-01790-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class
certification and appointing him as class representative and the
firm of Garcia & Artigliere as Class Counsel.
The Class is Ascertainable Class defined as:
a. the Plaintiff Subclass One:
"Private Pay Residents-First Cause of Action Only."
The first subclass sought to be represented in this
action as it relates to the First Cause of Action only,
is defined as follows:
"all persons who resided in (or continue to reside in)
the California skilled nursing facility GORDON LANE
HEALTHCARE LLC , that is and was owned, operated, and/or
managed by the the Defendants at any time within the
three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through
the date of the final disposition of this action wherein
the the Defendants were reimbursed for services provided
to a "class member" by private pay and/or privately
acquired insurance and/or any HMO or PPO."
b. the Plaintiff Subclass Two:
"All Residents-First And Second Causes of Action The
second subclass sought to be represented in this action
as it relates to the First and Second Causes of Action,
is defined as follows:
all persons who were resided in (or continue to reside
in) the California skilled nursing facility GORDON LANE
HEALTHCARE LLC , that is and was owned, operated, and/or
managed by the the Defendants at any time within the
three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through
the date of the final disposition of this action."
c. the Plaintiff Subclass Three:
"Health & Safety Code Section 1430(b) Violations" The
third subclass sought to be represented in this action as
it relates to the Second Cause of Action only, is defined
as follows:
"all persons who were resided in (or continue to reside
in) the California skilled nursing facility GORDON LANE
HEALTHCARE LLC , that is and was owned, operated, and/or
managed by the the Defendants named herein at any time
within the three years prior to the filing of this
Complaint through the date of the final disposition of
this action regardless of the manner in which the
Defendants were reimbursed for services.
Gordon Lane is a senior living provider.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated March 14, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TBxs0c at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
GARCIA & ARTIGLIERE
One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
Long Beach, CA 90831
Telephone: (562) 216-5270
Facsimile: (562) 216-5271
E-mail: edocs@lawgarcia.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants
David B. Litt, Esq.
PETRULLO, LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 1690
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (213) 627-0400
Facsimile: (213) 627-0402
E-Mail: John@petrullolaw.com
david@petruIlolaw.com
kailin@petrullolaw.com
maindesk@petrullolaw.com
nancy@petrullolaw.com
GRASS SHACK: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grass Shack
Industries, LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Grass Shack
Industries, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02505 (S.D.N.Y., March 24,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Grass Shack Industries, LLC doing business as Manoa Chocolate
Hawaii -- https://manoachocolate.com/ -- is a bean-to-bar chocolate
company on Oahu.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
HAUPPAUGE HOTELS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Matias Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
REYES AROLDO MATIAS, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAUPPAUGE HOTELS II, LLC d/b/a
HAUPPAUGE HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS; and INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP
RESOURCES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02293 ((E.D.N.Y.,
March 24, 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 Matias was employed by the Defendants as porter.
HAUPPAUGE HOTELS II, LLC d/b/a HAUPPAUGE HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS
operates as a hotel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, New York 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Sept. 15
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Wilson et al v.
Hyundai Motor America et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00771-JLS-JDE (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order
scheduling order as follows:
Last Day to File a Motion to Add
Parties or Amend Pleadings: May 5, 2023
Last Day to File a Motion for Sept. 15, 2023
Class Certification:
Last Day to File an Opposition to Oct. 27, 2023
Motion for Class Certification:
Last Day to File a Reply to Motion Dec. 1, 2023
for Class Certification:
Fact Discovery Cutoff: Apr. 12, 2024
Last Day to File Motions (Excluding Apr. 26, 2024
Daubert Motions and all other
Motions in Limine):
Last Day to Serve Initial Expert Apr. 26, 2024
Reports:
Last Day to Serve Rebuttal Expert May 24, 2026
Reports:
Expert Discovery Cutoff: Jun. 14, 2024
Last Day to Conduct Settlement Jun. 21, 2024
Proceedings:
Hyundai is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tz2A0e at no extra charge.[CC]
ICOT HOLDINGS: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class in Bank TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD C. BANK, v. ICOT
HOLDINGS, LLC AND ICOT HEARING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-02554-AMD-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly
entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion to certify class.
As Judge Kuo explained, the TTelephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) makes it unlawful "to initiate any telephone call to any
residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice
without the prior express consent of the called party."
However, the Court is not aware of any decision in this Circuit
finding that these kinds of allegations sufficiently state a claim
under the TCPA. Just last year, Chief Judge Margo Brodie found that
it was not possible to determine on a motion to dismiss whether the
same plaintiff could be "appropriately characterized as a
'non-subscribing customary user.'
The Court would have to determine whether the plaintiff is a
"called party" under the statute, which would complicate the
proceedings unnecessarily, at a great expense of time and money to
the unaffected subscriber class members.
The plaintiff brought this action individually and as a class
action, alleging violations of the TCPA, and New York General
Business Law. The plaintiff claims that he answered several
prerecorded phone calls promoting hearing aids while at his
mother's home.
The plaintiff proposed no other "workable methodology" to ascertain
these non-subscriber class members. The plaintiff filed a timely
objection to Judge Kuo's Report and Recommendation, claiming that
the proposed class members "do not include non-subscribers," and
that the class is therefore ascertainable. The plaintiff also
argues that he is a proper "called party" under the TCPA, and that
the defendants' class settlement in another case does not preclude
class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yV6Zky at no extra charge.[CC]
IDAHO: Stonecipher Directed to File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW STONECIPHER, v.
DIRECTOR IDOC JOSH TEWALT, CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, CENTURION
MEDICAL, SIEGERT, MIGLIORI, APRIL DAWSON, and SUMMER, Case No.
1:22-cv-00415-DCN (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge David C. Nye entered
an initial review order as follows:
1. The claims against Corizon are subject to an automatic
stay as the result of the bankruptcy filing of Corizon.
2. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in this action
against Corizon employees or contractors only, following
the instructions set forth above. If appropriate, the
Court will sever the amended complaint from the complaint
in this action against Corizon, which is stayed.
3. The Plaintiff may file a separate lawsuit containing any
or all of the claims arising on a date no earlier than
September 28, 2020, for which Plaintiff has sufficient
factual grounds, including:
(1) claims for monetary damages against any individual
employees of IDOC who caused the alleged deprivations;
(2) claims for monetary damages for relief against
Centurion or any Centurion employees/contractors who
caused the alleged deprivations; and
(3) claims for injunctive relief against Centurion or any
Centurion employees/contractors who caused the alleged
deprivations.
4. The Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief is denied as
without a proper factual basis, but without prejudice.
5. Any arguments that Plaintiff should be permitted to
proceed on claims that arose earlier than September 28,
2020, must be made in a motion to amend in whichever case
the claims belong. Such claims, if they relate back to the
original Complaint in this action, will be referrable to
the date it was filed.
The Plaintiff Matthew Stonecipher has filed a prisoner civil rights
action asserting that he has been denied treatment for his
Hepatitis C condition in the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC)
prison system. He sues for both damages and injunctive relief.
The Complaint of Plaintiff was conditionally filed by the Clerk of
Court due to his status as a prisoner and pauper. Dkt. 1. A
"conditional filing" means that Plaintiff must obtain authorization
from the Court to proceed.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/403ZqUI at no extra charge.[CC]
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Fisher Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Living
Systems LLC. The case is styled as Devon Fisher, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Independent Living
Systems LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-21193-BB (S.D. Fla., March 27,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Independent Living Systems -- https://ilshealth.com/ -- offers a
comprehensive range of turnkey payer services including clinical
and third-party administrative services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: jcohen@milberg.com
INDIAN HARBOR: Moore Bid to Compel Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA MOORE, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds,
v. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY; NEPTUNE FLOOD INCORPORATED; and
PENINSULA INSURANCE BUREAU, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00385 (S.D. W.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl A. Eifert entered an order granting in
part and denying in part, the Plaintiff's motion to compel.
-- The Defendants Indian Harbor Insurance Company and Neptune
Flood Incorporated's admissions are amended as reflected in
their responses served on December 21, 2022.
-- The Defendants Indian Harbor Insurance Company and Neptune
Flood Incorporated are ordered to respond to Plaintiff's
First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents within seven days of this Order.
-- The Defendant Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc., is ordered
to supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 13,
14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 and Request
for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13,
and 15 within seven (7) days of this Order.
-- The Court denies the motion to compel with respect to
Interrogatory Nos. 3, 12, and 17 and Request for Production
of Documents Nos. 5 and 6.
Indian Harbor provides property and casualty insurance products and
solutions
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n43NAw at no extra charge.[CC]
J. RITTER LAW: Church FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hunter J. Church, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. J. Ritter Law P.C., FedChex Recovery,
LLC, Jonathan Ritter, Esq., John Does 1-10, Case No. MER L 352 23
was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March
27, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01709-MAS-RLS to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
J. Ritter Law P.C. -- https://www.jritterlaw.com/ -- is a firm
headquartered in Orangeburg, New York assisting creditors as a law
firm and debt collection agency across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM, LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 273-7117
Fax: (201) 273-7117
Email: pstern@kimlf.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen D. Dargitz, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER
1717 Arch Street, Suite 3910
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 461-3328
Fax: (215) 461-3311
Email: sdargitz@ohaganmeyer.com
JFK ROGER'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Manzanares Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIXON JOSUE FLORES MANZANARES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JFK ROGER'S CONSTRUCTION
INC.; and ROGER JIMENEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02350
(E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Manzanares was employed by the Defendant as laborer.
JFK ROGER'S CONSTRUCTION INC. is engaged as a home improvement
contractor. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
KERN COUNTY, CA: Carlisle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Kern, et
al. The case is styled as Kirk Carlisle, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. County of Kern, Kern County
Public Works, Board of Supervisors Of The County Of Kern, Case No.
BCV-23-100904 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 24, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Complaint - Civil Unlimited."
Kern County -- https://www.kerncounty.com/ -- is a county located
in the U.S. state of California.[BN]
KROGER CO: April 19 Extension for Class Cert Briefing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO, KATHLEEN
ZACH, CAROLYN ESPINOZA, and DENISE CONROY, individually and on,
behalf of other customers, v. THE KROGER CO., dba FRED MEYER, Case
No. 3:18-cv-01488-AR (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order extending the deadlines previously set in the
Court's December 19, 2022, and January 26, 2023:
Filing Current New
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' response to Motion Mar. 15, 2023 Mar. 22, 2023
to Deny Class Certification and
Kroger's response to Motion for
Class Certification
Kroger's reply in support of Apr. 12, 2023 Apr. 19, 2023
Motion to Deny Class
Certification and Plaintiffs'
reply in support of Motion for
Class Certification
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order Defendant's motion dated March 13, 2023
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40tlF6a at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin H. Kono, Esq.
Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
James H. Moon, Esq.
Peter Bae, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97201-5610
Telephone: (503) 241-2300
E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com
fredburnside@dwt.com
jharper@dwt.com
jamesmoon@dwt.com
peterbae@dwt.com
KROGER CO: Solano Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due April 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO, KATHLEEN
ZACH, CAROLYN ESPINOZA, and DENISE CONROY, individually and on,
behalf of other customers, v. THE KROGER CO., dba FRED MEYER, Case
No. 3:18-cv-01488-AR (D. Or.), the the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting a nine-day extension of all outstanding
Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Deny Class
Certification deadlines as follows:
Filing Current New
Deadline Deadline
The Plaintiffs' response to Mar. 22, 2023 Mar. 31, 2023
Motion to Deny Class
Certification and Kroger's
response to Motion for Class
Certification:
Kroger's reply in support of Apr. 19, 2023 Apr. 28, 2023
Motion to Deny Class
Certification and the
Plaintiffs' reply in support
of Motion for Class
Certification:
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated March 14, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TJ8gVK at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin H. Kono, Esq.
Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
James H. Moon, Esq.
Peter Bae, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
Telephone: (503) 241-2300
E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com
fredburnside@dwt.com
jharper@dwt.com
jamesmoon@dwt.com
peterbae@dwt.com
LABORATORY CORP: Nolan Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs NATHANIEL J. NOLAN, et al., filed an appeal from a
district court memorandum opinion and order and judgment dated
February 13, 2023 entered in his lawsuit entitled NATHANIEL J.
NOLAN and HELENA WITTENBERG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA HOLDINGS, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00979-TDS-JLW, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina at Greensboro.
This is a putative class action involving claims of unfair and
deceptive conduct under Nevada and Florida law related to the
billing practices of Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings. The Plaintiff brought this suit on December 29, 2021 on
behalf of Nevada and Florida residents who signed a Patient
Acknowledgement disclosing the "Estimated Charges" for lab
services, but were billed a patient list price for those services
that exceeded the disclosed "Health Plan Allowed Rate" for those
services, says the suit.
On February 28, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
On February 13, 2023, Chief Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an
Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and held that all
claims are dismissed with prejudice except for those by Plaintiff
Nolan based on alleged violations of Nev. Rev. Stat. which are
dismissed without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Nathaniel Nolan v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, Case No. 23-1282, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 15,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants NATHANIEL J. NOLAN, individually and on
behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, et al., are
represented by:
Timothy Brennan, Esq.
Robert Craig Finkel, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10022-0000
Telephone: (862) 242-0776
- and -
Kyle Andrew Medin, Esq.
Jonathan Drew Sasser, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P. O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Telephone: (919) 865-7000
Defendant-Appellee LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS is
represented by:
Scott Elliot Bayzle, Esq.
Stephen Vincent Carey, Esq.
Charles Edward Raynal, IV, Esq.
Adam C. Setzer, Esq.
PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
P. O. Box 389
Raleigh, NC 27602-0389
Telephone: (919) 835-4627
LANDRYS PAYROLL INC: Salmas Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Noelle Salmas, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Landrys
Payroll, Inc., Landrys Management, Inc., Mastros Restaurants, LLC,
Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2300832 was removed from the
Riverside County Superior Court of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on March 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00529-RGK-SHK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is state as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
Landry's, Inc. -- https://www.landrysinc.com/ -- is an American,
privately owned, multi-brand dining, hospitality, entertainment and
gaming corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
Jackland K. Hom, Esq.
Julieann Alvarado, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (619) 255-9047
Fax: (858) 625-3901
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
jackland@zakaylaw.com
julieann@zakaylaw.com
- and -
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM APC
5440 Morehouse Drive Suite 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (619) 599-8292
Fax: (619) 599-8291
Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew Martin Sonne, Esq.
Lauren Joelle Blaes, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
650 Town Center Drive 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Phone: (714) 513-5100
Fax: (714) 513-5130
Email: msonne@sheppardmullin.com
lblaes@sheppardmullin.com
LANGUAGE LINE: Rouse's Counsel to Submit More Info on Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEREK ROUSE, individually and o/b/o all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-0204-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg Kays of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Western Division, directs the Plaintiff's counsel to supply
additional information.
The lawsuit is a collective action lawsuit seeking to recover
unpaid wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). Now before the Court is the parties' Motion for Approval
of FLSA Collective Action Settlement.
Judge Kays directs the Plaintiff's counsel to supply additional
information. He has no doubt the litigation involves a bona fide
dispute over FLSA provisions. However, he finds that the proposed
settlement contains several red flags, namely: (1) there is
reversion provision and a clear sailing provision, (2) it is a
claims-made settlement, and (3) there is evidence the settlement
was made contingent on reaching a satisfactory award of attorneys'
fees. And the Court lacks sufficient information to determine
whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable despite the
presence of these red flags.
Accordingly, to ensure the Court has sufficient information to
decide whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and
not the product of a conflict of interest, Judge Kays directs the
Plaintiff's counsel to provide the following:
(1) an estimate as to the full value of the class members'
claims (that is, the maximum amount of overtime pay and liquidated
damages the class members would be entitled to if they completely
prevailed at trial) supported by some analysis;
(2) more detailed information concerning the Plaintiff's
counsel's evaluation of the fluctuating workweek method of damages
calculation, including the Plaintiff's counsel's estimation of its
applicability here and its potential and likely impact on the
litigation (citing Eighth Circuit caselaw on the subject); and
(3) detailed information concerning the amount of time the
Plaintiff's counsel expended on the case, including: (i)
documentation of the time each individual attorney or any staff
member spent on this case (e.g., "6 hours spent drafting the
complaint," "0.2 hours organizing discovery," etc.), along with
that individual's hourly billing rate; (ii) a detailed list of the
expenses incurred in the litigation (e.g., the amount spent on
legal research); and (iii) the attorneys' fee agreement.
Plaintiff's counsel does not need to supply individual billing
records, although he may do so if that is more convenient.
Although this is more information than the Court typically requires
for review of an FLSA settlement, Judge Kays has not had an FLSA
case where settlement was reached so early in the litigation
(before any formal discovery or contested motion work occurred),
where there were several indicia that the class members' claims
could have been undersold, and where the Plaintiff's counsel sought
such a large award of attorneys' fees and expenses ($325,000) for a
settlement reached so early in the litigation.
This information should be filed with the Court or before April 12,
2023, and may be filed ex parte to protect the privileged work
product nature of the information, except for the fee agreement.
Judge Kays will then rule promptly on the motion for settlement
approval.
To be clear, nothing in the Order should be taken as a preliminary
determination about the merits of the settlement, or to suggest the
Court believes the proposed settlement is inadequate, or to suggest
the Court believes the proposed settlement is actually the product
of a conflict of interest. Rather, the Court is simply doing its
due diligence in light of the specific facts and circumstances
presented in the case before ruling on the motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bpabn7fv from Leagle.com.
LEADING LADY INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leading Lady, Inc.
The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Leading Lady, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02514 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Leading Lady, Inc. -- https://www.leadinglady.com/ -- offers
stylish collection of full figured bras, nursing bras, nursing
tops, and maternity bras.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
LILIUM NV: Continues to Defend Gnanaraj Class Suit in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lilium NV disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal period ending
December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 28, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from
Gnanaraj putative class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida
On April 18, 2022, a putative class action was filed against Lilium
N.V., Daniel Wiegand, Geoffrey Richardson and Barry Engle for
purported violations of United States securities laws (the
"Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.
On February 10, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California transferred the action to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Lawsuit is
presently captioned as: Maniraj Ashirwad Gnanaraj v. Lilium N.V. et
al., 23-CV-80232-Rosenberg/Reinhart.
On February 15, 2023, the court entered an order appointing
Jonathan Coon as Lead Plaintiff.
On March 10, 2023, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
adds additional defendants and asserts additional claims for
purported violations of the United States securities laws.
The Company's management believes the claims are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this litigation.
Lilium N.V., f/k/a Qell Acquisition Corp., is a transportation
company focused on developing an electric vertical
take-off-and-landing aircraft, the Lilium Jet, for use in air
transport system for people and goods.[BN]
LOGISTICS GROUP: Court Approves Bid to Certify Class in Zhibri
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zhibri v. Optimum
Logistics Group LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05877 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Anne Y. Shields entered an order granting motion to
certify class.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.
Optimum Logistics is a family owned and operated construction
management group.[CC]
MDL 2542: Distribution of Settlement Fund in Antitrust Suit Allowed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN SINGLE-SERVE COFFEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:14-md-02542 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Distribution of Class Settlement Fund.
The funds that are currently in the Net Settlement Fund (less any
necessary amounts to be withheld for payment of potential tax
liabilities and related fees and expenses) will be distributed on a
pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants, identified in Exhibits
B-1 and B-2 to the Declaration of Gretchen Eoff In Support of
Motion For Distribution of Net Settlement Fund. The funds will be
distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation
of the Net Settlement Fund set forth in the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action.
Any person asserting a claim submitted after Jan. 11, 2023, is
fully and forever barred from asserting such claims.
Any person asserting any rejected claims are finally and forever
barred from asserting such claims as of Jan. 2, 2022, the date by
Court-appointed Claims Administrator, JND Legal Administration LLC,
used as a cutoff for communications regarding deficient and/or
rejected notices.
Judge Broderick finds that the administration of the Settlement and
proposed distribution of the Net Settlement Fund comply with the
terms of the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation, and that all
persons involved are released and discharged from any and all
claims arising out of such involvement, and all Class Members are
barred from making any further claims against the Net Settlement
Fund or the Released Parties beyond the amount allocated to them
pursuant to the Order.
The checks for distribution to Authorized Claimants will bear the
notation "CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180
DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE." The Plaintiffs' Counsel and JND are
authorized to locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimant who has
not cashed his, her, or its check within said time.
If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund by reason of
undeposited checks, or otherwise, after JND has made reasonable and
diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants who are entitled to
participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund deposit
their distribution checks, any balance remaining in the Net
Settlement Fund six months after the initial distribution of such
funds will be used:
(i) first, to pay any amounts mistakenly omitted from the
initial distribution to Authorized Claimants who would receive at
least a $10 payment;
(ii) second, to pay any additional Notice and Settlement
Administration Costs incurred in administering the Settlement; and
(iii) finally, to make a second distribution to Authorized
Claimants who cashed their checks from the initial distribution and
who would receive at least $10 from such second distribution, after
payment of the estimated costs or fees to be incurred in
administering the Net Settlement Fund and in making this second
distribution, if such second distribution is economically
feasible.
If six months after such second distribution, whether or not such
distribution is undertaken, any funds that remain in the Net
Settlement Fund after JND has made reasonable and diligent efforts
to have Authorized Claimants who are entitled to participate in
this Settlement cash their checks, will be donated to Consumer
Reports, a national non-profit consumer advocacy organization for
investor protection.
JND is ordered to discard paper or hard copies of Proofs of Claims
and supporting documents not less than one year after all
distributions of the Net Settlement Fund to the eligible claimants,
and electronic copies of the same not less than three years after
all distributions of the Net Settlement Fund to the eligible
claimants.
The Court retains jurisdiction over any further application or
matter which may arise in connection with the action.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y4kdhf7m from Leagle.com.
MDL 2670: Bid to Modify Class Definition OK'd in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order granting direct purchaser
plaintiffs' renewed:
(1) motion for leave to disseminate class notice and
(2) motion to modify class definition.
On July 30, 2019, the Court granted Class Certification of the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Class and ordered the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs (the "DPPs") to submit a proposed plan for dissemination
of notice of class certification to members of the class within 30
days.
On August 29, 2019, DPPs filed a Proposed Plan for Dissemination of
Class Notice and Motion to Modify Class Definition.
On January 28, 2020, the Court denied that motion without prejudice
on the grounds that the motion was premature given defendants'
then-pending appeal of the Court's class certification order.
On April 6, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated
the Order and remanded.
On April 8, 2022, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc held otherwise
and affirmed the Order.
The Court's order granting class certification is modified to
reflect the following Class definition:
-- Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class:
"All persons and entities that directly purchased packaged
tuna products within the United States, its territories and
the District of Columbia from any Defendant at any time
between June 1, 2011 and July 31, 2015. Excluded from the
class are all governmental entities; Defendants and any
parent, subsidiary or affiliate thereof; Defendants'
officers, directors, employees, and immediate families; any
federal judges or their staffs; purchases of tuna salad
kits or cups; and salvage purchases."
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ncWSoV at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2873: Durst Sues Over PFAS Exposure From Toxic AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT DURST, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01119-RMG
(D.S.C., March 20, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
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
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Durst case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Johnson Claims PFAS Exposure From Toxic AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01118-RMG
(D.S.C., March 20, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.
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
bladder cancer and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.
The Johnson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2913: Cumberland School Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
CUMBERLAND SCHOOL DEPARTMENT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01195 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Rhode Island, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Cumberland School Department case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Cumberland School Department is a public school district organized
and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Rhode
Island with its geographic boundaries located in Providence
County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Avoyelles Parish Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVOYELLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01238 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Louisiana, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Avoyelles Parish School Board case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Avoyelles Parish School Board is a public school district organized
and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Louisiana
with its geographic boundaries located in Avoyelles Parish County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Beal City Public Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BEAL CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01185-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross
negligence, strict product liability, punitive damages, and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Beal City Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Beal City Public Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Isabella County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Grant Parish Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRANT PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross
negligence, strict product liability, punitive damages, and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Louisiana, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Grant Parish School Board case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Grant Parish School Board is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Louisiana with
its geographic boundaries located in Grant Parish County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Holmes County Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLMES COUNTY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01199-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross
negligence, strict product liability, punitive damages, and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Mississippi, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Holmes County Consolidated School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick.
Holmes County Consolidated School District is a public school
district organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the
State of Mississippi with its geographic boundaries located in
Holmes County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, New Buffalo Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEW BUFFALO AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01204 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The New Buffalo Area Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
New Buffalo Area Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Berrien County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Gladwin Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
GLADWIN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01245 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Gladwin Community Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Gladwin Community Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Gladwin County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Hamilton Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
HAMILTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01198-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross
negligence, strict product liability, punitive damages, and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Hamilton Community Schools case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Hamilton Community Schools is a public school district organized
and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan
with its geographic boundaries located in Allegan County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Kent County Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------
KENT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01233 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Maryland, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Kent County Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Kent County Public Schools is a public school district organized
and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland
with its geographic boundaries located in Kent County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Natchitoches Parish Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATCHITOCHES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01203-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross
negligence, strict product liability, punitive damages, and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Louisiana, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Natchitoches Parish School Board case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Natchitoches Parish School Board is a public school district
organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of
Louisiana with its geographic boundaries located in Natchitoches
Parish County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Ontario-Montclair School Alleges Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01208 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of California, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Ontario-Montclair School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Ontario-Montclair School District is a public school district
organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of
California with its geographic boundaries located in San Bernardino
County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Linden Community Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDEN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01202 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Linden Community Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Linden Community Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Genesee County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Northville Public Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01207 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Northville Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Northville Public Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Oakland County and Wayne
County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Reese Public Schools Alleges E-Cigarette Youth Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
REESE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and
JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01246
(N.D. Cal., March 17, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Reese Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Reese Public Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Tuscola County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Southfield Public Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01211 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Southfield Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Southfield Public Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Oakland County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: Summit School Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE SUMMIT SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and
JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01213
(N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of New York, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The Summit School case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN
RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William H. Orrick.
The Summit School is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of New York with
its geographic boundaries located in Rockland County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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: West Feliciana Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
WEST FELICIANA PARISH SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01216 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, 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.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Louisiana, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged 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.
The West Feliciana Parish Schools case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
West Feliciana Parish Schools is a public school district organized
and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Louisiana
with its geographic boundaries located in West Feliciana Parish
County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 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
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in Frawley Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA FRAWLEY, v. MEDICAL
MANAGEMENT GROUP OF NEW YORK, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-08894-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order
preliminarily approving class settlement, directing the issuance of
notice to the class, and scheduling a settlement hearing.
The Plaintiff Donna Frawley has filed a Complaint, seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief on a class-wide basis for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the New
York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"); and the New York City Human
Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and also seeking damages individually.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that includes individuals
with disabilities who have been denied or reasonably fear denial of
reasonable disability accommodations in connection with Independent
Medical Examinations ("IMEs") scheduled by the Defendant.
The parties and their attorneys have entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release, dated March 10, 2023, subject to the
approval and determination of the Court as to the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement which, if approved,
will result in the certification of the Class for settlement
purposes only and the dismissal of the litigation with prejudice.
The Court appoints the law firm of Vladeck, Raskin & Clark by Maia
Goodell and Emily Bass as counsel for the Class, finding that these
counsel meet the requirements of Rule 23(g) (collectively referred
to as "the Plaintiffs' Counsel").
The Court approves the appointment of the Plaintiff Donna Frawley
as representative of the Class for settlement purposes only.
The Parties have jointly requested the Court to certify a class for
settlement purposes only, and it deems class certification to be
appropriate for settlement purposes. The
definition of the Class is as follows:
"all people with disabilities that require reasonable
accommodation, including for MMG to modify its policies and
procedures to ensure scheduling of Independent Medical
Examinations ("IMEs") with doctors whose offices can provide
the physical accessibility and/or reasonable accommodations
necessary to have equal and safe access to the offices'
medical services, who since October 29, 2018 have been or
reasonably fear they will be subject to MMG's alleged
scheduling of IMEs at physically inaccessible facilities,
alleged lack of policies and procedures to accommodate
disabilities that are known or reasonably should be known,
and alleged failure to respond to requests for reasonable
accommodations."
No later than Tuesday, April 25, 2023, Class members may make
statements and objections by email or telephone message including
the following information:
(a) name, address, and, if available, telephone number and
e-mail address;
(b) if represented by counsel, the name, address, telephone
number and e-mail address of the attorney;
(c) a statement of any objections; and
(d) a statement of whether they are members of the the
Plaintiff Class.
All email objections must be sent to the Plaintiff's counsel at:
mgoodell@vladeck.com, ebass@vladeck.com. All oral objections must
be made by leaving a message at:
All regular mail objections must be sent to:
Maia Goodell, Esq.
Emily Bass, Esq.
VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK P.C.
565 5th Avenue, 9th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
The Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel shall promptly
furnish each other with copies of all objections that they
receive.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42C5wh0 at no extra charge.[CC]
MISS CIRCLE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miss Circle, LLC. The
case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Miss Circle, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02516-ER (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Miss Circle -- https://misscircle.com/ -- is a New York-based indie
label, with all dresses designed in-house at the brand's Soho
showroom.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Dark Chocolate Contains Lead, Kermani Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH KERMANI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02245 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2023) alleges that the
Green & Black's Organic Dark Chocolate 70% Cacao, Hu Organic Simple
Dark Chocolate 70% Cacao, dark chocolate products manufactured or
sold by the Defendant materially omit the contents of lead and
cadmium.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has misled reasonable
consumers, including the Plaintiff, into believing the Products are
safe for consumption when they are not. A December 2022 Consumer
Reports study measured the amount of heavy metals in dark
chocolates, including the Products, against California's daily MADL
for lead (0.5 micrograms) and cadmium (4.1 micrograms). The study
found that the Defendant's Products "contain cadmium and lead --
two heavy metals linked to a host of health problems in children
and adults," in amounts such that "eating just an ounce a day would
put an adult over a level that public health authorities and
Consumer Reports' experts say may be harmful.
The Defendant had a duty to warn consumers about the risks
associated with consuming its Products, because Defendant knew or
should have known that its Products contain heavy metals toxic to
humans. The Defendant's failure to disclose the heavy metal content
in its Products is a material omission because the information is
relevant to consumers' decision-making process, says the suit.
MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC was founded in 2012. The Company is a
manufacturer of processed Cheese. Mondelez Global LLC serves
customers in the State of Illinois. [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
NEVADA STATE: Lopez Loses Bid Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO LOPEZ, v. STATE
OF NEVADA, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00732-RCJ-CSD (D. Nev.), the
Hon. Judge Craig S. Denney entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; and
2. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a question of
constitutionality of state law.
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. Moreover,
this action is 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.
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 copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LJ2Is8 at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW FORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO OREA GARCIA; GALO JHOVANY MUNOZ NIETO; and QUINTIL GARCIA
RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW FORCE CONSTRUCTION CORP.; CONSTRUCTORS
TRADES AND SKILLS CORP.; NORBERT WLODKOWSKI, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02336 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiffs Garcia and Nieto was employed by the Defendants as
scaffolder while Plaintiff Ramirez was employed as bricklayer.
NEW FORCE CONSTRUCTION CORP. is a company that operates in the
construction industry. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented byL
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
NEW JERSEY: Galicki Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY GALICKI, ef at.,
V. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ef al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered an order
denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey filed an opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion, in which Defendants William Baroni, and David
Wildstein joined, and Plaintiffs filed a reply in further support.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3JV8aWDat no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK GYPSUM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bray, et al., v. New York
Gypsum Floors Inc. et al., Case No. 7:21-cv-02340-CS (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel entered an order regarding class
certification dates:
-- Class certification motion due May 19, 2023.
-- Opposition due June 19, 2023.
-- Reply due July 3, 2023.
-- Discovery cutoff, and deadline for remaining
damages calculations, extended to June 19, 2023.
The Plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and under other associated laws. This joint
letter is being submitted to apprise the Court of the status of
settlement discussions, and to ask the Court for a stay of
discovery and motion deadlines to facilitate settlement.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z8Akmr at no extra charge.[CC]
NMCI MEDICAL: Class Action Final Approval Bid Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA KULIK, et al., v.
NMCI MEDICAL CLINIC INC, Case No. 5:21-cv-03495-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting in
part:
(a) motion for final approval of class action/collective
settlement and
(b) motion for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
class representative incentive awards.
The Court ordered that:
(1) A class for settlement purposes under Rule 23 and a FLSA
collective for settlement purposes under 29 U.S.C.
section 201 are certified;
(2) The Settlement is approved in part;
(3) The Plaintiffs Barbara Kulik, James Eskridge, and Mary
Dunning Garofalo, as well as Opt-in Plaintiff Yadira
Gomez, are appointed as Class Representatives;
(4) The Plaintiffs' counsel is appointed as Class Counsel;
(5) $236,250 in attorneys' fees for Class Counsel are
approved;
(6) $14,272.32 in costs for Class Counsel are approved;
(7) Service awards for Kulik and Garofalo of $5,000 each are
approved;
(8) Service awards for Eskridge and Gomez of $3,000 each are
approved;
(9) Fees to the third-party Settlement Administrator of
$4,495 are approved; and
(10) The timely request for exclusion by Teresa Bonilla is
approved.
On May 10, 2021, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. On July 13, 2021,
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), adding a claim
under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The
Plaintiffs and Class Members are hourly, non-exempt Medical
Assistants, Physician Assistants, and Nurse Practitioners.
In the FAC, the Plaintiffs allege off-the-clock work, including
time spent completing necessary work-related paperwork, such as
medical charting. The Plaintiffs were scheduled to see patients
every twenty minutes during the workday, but the appointments would
often last longer, which left Plaintiffs little time to perform
their medical charting duties.
The Plaintiffs allege that "Defendant would always discourage or
outright refuse to allow Plaintiffs and other Class Members to log
overtime hours."
Further, at the end of 2019, Defendant informed Class Members that
they were "exempt" employees under state and federal
labor laws, and thus would not receive overtime premium wages.
The parties stipulated to attending private mediation on September
16, 2021. parties then engaged in informal discovery in preparation
for mediation and to assist in preparing mediation briefs.
In January 2022, the parties attended a mediation, but it was
unsuccessful. On February 10, 2022, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a
motion for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).
The Settlement provides for a Rule 23 class, a FLSA collective,
and a PAGA class, which are defined as follows:
-- Participating Class Members:
"All of Defendant's current and former hourly employees in
California holding the positions of Medical Assistants,
Physician Assistants, and Nurse Practitioners during the
Class Period (between May 10, 2017 through May 10, 2022)
and who did not submit a valid and timely Request for
Exclusion (or opt-out) from the Class."
-- Participating FLSA Collective Members:
"All of Defendant's current and former hourly employees in
California holding the positions of Medical Assistants,
Physician Assistants, and Nurse Practitioners during the
FLSA Period (between May 10, 2018 through May 10, 2022) and
who submit a valid opt-in form."
-- PAGA Group Members:
"All of Defendant's current and former hourly employees in
California holding the positions of Medical Assistants,
Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners during the
PAGA Period (between May 10, 2020 through May 10, 2022). A
PAGA Group Member may not request exclusion from the PAGA
portion of the Settlement and will have released all PAGA
Claims."
NMCI is a multidisciplinary center
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FFtttC at no extra charge.[CC]
NORCAL ACTION SPORTS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norcal Action Sports,
Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Norcal Action Sports, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02518 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Norcal Action Sports, Inc. is a sportswear store in Berkeley,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Loyd Sued Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LOYD; ZOEY SPELLMAN; JENNIFER GRAY; and MOORE'S TRUCKING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; NORFOLK SOUTHERN
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00634-SL (N.D. Ohio, March 24,
2023) is an action arising out of the catastrophic derailment of a
Norfolk train in East Palestine, Ohio, resulting in the release of
toxic and carcinogenic materials into the soil, water, and air.
On February 3, 2023, Norfolk Southern train 32N, which was
comprised of roughly 150 rail cars, derailed in East Palestine. At
least 20 rail cars have been identified as carrying hazardous
substances. Cars containing vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate,
ethylhexyl acrylate, benzene, isobutylene, ethylene glycol
monobutyl ether, and other hazardous substances discussed herein
are known to have been and continue to be released to the air,
groundwater, soil, and surface waters.
According to the complaint, the releases and threatened releases of
hazardous substances also present a threat to streams and a buried
valley aquifer. The derailment has resulted in contamination of and
exposure to, at relevant times, massive amounts of hazardous
substances, says the suit.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION provides rail transportation services.
The Company transports raw materials, intermediate products, and
finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest and,
via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel N. Abraham, Esq.
David I. Shroyer, Esq.
Michael T. Rapier, Esq.
COLLEY SHROYER & ABRAHAM CO., LPA
536 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 228-6453
Facsimile: (614) 228-7122
Email: dabraham@csajustice.com
dshroyer@csajustice.com
mrapier@csajustice.com
- and -
D. David Altman,.Esq.
Justin D. Newman, Esq.
Amy J. Leonard, Esq.
ALTMANNEWMAN CO. LPA
15 East 8th Street, Suite 200W
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 721-2180
Facsimile: (513) 721-2299
Email: daltman@environlaw.com
jnewman@environlaw.com
aleonard@environlaw.com
OAK HALL INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak Hall, Inc. The
case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Oak Hall, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02522
(S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Oak Hall -- https://oakhall.com/ -- is a premiere clothing store,
selling upscale brands for both men and women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
OLE MEXICAN: La Barbera Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY LA BARBERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OLE
MEXICAN FOODS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02324-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff Tammy La Barbera submits an application for leave to file
under seal in connection with the following document being filed:
1. Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Class
Certification; and
2. Exhibits to the Declaration of Timothy J. Peter in Support
of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
This Application is supported by the Declaration of Lisa T. Omoto
in Support of Application For Leave to File Under Seal and the
Proposed Order filed, and any other relevant papers and pleadings
on file.
The Plaintiff seeks to file the following documents (or portions
thereof) under seal:
1. Portions of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for
Class Certification; and
2. The following Exhibits to the Declaration of Timothy J.
Peter in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification:
a. Exhibits 1-5, 8-34
b. Exhibit 36
c. Exhibit 37
Ole Mexican manufactures and sells products under the La Banderita
banner.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ncJJMz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa T. Omoto, Esq.
Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com
tpeter@faruqilaw.com
OLE MEXICAN: La Barbera Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY LA BARBERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OLE
MEXICAN FOODS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02324-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed
Classes, designating Plaintiff as Class representative, and
appointing Faruqi 25 & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
consumers, will and hereby does move this Court, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the
following Classes:
-- California Subclass
"All California citizens who purchased any of the Products
at any time beginning four years prior to the filing of
this action on November 6, 2020 until May 1, 2022 ("Class
Period").
-- California Consumer Subclass
"All California citizens who purchased for personal, family
or household purposes any of the Products during the Class
Period."
The Plaintiff further will and does move the Court for an Order
designating her as Class representative and appointing her counsel,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff also requests the Court to order the parties to meet
and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an order
granting class certification, with a proposed plan to notice the
certified Classes.
Ole's attempts to mislead consumers into believing that the
Products are manufactured in Mexico are not limited to the
Products' packaging. Ole also implements a targeted advertising and
marketing campaign designed to resonate with the Hispanic
community, with the primary focus of convincing consumers that the
Products are manufactured in Mexico.
Ole Mexican manufactures and sells products under the La Banderita
banner.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/42uIVmaat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa T. Omoto, Esq.
Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com
tpeter@faruqilaw.com
OPTIMUM LOGISTICS: Zhibri Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS ZHIBRI, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly-situated, v. OPTIMUM LOGISTICS
GROUP LLC, individually, and NP ELBOGEN, individually, and ARI
ELBOGEN, individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-05877-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement
Agreement;
(2) approving the proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
Settlement, the proposed Claim Form and Release, the
proposed Reminder Postcard, and approve the claims
procedure detailed in the Settlement Agreement;
(3) certifying for settlement purposes only, the two
overlapping settlement classes under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b);
(4) appointing him as the Class Representative;
(5) appointing Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel;
(6) appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Claims
Administrator for this settlement; and
(7) approving the Parties' proposed schedule for the filing
of a motion for final approval, for Class Members to
submit a Claim Form, opt out, or file objections to the
proposed settlement, and schedule a Fairness Hearing.
Optimum Logistics is a family owned & operated construction
management group.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Z5FGyOat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (212) 939-7229
E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com
OTG MGMT: Filho Parties to File Schedule for Settlement by April 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAFINIS FILHO, et al., Plaintiffs v. OTG MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-CV-08287 (ALC)(SN)(S.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York orders the parties to meet and confer
and propose a reasonable schedule for filing the motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
The parties participated in a settlement conference and reached
agreement on all outstanding issues. They are ordered to submit
their proposed schedule to the Court by April 4, 2023.
Additionally, the parties are encouraged to consent to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to facilitate the judicial
approval process.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/49zfpxvp from Leagle.com.
PBF HOLDING: Goldstein Sues Over Refinery Mishap
------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 3, 2023 that on February 17, 2017, in
"Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.," the
company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries, PBF Western Region and
Torrance Refining and the manager of the company's Torrance
refinery along with ExxonMobil were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others
similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator (ESP) explosion at the Torrance
refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for
any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended complaint, plaintiffs added an
additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef. On October 15, 2019, the judge
granted certification to two limited classes of property owners
with Youssef as the sole class representative and named plaintiff,
rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on negligence and on
strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions. On February 5, 2021,
the motion for Limited Extension of Discovery Cut-Off and a Motion
by plaintiffs for Leave to File Third Amended complaint were heard
by the court. On May 5, 2021, the court granted plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for
Youssef.
On May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended complaint
(TAC) that contained significant changes and new claims, including
individual claims that were not included in the motion for leave to
amend plaintiffs presented to the court. On June 9, 2021, the
company filed a Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC.
On June 23, 2021, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss/Strike, to which the company filed the company's reply
on July 2, 2021. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC
was held on August 2, 2021 and the court ordered that the TAC be
struck and that the parties meet and confer with respect to the
complaint.
After meeting and conferring, plaintiffs agreed to submit a
corrected TAC with changes reflecting the removal of Youssef and
the substitution of Navarro as the named Plaintiff. On August 23,
2021, the court approved the parties' stipulation to take Navarro's
deposition on September 23, 2021.
Also, on August 23, 2021, the court approved the parties'
stipulation to continue the pretrial dates with the new deadlines.
On October 8, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Motion to Appoint
Navarro as Class Representative. On October 29, 2021, the company
filed the company's opposition to this motion. On November 15,
2021, plaintiffs filed their reply.
On February 8, 2022, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's Motion
to Appoint Navarro as Class Representative but did not act on the
motion. Instead, the court ordered the parties to submit draft
orders for the court's consideration. After considering the
parties' proposed orders, on July 5, 2022, the court issued a final
order ruling that Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Navarro as Class
Representative was denied and decertifying both of Plaintiffs'
proposed Air and Ground Subclasses. The order provided that the
case will proceed with Navarro as the sole plaintiff and required
the parties to meet and confer and propose a schedule for the
remaining pretrial dates and a trial date. On July 19, 2022,
Plaintiff filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals
seeking permission to appeal the District court's decertification
order finding that Navarro is an inadequate class representative.
The company's answer to the petition was filed on July 29, 2022. On
September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying
Plaintiffs' petition for permission to file an interlocutory
appeal, confirming that the case will proceed with Navarro as the
sole plaintiff. On September 27, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a
schedule of pretrial and trial dates with a trial date of July 18,
2023, which was approved by the court. On January 13, 2023, the
Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On January 23, 2023, the Plaintiff filed its opposition to the
Defendants' motion. Defendants' reply to Plaintiff's opposition was
filed on January 30, 2023. Defendants' motion was scheduled to be
heard by the court on February 13, 2023. On February 27, 2023, the
court issued an order granting the company's motion for judgment on
the pleadings and dismissed Plaintiff's trespass claim with
prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his nuisance claims
in conformity with the order if he can do so consistent with Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
PBF Holding Company LLC is an independent petroleum refiner and
supplier based in New Jersey.
PEI WEI: Wins Bid to Decertify Clarke FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CLARKE, v. PEI WEI
ASIAN DINNER LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00800-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge David C. Godbey entered an order granting Pei Wei's motion to
decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action.
Accordingly, the Court decertifies the class and dismisses the
opt-in Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice.
Because Plaintiffs have not shown they are similarly situated, this
case is not suited for collective action.
First, Clarke's testimony would not be representative of the
nontestifying Plaintiffs' experiences.
GMs use their discretion differently in determining when and how
often to perform nonmanagerial work. Further, Clarke worked at a
different location at different time periods than the other
Plaintiffs.
Clarke cannot speak to how the other GMs used their discretion nor
the staffing issues they may or may not have faced. Because
Clarke's testimony would not be representative, fairness
considerations support decertifying the class.
The Plaintiff Sharon Clarke worked as a GM in one of Pei Wei's
Florida restaurants from December 2017 to September 2018.
Clarke claims that GMs spent most of their time performing
nonmanagerial, manual labor as a result of Pei Wei's policy of
understaffing its restaurants. She argues that Pei Wei
misclassified her and other GMs as exempt, salaried employees in
violation of the FLSA.
In April 2020, Clarke filed this case as a putative class action,
seeking unpaid overtime wages under section 216(b) of the FLSA. The
Court subsequently granted Clarke's unopposed motion for
conditional class certification under the lenient first step of the
Lusardi v. Xerox Corporation two-step approach.
The Court approved a class consisting of:
"All General Managers who were classified as exempt by
Defendant, who did not execute arbitration agreements, and
who worked for Defendant at any time from three years prior
to the Order granting Notice to the present.
Pei Wei operates as a chain of restaurants.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42y3cHu at no extra charge.[CC]
PFIZER INC: Class Cert Expert Deposition Extended to April 7
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURLINGTON DRUG CO., INC.
et al v. PFIZER INC. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-02389-PGS-DEA
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Douglas E. Arpert entered an order
granting the joint stipulation requesting deadline extension of
class certification -- expert deposition to April 7, 2023.
Pfizer is an American multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology corporation headquartered on 42nd Street in
Manhattan, New York City.
A copy of the Court's orderdated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/409sQRw at no extra charge.[CC]
PHILO INC: May Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info to Facebook
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMIKA MAY; and MATTHEW KIRSCHENBAUM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHILO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-01394-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2023)
alleges Defendant's violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in the practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party,
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.
("Facebook"), "personally identifiable information" ("PII") about
the specific videos Plaintiffs and similarly situated subscribers
obtain from the Defendant's websites and applications (collectively
"websites") with the Plaintiff's consent.
PHILO, INC. provides internet based contents. The Company offers
online television streaming solutions including music, cartoons,
entertainment, movies, news, and serials. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
Lee Lowther, Esq.
Courtney E. Ross, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
llowther@cbplaw.com
cross@cbplaw.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Email: msobol@lchb.com
- and -
Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
Email: dcuthbertson@lchb.com
PLANSOURCE FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miora Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIM MIORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLANSOURCE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-00548 (M.D. Fla., March 26, 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 Miora was employed by the Defendant as a technical
support.
PLANSOURCE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. provides a cloud-based solution
for benefits administration and human capital management. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
Email: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
PREMIERFIRST HOME: Hourly Employees Get Collective Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMPBELL, et al., v.
PREMIERFIRST HOME HEALTH CARE INC., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00199-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L.
Marbley entered an order granting the parties' joint motion, and
conditionally certifying the following collective action:
"All current and former hourly employees who performed home
health aid services for Defendant between January 20, 2019
and March 13, 2023, who worked more than 37.5 total hours in
any workweek."
The Court also approves the form and substance of the proposed
Notice of Right and the Consent to Join form and Reminder email.
The Court authorizes the Notice Packet to be sent to putative
members of the collective action and authorizes a 45-day "Notice
Period" for individuals to return the Consent Forms.
The Plaintiff's Counsel shall also email the court-approved Notice
packet to the putative collective class on the same day the Notice
is mailed and shall send a Reminder Notice email to the putative
collective action members who have not yet responded within 30 days
of sending the Notice Packet.
The Named Plaintiffs allege under all relevant times all home
health aides employed by PremierFirst were not compensated at a
rate of one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked more than 40 hours.
All opt-in members of the collective class were employed by
PremierFirst as a Home Health Aid during the three-year period
prior to the Complaint.
The shared experience of not receiving overtime compensation
satisfies a "modest factual showing" that employees are similarly
situated. The Named Plaintiffs have demonstrated a colorable basis
for their claim that a class of similarly situated individuals
exists.
The action is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiffs seek to
collect unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JVrFPV at no extra charge.[CC]
PRIDE OF STEEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Mendoza Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
STALIN MEDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. A PRIDE OF STEEL CORPORATION; and ZOLLY
SILVER, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02304 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 26, 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 Mendoza was employed by the Defendants as welder.
A PRIDE OF STEEL CORPORATION provides steel piping, tubing, and
sheet solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jodi Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08648 Tel:
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
PUGET SOUND: Cheney Must File Class Certification Bid by Sept. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheney v. Puget Sound
Energy Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-05942 (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Benjamin H. Settle entered an order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff to move to certify class by Sept. 29, 2023;
-- The defendant's opposition due Nov. 13, 2023; and
-- The plaintiff's reply due Nov. 17, 2023.
The parties are directed to submit a Joint Status Report with a
proposed trial date and an estimated trial length fourteen days
after a decision is reached on class certification.
The nature of suit states Labor Management Relations.
Puget Sound is an energy utility company based in the U.S. state of
Washington that provides electrical power and natural gas to the
Puget Sound region.[CC]
QUALVOICE LLC: Class Settlement in Frederick Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDY FREDERICK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. QUALVOICE LLC, and RODNEY NEDD,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-2689 (MMH) (E.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York grants the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement submitted by Named
Plaintiff Andy Frederick, the opt-in Plaintiff Christopher King,
which was filed on the consent of the Defendants.
Upon preliminary review, Judge Henry finds that the settlement
reached by the parties, as set forth in both the Motion and in the
Settlement Agreement, including the allocation formula, attorneys'
fees and costs, service awards, and other terms, appears to be fair
and reasonable to all involved, suffers from no obvious defects,
was reached after arms-length negotiations between the parties, and
appears to constitute a reasonable compromise of the claims and
defenses in this matter.
The Parties are directed to perform according to the terms of their
Settlement Agreement, except as expressly indicated otherwise by
the Order or other ruling of the Court.
Judge Henry certifies, for settlement purposes only, the settlement
classes, defined as:
a. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), all individuals
employed by the Defendants as cable installers/technicians, who, at
any time during the period of Oct. 10, 2018 to Aug. 31, 2021,
worked for the Defendants in New York (New York Class); and
b. Under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), all individuals employed by
the Defendants as cable installers/technicians, who, at any time
during the period of Oct. 10, 2018 to Aug. 31, 2021, worked for the
Defendants in New York, and who timely submit a Claim Form, thereby
opting into the settlement and, in so doing, releasing their FLSA
claims (Federal Class).
Certification of the New York Class and the Federal Class is
contingent on and for purposes of settlement only.
The Parties' proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action Settlement
and the Claim Form are approved as reasonable means of providing
notice to the New York Class Members under the circumstances. The
New York Class Counsel has designated, the Defendants have
consented to, and Judge Henry appoints Arden Claims Service, LLC to
be responsible for communicating with the members of the New York
Class; disseminating the Notice; accepting and maintaining
documents sent by the New York Class Members; and administering
claims for allocation, according to the formula set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.
By no later than April 14, 2023 (30 days after entry of the Order),
the Defendants are to furnish to the Claims Administrator and the
New York Class Counsel, in electronic form, with a list of all New
York Class Members, identified by: (i) name; (ii) last known
address; (iii) social security/tax identification numbers; and (iv)
weeks worked during the period from Oct. 10, 2018 to Aug. 31,
2021.
The Parties are directed to require the Claims Administrator to
send the Notice and Claim Form to the putative class members by
April 14, 2023 (30 days after entry of the Order).
The Parties may make minor, non-substantive revisions to the Notice
and Claim Form following the issuance of the Order as they deem
appropriate and necessary and insert deadlines and dates consistent
with the Order without requiring further Court involvement.
The cost of notice, and as incurred, processing of claims and
related costs, will be paid from the settlement fund, as provided
for in the Settlement Agreement.
Any potential New York Class Member may opt out of the New York
Class by sending a written, signed statement to the Claims
Administrator that states that they are opting out of the
settlement. This statement will be postmarked or received by June
16, 2023 (60 days after notices are mailed).
Any objection to the settlement must be postmarked or received by
on June 16, 2023 (60 days after notices are mailed). Any individual
who wishes to object to the settlement must still submit a Claim
Form to receive money as part of the settlement.
Any potential New York Class Member may participate in the
settlement by returning to the Claims Administrator his or her
executed Claim Form, which must be postmarked or received by June
16, 2023 ((60) days after notices are mailed).
The Class Counsel will file the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval by Aug. 4, 2023 (date no sooner than 30 days after
deadline for submission of Claim Forms, opt-out statements, and/or
objections as referenced).
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Sept. 14, 2023 (date on
or about 30 days after the Motion deadline) at 10:00 a.m., in
Courtroom 504 at the United States District Court, Eastern District
of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201, or by
videoconference.
To appear at the hearing, the individual must, individually or
through counsel, send their written objection(s) to the
Administrator, no later than June 16, 2023 (60 days after the
initial mailing of Notice to the Class. Any individual who wishes
to appear at the hearing and be heard through counsel must also
affirmatively state so in their objection and must have their
counsel file a notice of appearance by no later than Aug. 31, 2023
(14 days prior to the date of the fairness hearing).
Any New York Class Member who does not make their objection in the
manner and by the time provided will be deemed to have waived such
objection and will be forever foreclosed from making any objection
to the fairness or adequacy of the proposed settlement as set forth
in the Settlement Agreement, to the award of attorneys' fees to New
York Class Counsel, or to service awards to any Plaintiff, unless
otherwise ordered by the Court.
The Claims Administrator will stamp the date received on the
original and send copies of each Claim Form, objection, and/or
Opt-out statement, with supporting documents, to the New York Class
Counsel and the Defendants Counsel, to be delivered no later than
June 13, 2023 (three business following the 60-day submission
period).
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3dtnysue from Leagle.com.
R&L CARRIER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 17
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Albert Johnson, v. R and L
Carriers Shared Services, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01619-MCS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered a scheduling order as follows:
Event Date
Non-expert discovery cut-off Aug. 28, 2023
Expert disclosure (initial) Jul. 31, 2023
Expert disclosure (rebuttal) Aug. 28, 2023
Expert discovery cut-off Sept. 25, 2023
Deadline to file a motion for Jul. 17, 2023
class certification
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FF84kf at no extra charge.[CC]
REVELRY SUPPLY: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revelry Supply, Inc.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Revelry Supply, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02592-JHR (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Revelry Supply, Inc. -- https://revelrysupply.com/ -- provides the
best smell proof & water resistant gear and other off the clock
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
SAM'S CLUB: April 4 Extension to File Class Cert Response Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL YSLAS, et al. v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, and SAM'S CLUB, a
division of WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-WJM-NRN
(D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
Sam's Club's motion for an extension of time to file its response
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification up to and
including April 4, 2023.
The Defendants moves for an extension of time for Sam's Club to
file its response in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification.
The Plaintiffs do not oppose this Motion. On November 16, 2022, and
February 9, 2023, the Colorado District Court ordered that Sam's
Club may obtain pre-conditional certification discovery, including
the limited depositions of Plaintiffs Yslas and Sprague.
The Court further ordered that Sam's Club's response to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Certification would be due March 14, 2023,
in order to allow Sam's Club time to obtain discovery.
Sam's Club timely noticed the depositions of the two Plaintiffs and
by agreement of counsel ultimately scheduled their depositions for
March 7 and 8, 2023.
On the evening of March 6, 2023, Plaintiffs' counsel requested that
Sam's Club reschedule the depositions due to personal family
obligations of Plaintiffs' counsel. The Plaintiffs' counsel further
proposed that in light of the fact that this was at Plaintiffs'
request, Plaintiffs would agree to move the deadline for Sam's
Club's response to the Motion for Conditional Certification. Sam's
Club agreed, and both depositions are now scheduled for Wednesday,
March 15, 2023.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3yWLgsBat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Naomi Beer, Esq.
Camille Papini-Chapla, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG , LLP
1144 15th St., Suite 3300
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 572-6549
E-mail: beern@gtlaw.com
papinichaplac@gtlaw.com
SHINY LUCKY CAT: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shiny Lucky Cat, LLC.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Shiny Lucky Cat, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02499 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shiny Lucky Cat LLC doing business as World of Mirth --
https://worldofmirth.com/ -- as specialize in toys for kids of all
ages at our shop in Richmond, Virginia offering wooden baby toys,
soft plush toys, games, crafts & books from a welcoming local toy
store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SKANSKA USA: Class Certification Scheduling Order Entered in Ndege
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMAKA NDEGE, v. SKANSKA
USA BUILDING, Case No. 1:22-cv-04420-JGK-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. All applications must comply with this Court's Individual
Practices, which are available through the Clerk's Office
or at: https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein
2. All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must
be initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for
all discovery.
3. Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to
Rules 26 through 37 or 45 -- not only must comply with
2.A. of the Court's Individual Practices but also must be
made promptly after the cause for such a motion arises.
In addition, absent extraordinary circumstances no such
application will be considered if made later than 30 days
prior to the close of discovery. Untimely applications
will be denied.
4. Any application for an extension of the time limitations
with respect to any deadlines in this matter must be made
as soon as the cause for the extension becomes known to
the party making the application and must be made in
accordance with 1.E of the Court's Individual Practices.
Skanska is a development and construction company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40va9HP at no extra charge.[CC]
SNAKE OIL PROVISIONS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snake Oil Provisions
LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Snake Oil Provisions LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02506 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Snake Oil Provisions LLC -- https://www.snakeoilprovisions.com/ --
is a men's boutique, specializing in timeless apparel &
footwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK JONES, et al., v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00600-HEA (E.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to following class of inmates:
"All those individuals in the custody of MDOC, now or in the
future, who have been, or will be, diagnosed with chronic
HCV, as that term is defined medically, but who are not
provided treatment with direct acting antiviral drugs."
The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend
Class Discovery Deadline if Class Certification is Granted is
denied as moot.
The Plaintiffs proposed medical subclass do not focus on a single
disability, or even a few disabilities, nor does it identify a
similar reaction or harm to chemical agents. In fact, the
disabilities or potential harm are not distinguished at all; the
subclass proposed is any member who has any disability that makes
them particularly susceptible to serious harm in any way from
chemical agents.
The Plaintiffs' vastly broader class and subclass does not present
common issues capable of common resolution like that in Postawko.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' proposed class and subclass fails to meet
the requirement of commonality and will not be certified.
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Court finds Plaintiffs fail
to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) regarding commonality and have not
demonstrated the proposed class or proposed subclass presents
common issues capable of classwide resolution.
On May 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs Derrick Jones, Jerome Jones and
Darnell Rusan initiated this 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against
the City of St. Louis and certain employees of the St. Louis City
Justice Center ("CJC").
On June 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint
("Complaint"), which alleges the following 42 U.S.C. section 1983
claims against the individual defendants in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
The Plaintiffs bring the class action allegations on their own
behalf and on behalf of all individuals who currently are or will
be detained at the St. Louis City Justice Center and who are at
risk of being subjected to the widespread practice of
excessive force and water shut offs described above.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3JYk9Ujat no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM FIRE: Novak Sues Over Appraisal Clause Application
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas and Stacy Novak, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00283-WCG (E.D. Wis., March 1, 2023), is brought
seeking a declaration on the application of the appraisal clause
and an order compelling State Farm to participate in the appraisal
process as required under the insurance policies and the law of the
State of Wisconsin.
Pursuant to Wis. Admin. Code, State Farm is authorized to include a
standard-form appraisal clause in any fire insurance policy issued
in the State of Wisconsin, or a more liberalized variation thereof.
The standard-form appraisal provides that where an insured and
State Farm disagree "as to the actual cash value or the amount of
loss" then either may demand appraisal to "appraise the loss,
stating separately actual cash value and loss to each item" and to
"determine the amount of actual cash value and loss."
Pursuant to the Administrative Code, State Farm issued insurance
policies in the State of Wisconsin which contained an appraisal
clause. The Plaintiffs and the proposed members of the class
suffered covered losses and a disagreement arose over the amount of
said losses such that Plaintiff and the proposed class members
invoked the appraisal clause in their respective policies.
Although the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class were
entitled to an appraisal to resolve the disagreement over the
amount of loss, State Farm rejected its insureds' appraisal demands
and/or refused to participate in the appraisal process, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are adult citizens of the State of Wisconsin.
State Farm is and was at all relevant times a foreign insurance
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua M. Greatsinger, Esq.
MGW LAW LLP
1425 Memorial Drive
Manitowoc, WI 54220
Phone: (920) 683-5800
Facsimile: (800) 465-1031
Email: jgreatsinger@mgwlawwi.com
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Yancey Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Joseph Yancey,
Simone Gully, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case
No. 4:23-cv-00377 (E.D. Mo., March 24, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a group of
mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nolan D. Drafahl, Esq.
DRAFAHL LAW FIRM
1401 S. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 950
St. Louis, MO 63144
Phone: (314) 300-6260
Fax: (314) 334-8473
Email: nolan@drafahl-law.com
SUPERIOR TANK CO: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superior Tank Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Sergio Rodriguez, as an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Superior Tank Co.,
Inc., Case No. BCV-23-100926 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 24,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Superior Tank -- https://superiortank.com/ -- can help with
everything for water and oil storage; from tank engineering, bolted
& welded tank manufacturing and tank installation.[BN]
TOM JAMES COMPANY: Armstrong Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tom James Company.
The case is styled as John Armstrong, on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tom
James Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00270 (M.D. Tenn., March 27,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Tom James Company -- https://www.tomjames.com/ -- is the world's
largest provider of custom and bespoke clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG GROSSMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Kesselman Must File Class Cert Bid by June 9
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN KESSELMAN, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
et al. v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California
corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-06010-TJH-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting the
stipulation to continue briefing schedule regarding class
certification as follows:
1. All dates in the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order are
vacated;
2. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion(s) for Class
Certification on or before June 9, 2023;
3. The Defendants shall have until June 30, 2023 to take the
deposition of any expert disclosed in connection with
Plaintiffs' Motion(s) for Class Certification;
4. The Defendants shall file their Opposition(s) to any
Motion(s) for Class Certification on or before August 4,
2023;
5. The Plaintiffs shall have until August 25, 2023 to take
the deposition of any 12 expert disclosed in connection
with Defendants' Opposition(s) to any Motion(s) for 13
Class Certification;
6. The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply to any Opposition(s)
to the Motion(s) for Class Certification on or before
September 15, 2023;
7. The hearing date for the Motion(s) for Class Certification
shall be October 6, 2023, and taken under submission;
8. The Final Pre-Trial Conference date of November 20, 2023
is vacated and the Court shall schedule a status
conference for November 20, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.;
9. The last day to hear a motion to amend the pleadings or
add new parties remains July 14, 2023; and
10. Non-expert discovery cut-off shall be 90 days after the
Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion(s) for Class
Certification, however, the potential need for post-
certification non-expert discovery shall not preclude any
party's ability to seek and obtain summary judgment prior
to the Court's order on class certification Toyota retails
and sells new and used automotive. The Company offers
cars, trucks, SUVs, crossovers, hybrids, and hybrid cars.
Toyota Motor North America is the operating subsidiary that
oversees all operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada,
Mexico, and the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42qQTgp at no extra charge.[CC]
TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Anderson's $407K Cy Pres Distribution Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE ANDERSON, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVELEX INSURANCE
SERVICES INC. and TRANSAMERICA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-CV-362 (D. Neb.), Judge John M. Gerrard
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska grants the
parties' joint motion for a cy pres distribution of residual
settlement monies.
The parties' agreement provided for a settlement fund of
$3,237,500, to be distributed by check to settlement class members
on a pro rata basis based on their percentage of the premium paid
under their applicable travel insurance plan. The settlement
agreement further provided that if a portion of the Net Settlement
Fund remains following the distribution by the Settlement
Administrator to the Settlement Class Members of the Settlement
Payments and after the expiration of the Check Cashing Deadline,
then such remaining funds will be distributed to a cy pres
recipient to be agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court.
If the Parties cannot agree, the Court will select a cy pres
recipient.
However, if the amount remaining is of such an amount that, in the
discretion of Lead Counsel and the Settlement Administrator, the
settlement agreement provided that it is feasible that such monies
should be redistributed to the Settlement Class Members who have
previously received a Settlement Payment electronically or cashed
their Settlement checks, then the Lead Counsel may petition the
Court for an Order to distribute the remaining Net Settlement Fund,
net of the Settlement Administrator's additional fees and costs, to
those Settlement Class Members rather than making a cy pres
distribution.
There is $407,004.71 left in the settlement fund and instead of
asking for a supplemental distribution to the class members, the
parties have asked the Court to approve their selection of two cy
pres recipients: Legal Aid of Nebraska and Direct Relief.
Essentially, the only thing Judge Gerrard can say the class members
have in common is that they purchased travel insurance. He is
hard-pressed to think of any charitable organization specifically
devoted to helping people who've made insurably expensive travel
plans. Rather, he agrees that the two organizations chosen by the
parties are sufficiently consistent with the nature of the
underlying action, based on their connection to consumer protection
and international travel and aid.
Legal Aid provides, among other things, services to clients needing
assistance with consumer debts and economic rights. And Direct
Relief provides humanitarian assistance overseas, presumably of
some appeal to those with an interest in international travel.
Accordingly, the parties' joint motion for a cy pres distribution
of residual settlement monies is granted. Judge Gerrard designates
Legal Aid and Direct Relief as the cy pres recipients for the
residual monies remaining after the distribution of the settlement
fund, and directs the settlement administrator to distribute the
residual monies equally to the two designated cy pres recipients.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5zrrjrbf from Leagle.com.
TRINE UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trine University,
Inc. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Trine University, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02576 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Trine University -- https://www.trine.edu/ -- is a private
university in Angola, Indiana, and Fort Wayne, Indiana, with
education centers in Detroit and Phoenix.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
TRUEACCORD CORP: Howard Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as Quentin Howard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-00089-SPB (W.D. Pa., March 25, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is the
industry-leading recovery and collections platform powered by
machine learning and a consumer-friendly digital experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 300
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (203) 246-2887
Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com
TSCHETTER SULZER: Court Won't Review Denial of Bid to Toss Warden
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAWNTE WARDEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TSCHETTER SULZER, P.C., a
Colorado professional corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:22-cv-00271-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denies the
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, or Alternatively to Certify
an Interlocutory Appeal and Stay Pending Appeal.
The civil action pertains to a putative class action under the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). The Court previously denied
the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
The Defendant now seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order,
arguing that (i) there has been an intervening change in
controlling law affecting the Court's subject matter jurisdiction,
(ii) the Court erred by analyzing issues not briefed, and (ii) the
Court erred by misstating the Defendant's arguments. Alternatively,
the Defendant requests that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b), certifies the issue of whether the Stipulation
sent to the Plaintiff during the residential eviction proceeding
was made in connection with the collection of a debt under the
FDCPA.
Regarding the motion for reconsideration, Judge Sweeney finds that
the Plaintiff has alleged reliance to her detriment upon the
Stipulation and Advisement that was sent by the Defendant and
therefore has suffered a concrete injury in fact that results in an
alleged statutory violation and, therefore, has Article III
standing. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. The Defendant's remaining arguments
are unavailing.
As to the motion to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), Judge Sweeney concludes that this
is not the exceedingly rare case where the Defendant cannot resolve
the claims before seeking appellate review. Ultimately, he
determined that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint survived Rule 12
scrutiny and deserved to proceed to discovery. He, in his
discretion, denies the Defendant's motion to certify for
interlocutory appeal.
Accordingly, Judge Sweeney denies the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration or to certify an interlocutory appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/9hnkymjp from Leagle.com.
TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Schmidhauser Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT SCHMIDHAUSER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TUFTS
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-11940-RWZ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of similarly
situated persons pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2),.
Tufts University is a private research university in Medford and
Somerville, Massachusetts.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 13,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TBCUjR
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN FIRM PLLC
529 14th Street NW, Suite #914
Washington, D.C. 20045
Telephone: (866) 298-4150
Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com
- and -
Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq.
Lefebvre | Christopher M. Lefebvre, PC
Pawtucket, RI 02862
Telephone: (401) 728-6060
Facsimile: (401) 728-6534
E-mail: chris@lefebvrelaw.com
TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Schmidhauser Seeks to Impound Class Cert Exhibits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT SCHMIDHAUSER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TUFTS
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-11940-RWZ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order impounding Exhibits 5, 7, 9, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 21 to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, as well as portions of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law
in Support of the Motion.
The information sought to be impounded has been designated as
"Confidential" pursuant to the protective order in this matter. The
Defendant designated the documents and testimony in Exhibits 7, 9,
13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 as confidential.
Exhibit 17, Plaintiff's Expert Report, cites to numerous documents
and information that Defendant designated as confidential. The
Plaintiff is unfamiliar with the basis for Defendant's designations
and takes no position on the confidentiality of the materials in
these exhibits or on whether the materials meet applicable
standards for filing under seal.
The Plaintiff submits this Motion out of an abundance of caution
with respect to these exhibits. The Plaintiff designated Exhibit as
confidential as it contains financial information concerning the
Plaintiff that could, if made public, expose him to the risk of
identity theft.
Tufts University is a private research university in Medford and
Somerville, Massachusetts.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40qgKTD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN FIRM PLLC
529 14th Street NW, Suite #914
Washington, D.C. 20045
Telephone: (866) 298-4150
Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com
- and -
Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq.
CONSUMER & FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F.
LEFEBVRE | CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, PC
Pawtucket, RI 02862
Telephone: (401) 728-6060
Facsimile: (401) 728-6534
E-mail: chris@lefebvrelaw.com
TWIST N PUFF: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twist n Puff, LLC.
The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Twist n Puff, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00271 (W.D.N.Y., March 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Twist n Puff, LLC -- https://twistnpuff.com/ -- is an online smoke
shop and retailer for RAW rolling papers and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
- and -
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
UNITED STATES: Brewer Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dennis Sheldon Brewer filed an appeal from a district
court order dated February 28, 2023 entered in his lawsuit entitled
Dennis Sheldon Brewer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation; Kimberly Cheatle, Director, United States Secret
Service; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security; JANET YELLEN, Secretary, Department of the Treasury;
WILLIAM BURNS, Director; LLOYD AUSTIN, Secretary of Defense;
STEFANIE TOMPKINS, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency; FRANK KENDALL, III, Secretary; CHRISTINE WORMUTH,
Secretary; CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary; Case No. 1:23-cv-00415-UNA,
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The suit is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the
Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff, a resident of New Jersey, alleges that various
federal officials and agencies, members of the New York City Police
Department, and 99 John Does, "have conducted ongoing operations
against [him]" using "novel technologies," which "cause[] emotional
trauma, physical pain, manufactured body movements, thoughts, and
verbalizations." The Plaintiff deems these technologies "more
s[]o[p]histicated than the technology used by U.S. adversaries to
cause and create the symptoms of Havana Syndrome." The Plaintiff
alleges that this purported technology is "an immediate and durable
threat to" both his "life and health" and the safety of many
others. He declares that although "[m]onetary damages cannot be
properly identified at this time due to [defendants'] durable
pattern of misconduct," "[t]he amount in controversy exceeds
$15,000,000."
On February 28, 2023, Judge Trevor N. McFadden entered an order
dismissing the pro se case without prejudice and granting the
application of the Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.
The appellate case is captioned as Dennis Brewer v. Christopher
Wray, et al., Case No. 23-5052, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on March 13,
2023.
Plaintiff-Appellant Dennis Sheldon Brewer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se.[BN]
UNITED STATES: Deadlines in Enriquez v. USCIS Extended by 30 Days
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA SILVIA GUEVARA Enriquez, et al., Plaintiff(s) v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:23-cv-00097-TL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Tana
Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, denies Defendants U.S. Citizenship &
Immigration Services' and Ur M. Jaddou's motion to stay initial
discovery deadlines but extends the initial scheduling deadlines by
30 days.
The lawsuit is a putative class action asserting unreasonable
delays in the processing of certain U.S. immigration applications.
The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Stay filed by
Defendants USCIS and Jaddou, the Director of USCIS, motion to stay
initial discovery deadlines.
The Plaintiffs are a putative class of individuals who allege that
the Defendants have unreasonably delayed the processing of their
applications for a provisional waiver (Form I-601A) in violation of
the Administrative Procedure Act. On Jan. 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification, which was fully briefed as
of March 9.
On February 16, the Court issued an initial scheduling order (the
"February 16 Order") setting the following deadlines:
March 16: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(f)
conference
March 30: Initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1)
April 13: Joint status report and discovery plan pursuant to
FRCP 26(f) and Local Civil Rule (LCR) 26(f)
The next day, the Plaintiffs amended the complaint.
On March 2, the Defendants moved to stay the deadlines set forth in
the February 16 Order until their forthcoming motion to dismiss and
the Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification are
resolved.
The Defendants argue that a stay of the initial discovery deadlines
in the February 16 Order is appropriate because: (1) their
forthcoming motion to dismiss (due March 31, 2023) could dispose of
the action and render discovery moot; (2) it is premature for the
Parties to discuss discovery before they know what portions of the
case remain, if any, following the resolution of the motion to
dismiss and the pending motion for class certification; and (3) for
these reasons, initial discovery preparation would be an
unnecessary burden on the Parties and the Court.
The Plaintiffs counter that, in an action over the Defendants'
delays over the processing of immigration applications, a stay
would only prejudice them further. They also argue that development
of the record is necessary for the Court's resolution of the case,
that a dispositive motion alone is not sufficient to stay
discovery, the Defendants have not filed the motion to dismiss yet,
and the discovery required in the case does not depend on the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion.
Judge Lin holds that the Motion to Stay is premature. She says the
Defendants largely object to the perceived burden of proceeding
with discovery, but the February 16 Order merely sets initial case
deadlines and requires the Parties to cooperate in setting forth
their expectations and desired timeline. It does not require any
substantive discovery to occur at this time; indeed, it is only
after the Parties file a joint status report, as ordered by the
February 16 Order, that the Court will set a discovery schedule.
Judge Lin has considered the competing interests in the case,
including the failure of the Defendants to show that the initial
scheduling deadlines would be burdensome to meet (as opposed to
general discovery itself) and the Plaintiffs' allegation of
continuing and ongoing harm from the Defendants' delay (which forms
the basis of the Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendants), and
finds that a stay is not warranted at this time.
Accordingly, the Motion to Stay is denied without prejudice. To
allow the Parties sufficient time to confer and meet the initial
scheduling deadlines, however, she extends the deadlines set forth
in its February 16 Order as follows:
April 17: FRCP 26(f) conference
May 3: Initial disclosures
May 13: Joint status report and discovery plan
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4cy4fddr from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Hunter Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ELIZABETH HUNTER filed an appeal from the District
Court's January 12, 2023 Opinion and Order entered in the lawsuit
entitled ELIZABETH HUNTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-00474-AA, in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
filed on March 29, 2021, is a class action brought by 33 Plaintiffs
seeking to put an end to the U.S. Department of Education's
complicity in the abuses and unsafe conditions thousands of LGBTQ+
students endure at hundreds of taxpayer-funded, religious colleges
and universities. The Plaintiffs seek safety and justice for
themselves and for the countless sexual and gender minority
students whose oppression, fueled by government funding, and
unrestrained by government intervention, persists with injurious
consequences to mind, body and soul.
According to the complaint, the Department's inaction leaves
students unprotected from the harms of conversion therapy,
expulsion, denial of housing and healthcare, sexual and physical
abuse and harassment, as well as the less visible, but no less
damaging, consequences of institutionalized shame, fear, anxiety
and loneliness. The U.S. Department of Education is duty-bound by
Title IX and the U.S. Constitution to protect sexual and gender
minority students at taxpayer-funded colleges and universities,
including private and religious educational institutions that
receive federal funding, says the suit.
On January 12, 2023, Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an Opinion and
Order granting Defendants' August 9, 2021 motion to dismiss;
denying Plaintiffs' December 2, 2021 motion to amend; denying
Plaintiffs' August 5, 2021 motion for preliminary injunction; and
granting in part Defendant-Intervenors' November 2, 2021 joint
motion to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Elizabeth Hunter, et al. v.
USEDU, et al., Case No. 23-35174, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 14, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Violet Adams, Victoria Joy Bacon, Sabrina
Bradford, Hayden Brown, Consolata Bryant, Devin Bryant, Brooke C.,
Gary Campbell, Tristan Campbell, Natalie Carter, Saren Criag, Alex
Duron, Mortimer Halligan, Kalie Hargrove, Andrew Hartzler, Rachel
Held, Lauren Hoekstra, Chandler Horning, Elizabeth Hunter, Jonathan
Jones, Jamie Lord, Ashtin Markowski, Cameron Martinez, Mackenzie
McCann, Darren McDonald, Scott McSwain, Jaycen Montgomery, Rachel
Moulton, Journey Mueller, Alice Murphy, Veronica Bonifacio Penales,
Jake Picker, Danielle Powell, Zayn Silva, Clover St. Hubert, Megan
Steffen, Daniel Tidwell-Davis, Justin Tidwell-Davis, Spencer J.
Vigil, Lucas Wilson and Audrey Wojnarowisch Mediation Questionnaire
was due on March 21, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by April 12, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on May 11, 2023;
-- Appellants Violet Adams, Victoria Joy Bacon, Sabrina
Bradford, Hayden Brown, Consolata Bryant, Devin Bryant, Brooke C.,
Gary Campbell, Tristan Campbell, Natalie Carter, Saren Criag, Alex
Duron, Mortimer Halligan, Kalie Hargrove, Andrew Hartzler, Rachel
Held, Lauren Hoekstra, Chandler Horning, Elizabeth Hunter, Jonathan
Jones, Jamie Lord, Ashtin Markowski, Cameron Martinez, Mackenzie
McCann, Darren McDonald, Scott McSwain, Jaycen Montgomery, Rachel
Moulton, Journey Mueller, Alice Murphy, Veronica Bonifacio Penales,
Jake Picker, Danielle Powell, Zayn Silva, Clover St. Hubert, Megan
Steffen, Daniel Tidwell-Davis, Justin Tidwell-Davis, Spencer J.
Vigil, Lucas Wilson and Audrey Wojnarowisch opening brief is due on
June 20, 2023;
-- Appellees Council for Christian Colleges & Universities,
Catherine E. Lhamon, Phoenix Seminary, U.S. Department of
Education, Western Baptist College and William Jessup University
answering brief is due on July 20, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ELIZABETH HUNTER, et al., are represented
by:
Joseph Cline Baxter, Esq.
Paul J.C. Southwick, Esq.
PAUL SOUTHWICK LAW, LLC
8532 N Invanhoe Street, Suite 208
Portland, OR 97203
Telephone: (208) 709-8635
- and -
Alletta S. Brenner, Esq.
PERKINS COIE, LLP
1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
Telephone: (503) 727-2076
- and -
Timothy R. Volpert, Esq.
TIM VOLPERT, PC
3439 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 343
Portland, OR 97214
Telephone: (503) 703-9054
Defendants-Appellees U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., are
represented by:
Brian Matthew Boynton, Esq.
Melissa N. Patterson, Esq.
DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-4015
- and -
Carol Federighi, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-1903
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Hoelzer Loses Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA HOELZER and all
similarly situated individuals, v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01072-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs
entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
Pleadings.
2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class;
3. denying appointment of class counsel; and
4. dismissing action.
In sum, the Court finds that it was not clearly established, under
the circumstances faced by Defendant Lebold, that terminating
Plaintiff would violate her due process rights in a protected
property interest. Given the specific context of this case, the
Court does not find that the state of the law at the time of the
events in question gave Defendant Lebold "fair warning" that his
conduct was unconstitutional.
On March 31, 2022, this Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting in part and denying in part University and
Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The only claim by
Plaintiff Martha Hoelzer which remains in this action is
her due process claim arising under 18 U.S.C. section 1983.
Th Plaintiff Martha Hoelzer is a former employee of the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ("UNC-CH"), who worked for the
university off and on from 2002 until her termination on February
22, 2019.
In December 2015, the Plaintiff sought a new position with the UNC
Global Organization as a development officer.On May 31, 2016, the
Plaintiff was informed that she received the UNC Global development
position, and on August 29, 2016, began her new role as a full-time
employee at UNC Global.
The University of North Carolina Board of Governors, known more
commonly as the UNC Board of Governors, is the governing body of
the University of North Carolina system. The board is composed of
24 members, selected by the state legislature.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z7gs37 at no extra charge.[CC]
VERMONT MUTUAL: Martins Loses Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN MARTINS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VERMONT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-12360-FDS (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV entered an order:
1. denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
complaint;
2. denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification;
3. denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and
4. granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
This is a putative class action concerning the scope of coverage of
standard Massachusetts automobile policies. Jurisdiction is based
on diversity of citizenship.
The Plaintiff Jonathan Martins alleges that defendant Vermont
Mutual Insurance Company improperly failed to pay damages for the
"inherent diminution in value" of his automobile after an accident
caused by one of its insureds. "Inherent diminution in value"
("IDV") refers to the stigma attached to a vehicle involved in an
accident, which typically lowers the vehicle's market value even
after repairs have been made. He seeks money damages and a
declaratory judgment that Massachusetts law requires insurers such
as Vermont Mutual to pay such claims to third-party claimants.
Accordingly, both parties are deemed to have cross-moved for
summary judgment as to the two remaining counts (for breach of
contract and for declaratory relief), and plaintiff is deemed to
have moved for class certification, as he seeks to represent other
claimants whose vehicles have been damaged by drivers insured by
Vermont Mutual and who have not been paid IDV damages. As noted,
plaintiff also seeks to amend his complaint to add claims under
Chapters 93A and 176D.
On June 18, 2016, Jonathan Martins purchased a 2015 Nissan Altima
for $20,472. On January 23, 2017, Martins's vehicle was damaged
when it collided with a vehicle being driven by Elhadjmamado
Dansoko.
Vermont is a mutual property/casualty insurers in the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lz2TM6 at no extra charge.[CC]
VI-JON LLC: Moreno Must File Fourth Amended Complaint by April 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY MORENO, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VI-JON, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20cv1446 JM (BGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California grants
Vi-Jon's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.
On July 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a consumer class action
complaint against Defendant, seeking damages and equitable relief
for the alleged false and misleading labeling on the Defendant's
hand sanitizing products. The complaint alleged violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE
Section 17200, et seq; violation of California's False Advertising
Law ("FAL"), CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Section 17500, et seq;
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
CAL. CIV. CODE Section 1770, et seq; breach of warranty; and
quasi-contract.
On Sept. 14, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint.
The FAC asserted FAL, UCL, CLRA, breach of express warranty, and
quasi-contract claims against Defendant for misrepresenting and
misleading consumers regarding the hand sanitizing products. On
March 3, 2021, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
with leave to
On March 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint.
The SAC asserted FAL, UCL, CLRA, breach of express warranty, breach
of implied warranty, and quasi-contract claims against the
Defendant for misrepresenting and misleading consumers regarding
the hand sanitizing products. On Dec. 6, 2021, the Court granted
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the SAC under Rule 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). Since it was the second time leave to amended had been
given, the Clerk of Court was ordered to close the case. The
Plaintiff promptly appealed.
In a memorandum disposition, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
granting dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and vacated the
Court's 12(b)(6) ruling. It directed that the Plaintiff be granted
leave to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC").
On Jan. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the TAC. On Jan. 24, 2023,
the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff filed his
opposition to the motion and the Defendant filed its reply.
The TAC asserts claims under the FAL, UCL, CLRA, as well as breach
of express warranty and quasi-contract claims against the Defendant
for misrepresenting and misleading consumers regarding the hand
sanitizers. It alleges the Representations are false and misleading
because the Products "do not kill" 99.99% of germs or
disease-causing organisms.
The Plaintiff also alleges the Products are misbranded and are not
legally saleable. He purchased each of the branded Products one or
more times in stores in San Diego between November 2019 through
February 20205. Had he known at the time of purchase that the
Representations were false, the Plaintiff alleges he would not have
purchased the Products, or alternatively, would have purchased them
on different terms.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a California Class consisting of
"all citizens of California who, within four years prior to the
filing of the initial Complaint, purchased Defendant's Products and
who did not claim any personal injury from using the Products." The
TAC's Prayer for Relief includes, among other things, an order for
restitution, disgorgement, and an award of compensatory, monetary
and punitive damages.
Presently before the court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b), and 12(b)(6). The Defendant's main
argument in support of dismissal is that because the Plaintiff
failed to follow the Ninth Circuit's mandate the TAC should be
dismissed for this reason alone.
Judge Miller is persuaded by the Defendant's primary argument. The
allegations focus on all germs and what germs can be transmitted by
hands yet fail to focus upon germs commonly found on hands and what
that means to the reasonable consumer. For this reason alone, Judge
Miller grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.
The Plaintiff has up to and including April 10, 2023, to file the
Fourth Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p86e3j6 from Leagle.com.
VILLAGE CAREGIVING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 1
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BUTLER, et al.,
v. VILLAGE CAREGIVING, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04359-ALM-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a
preliminary pretrial order as follows:
-- Any initial disclosures shall be April 21, 2023
made by:
-- Any motion for class certification Sept. 1, 2023
shall be filed by:
This is a collective and class action for alleged unpaid overtime
under the FLSA and Ohio law. There are also related claims for
purported recordkeeping violations and failure to pay all wages
promptly under Ohio law.
All discovery shall be completed within 12 months after an order on
conditional certification.
For purposes of complying with this order, all parties shall
schedule their discovery in such a way as to require all responses
to discovery to be served prior to the cut-off date, and shall file
any motions relating to discovery within the discovery period
unless it is impossible or impractical to do so.
Any dispositive motions shall be filed within 45 days after the
close of discovery. The parties do not anticipate the need for
expert testimony.
The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand within 30 days after
production of all payroll and timekeeping records after the notice
period has closed. The Defendant will respond within 30 days after
receiving the Plaintiff's demand .
Village Caregiving is a privately held, non-medical home health
care agency with locations in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Kentucky.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ltaN9T at no extra charge.[CC]
VISTAMAR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Argueta Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISBER PEREZ ARGUETA; FERNANDO ROMERO REYES; and JOSE REYES
RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VISTAMAR RESTAURANT & LOUNGE CORP. d/b/a
VISTAMAR RESTAURANT; and RAFAEL ROBLES, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02559 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waitstaff.
VISTAMAR RESTAURANT & LOUNGE CORP. d/b/a VISTAMAR RESTAURANT owns
and operates a restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
Camille A. Sanchez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
sanchez@pechmanlaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Court Dismisses Pheiffer Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pheiffer v. Volkswagen AG
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00045-RDA-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge
Rossie D. Alston, Jr. entered an order granting the motion to
dismiss and dismissing without prejudice Amended Complaint as to
both counts of the Amended Complaint.
Because the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint does not adequately
allege that Volkswagen AG "directly or indirectly induce[d] the
acts or acts constituting the violation or cause of action," and
because the Plaintiffs have not yet established section 10(b)
liability against the Individual the Defendants, this Court finds
no grounds for section 20(a) liability.
Lead the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that VWGoA and the
Individual the Defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The Complaint also alleges
that Volkswagen AG and the Individual the Defendants violated
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of VWGoA and
are therefore directly liable for the alleged actions taken by
VWGoA in violation of section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
Volkswagen AG, an automotive Original Equipment Manufacturer, is a
German corporation with its principal place of business in
Wolfsburg, Germany.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42wv1jC at no extra charge.[CC]
WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Daniel Draney, et al., filed an appeal from a district
court order dated Feb. 23, 2023 and judgment dated Feb. 24, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled DANIEL DRANEY et al. v. WESTCO
CHEMICALS, INC. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
On February 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint,
asserting individual and class claims arising from two Westco
retirement plans: the 401(k) Plan and a separate Defined Benefit
Pension Plan.
The Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants for:
(1) breach of duty of prudence, 29 U.S.C. 3 section 1104(a)
(1)(B);
(2) breach of duty of loyalty, 29 U.S.C. section 1104(a)(1)
(A); and
(3) failing to administer the 401(k) Plan in accordance with
its terms, 29 U.S.C. section 1103.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Otis D. Wright, II entered an order on Feb. 23, 2023 granting a
motion for summary judgment, denying as moot a motion to certify
class, and dismissing the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint.
The Court dismissed the first amended complaint:
(1) with prejudice as to Draney's and Ibarra's individual
claims; and
(2) without prejudice as to the class claims.
The Plaintiffs' Motion to certify class was denied as moot. On Feb.
24, Judgment was entered holding that (1) Defendants Westco
Chemicals, Inc.; Ezekiel "Alan" Zwillinger; and Steven Zwillinger
shall have JUDGMENT in their favor; (2) Plaintiffs Daniel Draney
and Lorenzo Ibarra shall recover nothing from Defendants; (3) The
individual claims of Plaintiffs Daniel Draney and Lorenzo Ibarra as
asserted in the First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED on the merits
and with prejudice; and (4) The putative class claims as asserted
in the First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Draney, et al. v. Westco
Chemicals, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55226, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 13, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Daniel Draney and Lorenzo Ibarra Mediation
Questionnaire was due March 20, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by April 10, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on May 8, 2023;
-- Appellants Daniel Draney and Lorenzo Ibarra opening brief is
due on June 20, 2023;
-- Appellees Westco Chemicals, Inc., Ezekiel Zwillinger and
Steven Zwillinger answering brief is due on July 17, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIEL DRANEY and LORENZO IBARRA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Michael Craig McKay, Esq.
MCKAY LAW LLC
5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Telephone: (480) 681-7000
Defendants-Appellees WESTCO CHEMICALS, INC., et al., are
represented by:
Joseph C. Faucher, Esq.
TRUCKER HUSS, APC
135 Main Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 788-3111
WESTERN GOVERNORS: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Governors
University. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Western Governors
University, Case No. 1:23-cv-02577 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Western Governors University -- https://www.wgu.edu/ -- is an
online university where you can earn an affordable, accredited,
career-focused college degree at an accelerated pace.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Tjahjono Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westinghouse Air
Brake Technologies Corporation. The case is styled as Hokky
Tjahjono, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cerebral, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00531-WSS (W.D. Pa.,
March 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (Wabtec) --
https://www.wabteccorp.com/ -- is a leading global provider of
equipment, systems, digital solutions, and value-added
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
WHELAN EVENT: Class Action Settlement in Gorman Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD GORMAN, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WHELAN EVENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC.,Case No. 8:20-cv-02275-CEH-AEP
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an
order granting final approval to class action settlement:
-- The Court finds that the prerequisites for a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b), as
well as Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), have been satisfied for
settlement purposes, only, for each Settlement Class
Member.
-- Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, this Court hereby finally
certifies the Settlement Class, as identified in the
Settlement Agreement.
-- The Court finds the requirements of the Class Action
Fairness Act have been satisfied.
-- The Court appoints attorneys Luis A. Cabassa and Brandon J.
Hill of the law firm Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., and Craig
C. Marchiando of Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
-- Further, Named Plaintiff Edward Gorman shall continue
serving as the Class Representative.
On October 17, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
proposed Class Action Settlement set forth in the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Parties' Amended
Class Settlement Agreement.
The Court provisionally certified the case for Settlement purposes,
approved the procedure for giving Class Notice to the Settlement
Class Members, and scheduled a final fairness hearing which took
place on February 10, 2023.
Following the final fairness hearing, the Court finds that the
Notice to the Settlement Class substantially in the form approved
by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order was given in the
manner ordered by the Court, constitutes the best practicable
notice, and was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Whelan provides a full array of event staffing and crowd management
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yXptkD at no extra charge.[CC]
YOUTUBE LLC: Bid to Seal Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SCHNEIDER, UNIGLOBE
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, and AST PUBLISHING LTD., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs submit
to the Court an interim administrative motion to file under seal
the unredacted versions of their Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification and related declaration and exhibits, portions
of which contain information designated as Confidential or Highly
Confidential by the parties.
The Plaintiffs do not anticipate moving to seal any of the
documents Plaintiffs designated as Confidential or Highly
Confidential.
The joint sealing motion will be filed two weeks after the final
reply related to the aforementioned motions is submitted.
Youtube provides on-line information retrieval services on a
contract or fee basis.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z5GS5g at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip C. Korologos, Esq.
Joanna Wright, Esq.
Jeffrey Waldron, Esq.
Joshua Irwin Schiller, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 446-2300
Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
E-mail: pkorologos@bsfllp.com
jwright@bsfllp.com
jwaldron@bsfllp.com
jischiller@bsfllp.com
- and -
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
E-mail: zelcs@koreintillery.com
rewing@koreintillery.com
rcortazar@koreintillery.com
- and -
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-4844
Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
sberezney@koreintillery.com
cokeefe@koreintillery.com
ZOLL MEDICAL: Becker Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoll Medical
Corporation. The case is styled as Gary Becker, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zoll Medical
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10653 (D. Mass., March 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
ZOLL Medical Corporation -- https://www.zoll.com/ -- an Asahi Kasei
Group Company, develops and markets medical devices and software
solutions that help advance emergency care and save lives, while
increasing clinical and operational efficiencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Maselek, Jr., Esq.
MCDONOUGH COHEN & MASELEK LLP
205B Willow Street, 2nd Floor
South Hamilton, MA 01982
Phone: (617) 742-6520
Fax: (617) 742-1393
Email: rmaselek@mcmlawfirm.com
ZUFFA LLC: Bloom Must File Class Cert Bid by June 2
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVERETT BLOOM, on behalf
of himself, and those similarly situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00412-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Brenda Weksler
entered an order as follows:
-- The deadline for the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and Disclosure of Expert(s) and Expert
Report(s) Relating to Class Certification will be due by
June 2, 2023;
-- The Defendant's Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification and Disclosure of Expert(s) and Expert
Report(s) Relating to Class Certification will be due by
August 1, 2023;
-- The Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class
Certification and Rebuttal Expert Report(s) in Support of
Class Certification will be due by September 29, 2023
(i.e., 59 days after Zuffa's Opposition is filed);
Zuffa is an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed
martial arts.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FL0hBI at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Markman Law, Esq.
David Markman, Esq.
4484 S. Pecos Rd. Suite #130
Las Vegas NV 89121
Telephone: (702) 843-5899
Facsimile: (702) 843-6010
E-mail: David@Markmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. Mccrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
Kali Backer, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
The Defendant is represented by:
J. Colby Williams, Esq.
CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
710 South Seventh Street, Suite A
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: (702) 382-5222
Facsimile: (702) 382-0540
E-mail: jcw@cwlawlv.com
- and -
Victor Jih, Esq.
Susan K. Leader, Esq.
Ali Rabbani, Esq.
Stephanie V. Balitzer, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
Telephone: (323) 210-2900
Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
E-mail: vjih@wsgr.com
sleader@wsgr.com
arabbani@wsgr.com
sbalitzer@wsgr.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***