/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230411.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 11, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 73
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, James Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Snow Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Bothwell AFFF Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
3M COMPANY: Chiles AFFF Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
ADVANCED CAPITAL: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, McKnight Suit Says
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Roksandic Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
ASSURANCE IQ: Chung Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AXA EQUITABLE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Malek Class Complaint
BARNEY INC: Gillogly Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BOTANIC TONICS: Torres Sues Over Tonics' Concealed Side Effects
BW PACKAGING: Aguirre Suit Remanded to California Superior Court
CABELA'S INC: Faces Meta Pixel Privacy Class Action in Pennsylvania
CITY HIVE INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COCA-COLA CO: Minute Maid Juice's Label "False," Reynolds Says
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Irwin Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
CULTURALINK LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Interpreters, Pacheco Says
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Class Suit
DERMLITE LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIAMOND WIRELESS INC: Green Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DQ LLC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EPSILON SYSTEMS: Albert Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
EXIT SIGN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EXP REALTY LLC: Holton Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
FARMHOUSE POTTERY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIVE STAR: Vasquez Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Calif.
FORD MOTOR: Court Dismisses Pacheco's Vehicle Consumer Claims
FOTODIOX INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Final Judgment & Order Issued in Data Breach Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Certifies Bosch Fuel Pump Class Action
GENERAL STORE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Improper Health Data Disclosure
GREAT JONES SPA: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GREATER NEW YORK: Directives Led to COVID Deaths, Newman Claims
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Medina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HELLO PRODUCTS: Flaherty Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
HOUSE OF LASHES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HYPERFLY INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ISABELA'S MEXICAN: Angel Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages Under FLSA
JACQUES TORRES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JOSEPH BIDEN JR: Bosch Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
KAHRS LAW: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: $185MM Class Deal in Senne Suit Wins Final Nod
KETTLEMANS BAGEL: Lopez Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & NJWHL
KODIAK LEATHER: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KOROSEAL INTERIOR: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LA TOURANGELLE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LA-Z-BOY INC: Carroll Sues Over Video Privacy Violations
LEAD SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Awal Suit Alleges
LLR INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in Sales Tax Suit
LUMINAIRE (MIAMI): Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
M&B RESTAURANT: Faces Franco Class Suit Over Labor Code Violations
MA LUXURY DESIGN: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MARIGOLD & GREY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARQUEE MERCHANDISE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MDL 3010: Court Declines Farrell's Discovery Bid in Antitrust Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Winkelman Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Hollins Confirmed
NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Rosales Suit OK'd
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Moehrl's 2 Classes of Home Sellers Certified
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: June 5 Trial Set for Hall of Fame Game Suit
NATIONAL GRID: Working Solutions Represents Utility Workers in Suit
NAV TECHNOLOGIES: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Texas
NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Mardikian Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NISSAN SHAPIRO: Court Dismisses Huebner's Amended FDCPA Complaint
O'GRADY-PEYTON: Garchitorena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OLDCASTLE SERVICES: Jermon Minor Will Substitute as Plaintiff
ONLINE MEAT AND SEAFOOD: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PACIFIC GAS: Scott Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
PACIFIC GREEN ENERGY: Mederos Files Suit in S.D. Florida
PACKED PARTY INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAQUETERIA HR: Faces Rosa Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
PLAYTIKA HOLDING UK: Kormos Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Callahan Sues Over Mislabeled Detergent Products
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Sixth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Cowley Suit
RANDOLPH ENGINEERING: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Limits New Contracts With Class Members
ROCKY KNOLL MHC: Moynihan Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
ROOSEVELT TROPICAL: Chavez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
SAN DIEGO AMERICAN HEALTH: Ramos Suit Removed to S.D. California
SANDGRENS LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAZERAC COMPANY: Pizzaro Files Suit in S.D. New York
SCHUYLKILL VALLEY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEA CLUB OCEAN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chirino Alleges
SELECTED FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Arguelles Says
SHARKY'S COLDWATER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Alcantar Alleges
SHOP DOG & COMPANY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SIGNATURE BANK: Singh Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
SUMO LOGIC: Faces Bushansky Suit Over Proposed Merger Sub
SYNGENTA CROP: Reduced Competition in CPPs Market, Mercury Claims
T.S. MA CHINESE: Jeronimo Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA
T.S.W. RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bosmeniel Alleges
TARGET CORPORATION: Perez Sues Over 25% Drop of Common Stock Price
TENNESSEE ARTISAN: Bid for Leave to File Amended Greer Suit Denied
TERRAN LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TMX FINANCE: Domino Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Kolstedt Suit Says
TMX FINANCE: Pickens Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
TMX FINANCE: Ross Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
TRANSFORM SR BRANDS: Rodriguez Sues Over Secret Reporting of PII
TRI-STAR ENERGY: Milson Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Store Employees
TWENTY SIDED STORE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
UNIFIN INC: Langner Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Xirum v. ICE
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Allowed to Use Pseudonym in Suit v. DHS
UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK: Sexual Assault Class Suit Discontinued
UTOPIAN SUPPORT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonano Suit Alleges
VELASCA NEW YORK: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALLYS HOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrientos Alleges
YELLOW BYRD: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION: Brown Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
ZUFFA LLC: Reza Suit Moved From California to District of Nevada
[*] Much Shelist Plaintiff Earns Summary Judgment in Labor Suit
[*] Western Australia's New Class Actions Regime Takes Effect
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, James Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND JAMES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-01246-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 29,
2023) is a class action alleging that the Defendants collectively
designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released,
trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold,
and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce, aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly
toxic and bio persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), which would expose end users of the product to the risks
associated with PFAS.
The Defendants allegedly designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.
Mr. James is a resident and citizen of Phoenix, Arizona. 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. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with leukemia cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Snow Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wade Snow v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-01247-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 29, 2023) is a class action
alleging that the Defendants collectively designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users,
produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise
released into the stream of commerce, aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio
persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which would
expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
The Defendants allegedly designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.
Mr. Snow is a resident and citizen of Chehalis, Washington. 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. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with thymus cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
product, says the suit.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Bothwell AFFF Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
---------------------------------------------------
JIMMIE L. BOTHWELL, et al., v. 3M COMPANY. et al., Case No.
01-CV-2023-900464 (Filed Feb. 7, 2023), was removed from the
Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County,
Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on March 29, 2023.
The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-01240-RMG to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or
selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter
turnout gear ("TOG) that Plaintiffs allege were used in
firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold
AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"),
including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges
that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF
in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury
"as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products"
AFFF sold to and used by the U.S. military must appear on the
Department of Defense (DoD) Qualified Products List and comply with
the military’s rigorous specifications (MilSpec). Thus, to the
extent that Plaintiffs allegedly were exposed in military settings
to PFAS from AFFF manufactured by 3M, those PFAS derived from
MilSpec AFFF.
Under the federal "government contractor" defense recognized in
Boyle v. United Technologies. Corp., 3M is immune to tort liability
for its design and manufacture of MilSpec AFFF and its provision of
warnings for the product. Under the federal officer removal
statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1442(a)(1), 3M is entitled to remove
this action in order to have its federal defense adjudicated in a
federal forum.
The Plaintiffs include THOMAS JOHN BIGFORD; JOSEPH FRANK BILSKI;
RANDALL LEE BIRD; RICHARD BISCOITO; WESLEY SCOTT BITNER; RICHARD
CHARLES BIZEK; DAVID ALLEN BLACKLEDGE; ROBERT E. BLACKWELDER;
WILLIAM CECIL BLAIR; JOSEPH MITCHELL BLAKE JR.; HOWARD BURT BLAKE;
TROY BLANCHARD; DOUGLAS C. BLANCHARD; GARY MARTIN BLASINGAME;
LAWRENCE EVIN BLIEKA; TERRENCE L. BLOOME; DON BOGDANOVICH; ELLIS
BOLDON; GORDON LYNN BONNER; WILLIAM LOUIS BOONE; JAMES STEPHEN
BOOTHBY; DANIEL EDWARD OOTON; DAVID MICHAEL BORAGINE; GLENN EDWARD
BORST; PHILIP HERBERT BORUSZEWSKI; TIMOTHY JAMES BOSMAN; ROBERT
BOWDEN; MARVELL TYRONE BOWMAN; WELDON FAIRCHILD BOWMAN III; WALTER
IRA BOWMAN; CHRISTOPHER MARK BOYLER; GARY DEAN BRABANT; PETER JOHN
BRACHMANN JR; MICHAEL BRADDOCK; JAMES ELSWORTH BRADFORD; KENNETH
WILLIAM BRANDES; MARLON L. BRANDON; LONNIE PAUL BRANDT; WILLIAM
ANTHONY BRANHAM; WINSTON EUGENE BRASHER JR.; JAMES NORMAN BRASSARD;
TODD MICHAEL BRAUD; WILLIAM WAYNE BRAXTON; STEVEN LEE BREARLEY;
JOSEPH C BREECH; WILLIS ROBERT BREEDEN; BRYAN RAY BREWER; ERNA DARE
BRIGHT JR.; DAVID BRIGMAN JR.; RANDY JAMES BRINSON; CHARLES EUGENE
BRITT; BRADY DON BROOKE; DONALD G. BROOKS; GLEN WARREN BROOKS; GARY
PAUL BROUGHTON; STEVE BROUSSARD; BRUCE VICTOR BROWER; CORNELIUS
QUINTIN BROWN; AVERELL STEPHEN BROWN; WILLIAM FRANKLIN BROWN;
CHARLES RAYMOND BROWN; JAMES EUGENE BROWN; WILLIAM BERGEN BROWN;
JEFFREY CHARLES BROWN; GIOVANNI MICHELLE BROWN; CLINTON KEITH BROWN
SR.; JAMES GARY BROWN; DAVID EARL BROWN SR.; JOHN BROWN; RICHARD
JEAN BROWN JR.; HAROLD GREGORY BROWN SR; GARY MICHAEL BROWN; TERRY
LEE BROWN; TODD MATTHEW BROWN; GEORGE JOSEPH BROZ II; JOSEPH
ALEXANDER BRUCE; BLAIR BRUFFETT; WILLIS EDWARD BRUMLEY ; CHARLES
MOULTON BRUNO; SENATOR MADISON BRUNSON; JOHN JOSEPH BRUNT; JAMES
FRANCIS BRUSCO; WAYNE JEUNINGS BRYAN; CHARLES KENNETH BUCCINO;
ROGER RAY BUCKINGHAM; LARRY P. BUCKLEY; RHETT DAVID BUEHLER;
TEODORO BUENROSTRO SR.; RICHARD BULACAN; DAROLD EUGENE BUNCE;
WILLIAM PAUL BUQUET SR.; JAMES RICHARD BURG; KEVIN VANCE BURGESS;
NORMAN BURGETT; NELSON BLAINE BURK; ALAN WALTER BURKE; MICHAEL
JOSEPH BURKE; WILLIAM THOMAS BURLEY; HAROLD WILLIAMS BURNS; THOMAS
J. BURNS SR.; MARK EDWARD BURNS; LESLIE WAYNE BUSBY; STEVEN MICHAEL
BUSH; ROBERT LEE BUSHONG; STEVE NIEL BUTLER; BOBBY RICHARD BUTLER;
STEWART BRIAN BUTLER; GERALD LAWRANCE BUTTON; MEREL BRADFORD BUTTS;
LLOYD CARTER BYRD; FLORENCIO VILLA CABALLERO; RAYMOND GEORGE CABANA
JR; CHARLES RICHARD CABLE; JOSEPH EUGENE CAFFEY; ARTHUR LAMAR
CAINION SR.; EDDIE DARRIS CALDWELL; DENNIS CALDWELL; JACOB C.
CALLIER JR.; DAVID CAMACHO; CHARLES JOHN CAMARDA III; MARVIN ODELL
CAMPBELL; DOUGLAS JAMES CAMPBELL; JOHNNY CAMPOS; ALI ABDULLAH
CANADA; THOMAS LEE CANNON.
The Defendants include v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT ORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
gary@elglaw.com
kmckie@elglaw.com
Defendant 3M Company is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Benjamin P. Harmon, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
bharmon@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Chiles AFFF Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
-------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE JEROME CHILES, et al., v. 3M COMPANY. et al., Case No.
01-CV-2023-900476 (Filed Feb. 8, 2023), was removed from the
Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County,
Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on March 29, 2023.
The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-01238-RMG to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or
selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter
turnout gear that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting
activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold
AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"),
including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges
that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF
in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury
"as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products"
AFFF sold to and used by the U.S. military must appear on the
Department of Defense (DoD) Qualified Products List and comply with
the military’s rigorous specifications (MilSpec). Thus, to the
extent that Plaintiffs allegedly were exposed in military settings
to PFAS from AFFF manufactured by 3M, those PFAS derived from
MilSpec AFFF.
Under the federal "government contractor" defense recognized in
Boyle v. United Technologies. Corp., 3M is immune to tort liability
for its design and manufacture of MilSpec AFFF and its provision of
warnings for the product. Under the federal officer removal
statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1442(a)(1), 3M is entitled to remove
this action in order to have its federal defense adjudicated in a
federal forum.
The Plaintiffs include DENNIS JOSEPH CARDOZA; BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
CAREY JR.; CHARLES E. CARLIN; RALPH ARTHUR CARLSON; BILLY CARLTON;
GEORGE CLIFTON CARNES JR.; ROGER CARON; KENNETH DAVID CARPENTER;
FRANCIS MERRITT CARPENTER; FRANKLIN JOSEPH CARR JR.; WILLIAM EDWARD
CARR; DON
CHARLES CARR; KENNETH NATHANIEL CARROLL JR.; JAMES EDWARD CARROLL
JR.; JEFFREY WAYNE CARTER; WILLIAM CRANDELL CARTER; THOMAS DANIEL
CARTER III; HARRY HERSHELL CARTER; JIMMY CALVIN CARUTHERS; JAMES
RAY CARWILE; SAMUEL GROVER CASEY; MARK LAVERN CASEY; RODNEY TATEM
CASON SR.; DENNIS LEE CASTER; RALPH E. CASTO; CURT RUSSELL
CATALANO; JOHN DENNIS CATROMBON JR.;WILLIAM GEORGE CATTORINI;
DANIEL CHRISTOPHER
CAULK; RAYMOND DALE CEARLEY; ROBERT S. CELSI; JOHNNY LEA CHALK;
JOHN CHAPMAN; WAYNE RUSSELL CHARBONNEAU; JOHN-ANTHONY CHAVEZ;
THOMAS STANLEY CHMIELOWIEC SR; WILLIAM COOPER CHRISTY; ALAN LEE
CHUCCI; HARLOW CISCO; JAMES MICHAEL CLAMPITT; WENDELL DWIGHT CLARK;
ROBERT EARL CLARK; CLIFFORD RONALD CLARK; TROY LYNN CLARK; DAVID
KEITH CLARK; DAVID R. CLARK; ANDREW CLAY JR; JAMES ALVIN CLAYBORNE;
HUGH OLIVER CLEMENT JR.; KARL MICHAEL CLOHERTY; JOHN AARO COFFER;
GLENN BURLEIGH COFFIN SR; STUART HUGH COHEN; WILLIAM SOLOMON COHEN;
LARRY DEAN COLE; DOUGLAS GENE COLE; EMMETT DUDLEY COLE JR.; HENRY
LESTER COLE; GREGORY EUGENE COLEMAN; LANCE TRUETT COLEMAN; JESSE L
COLEMAN; TERRY LYNN COLEMAN; DONALD RAY COLEMAN; ROBERT WASHINGTON
COLES III; MYRON DONZELL COLLINS SR; KURT L. COLLINS; CHRISTIAN
WALTER COLLINS SR; CLIFFORD CHRISTOPHER COLLINS; GREGG STEVEN
COLLINS; NEIL COLOSI; WILLIAM EARL COLSTON; ROBERT DUANE COLT;
JAMES CLANTON CONLEY; JAMES THOMAS CONLIN; JOHN LLOYD CONN; RANDY
EDWARD CONROY; ANTHONY GERARD CONTI; THOMAS PATRICK CONVERY;
CHARLES M. COOK; JERRY CALVIN COOK; DONNIE ADILA COOKE SR.; RANDELL
GENE COOPER; ROBERT ALFRED COOPER; JAMES DAVID COOPER; MICHAEL RAY
CORMICAN; CHRISTOPHER RANDALL CORNETTE; JOHN ROBERT CORREGGIO;
MICHAEL GLENN CORSON; JOHN RICO CORTEST; CLAUDE E. CORTHRAN; EDWIN
CORVINUS; ROBERT JOSEPH COSTA; THOMAS PETER COSTANZO; DENNIS JAMES
COSTON; FREDERICK RONALD COTA; RAYMOND WILLIAM COTTINI; JAMES HENRY
COTTRELL; RICHARD ANDREW COUVILLON JR.; LARRY COVINGTON; JAMES
BOOKOUT COWDEN; PAUL WARREN COX; JOHNNY MASON COX JR.; DOUGLAS
LOWELL COX; DARRELL LEE COX; HOWARD WALTER COX II; THOMAS WILLIAM
COYNE; PHILLIP DONOVAN COZART; JAKE VINCENT CRABB; HAROLD EUGENE
CRABTREE JR.; CHARLES SQUIRE CRANE; STEVEN KIRBY CRANK; WARREN
EDWARD CRAWFORD; STEVEN BRUCE CREWS; RONALD GARY CRIPPS; GREGORY
JOHN CRISPO; HILTON VERN CROCKER; JACK CHARLES CROOKSHANKS; BILLY
AVERY CROUCH; KELLY TODD CRULL; STEVEN LEE CRUMP; JOHN ANDREW
CULBERSON; CHARLES CODY CULL; GLEN THEODORE CULLEN; ALAN LAWRENCE
CUMBIE; and GARY THOMAS CUMMING.
The Defendants include 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
gary@elglaw.com
kmckie@elglaw.com
Defendant 3M Company is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Benjamin P. Harmon, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
bharmon@lightfootlaw.com
ADVANCED CAPITAL: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Capital
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Angel Martinez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advanced
Capital Solutions, Inc., DNF Associates Limited Liability Company,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:23-cv-00419-DNH-DJS (N.D.N.Y., April 4,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Advanced Capital Solutions -- https://advancedcapsolutions.com/ --
is a full service nationally licensed collections, accounts
receivable, and portfolio management firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10106
Phone: (646) 459-7971
Fax: (646) 459-7973
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, McKnight Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MCKNIGHT v. ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT HOLDING CORP. F/K/A
ADARA ACQUISITION CORP., ADARA SPONSOR LLC, THOMAS FINKE, PAUL G.
PORTER, BEATRIZ ACEVEDO-GREIFF, W. TOM DONALDSON III, DYLAN GLENN,
and FRANK QUINTERO, Case No. 2023-0383 (Del. Ch., April 1, 2023) is
a class action complaint asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims
stemming from the Company's merger with Alliance Entertainment
against:
(a) Thomas Finke, Beatriz Acevedo-Greiff, W. Tom Donaldson III,
Dylan Glenn, and Frank Quintero, in their capacities as
members
of SPAC's board of directors;
(b) Defendants Thomas Finke and Paul G. Porter in their capacity
as
Adara officers and
(c) Adara Sponsor LLC.
Over the past few years, special purpose acquisition companies have
emerged as a popular way for the public to invest in private
entities. Despite certain structural differences between SPACs and
operating businesses, SPACs that incorporate in Delaware are, in
fact, Delaware corporations, and their fiduciaries are bound by the
State's common law and statutory regime. This alleged action
highlights how important it is to reinforce that principle, lest
public investors continue to lose billions of dollars due to SPAC
controllers' and directors' self-interested actions.
The case arises because, despite having no operational
responsibility and simply needing to find a proper target and
disclose the positives and negatives of a deal, the Adara Board
completely abdicated and violated their duty of loyalty.
Rapidly approaching the term limit of the Adara SPAC's window to
identify and close a deal with an acquisition target, Adara closed
a deal with Legacy Alliance, a distributor of products such as
movies, video games, compact disks (CD's), and vinyl records, among
other offerings. This deal was closed even though Adara investors
would have been better off if the acquisition had not closed, and
without Adara informing the stockholders of updated risks that had
materialized since the definitive Proxy statement was filed on
December 12, 2022, the suit alleges.
Alliance Entertainment is a distributor and wholesaler of stock
selection of music, movies, video games, electronics, and
arcades.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Roksandic Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE ROKSANDIC, and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV01574
(Filed Jan. 26, 2023), was removed from Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on March 29,
2023.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-02322 to the proceeding.
The case is purportedly brought as a class action for damages
and/or penalties under the California Labor Code by Plaintiff on
behalf of herself and other putative class members.
The Plaintiff brings claims for, inter alia, American's alleged
failure to provide meal periods, provide rest periods, pay minimum
and overtime wages at the correct rate of pay, and indemnify for
employment-related expenditures. The Plaintiff also alleges
American committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the
California Unfair Business Practices Act and violated the Private
Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution,
penalties, and attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.
American Airlines is a major US-based airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex.[BN]
The Defendants is represented by:
Adam P. Kohsweeney, Esq.
Kelly S. Wood, Esq.
Allan W. Gustin, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com
kwood@omm.com
agustin@omm.com
ASSURANCE IQ: Chung Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assurance IQ, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Tim Chung, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Assurance IQ, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2023-00337274-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
3, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Assurance IQ, Inc. -- https://assurance.com/ -- provides software
solutions. The Company offers insurance platform for protecting and
improving the personal and financial health of all consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
AXA EQUITABLE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Malek Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joel J. Malek, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Co., Leonard Feigenbaum, and Does 1-1000, Defendants,
Case No. 20-CV-04885 (DG) (AYS) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Diane Gujarati of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants
Moving Defendants AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. and Leonard
Feigenbaum's Motions to Dismiss and dismisses the Complaint.
On Oct. 9, 2020, Plaintiff Malek filed the Complaint in the action,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the Moving Defendants and Does 1-1,000, who are alleged to
be certain insurance agents and brokers. The Plaintiff alleges that
Equitable engineered a deceptive marketing conspiracy implemented
by the Broker Defendants to trick life insurance consumers into
replacing their existing whole life policies into more costly
Equitable universal life insurance policies that had lower rates of
return and higher risk.
The Plaintiff asserts that he brings the action as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and seeks
certification of a "Nationwide Class" with regard to the conduct
alleged in the Complaint. He also seeks certification of various
sub-classes: a sub-class of all New York residents who are members
of the Nationwide Class (the "New York Sub-Class") and sub-classes
of all residents of each of the states identified in his Fifth
Cause of Action who are members of the Nationwide Class (together,
the "State Sub-Classes").
As alleged in the Complaint, the Plaintiff bought a whole life
insurance policy from Prudential Life Insurance in 1977 and bought
a second whole life insurance policy from MONY in 1987. He alleges
that, in 2010, Feigenbaum suggested that he surrender his whole
life insurance and purchase replacement insurance with Equitable.
The Plaintiff purchased a replacement policy in 2010.
According to the Plaintiff, when Defendant Feigenbaum interacted
with him, he was acting in concert with Equitable to manipulate
consumers into replacing their life insurance policies with risky,
universal life insurance policies. The Plaintiff alleges that
Feigenbaum presented customers with pre-printed marketing materials
provided by Equitable that were designed to manipulate customers
into replacing their current life insurance with universal life
insurance.
The Complaint specifically identifies two categories of allegedly
deceptive marketing materials presented to customers: (1) prepared
illustrations purportedly showing the benefits of the replacement
life insurance policies (the "Illustrations") and (2) Disclosure
Statements as mandated by Insurance Regulation 60 (the "Disclosure
Statements").
The Plaintiff alleges that a letter dated Sept. 6, 2019 from an
Equitable senior director for the first time informed him that he
may have considered other information that was not disclosed in the
original disclosure statement to him. He alleges that the revised
disclosure statement informed him regarding certain advantages of
keeping his existing policies, including: that the contestability
and suicide clause on his existing policies had expired; that the
existing policy had no surrender charge while the replacement
policy had a surrender charge for the first 20 years; and that the
replacement policy contained a host of new charges that he did not
incur on his existing insurance.
The Plaintiff alleges that, in December 2019, he wrote a letter to
Equitable requesting that they terminate his contract based on the
material misrepresentations and requesting a refund based on the
performance of the S&P 500 and Equitable's remediation formula, as
well as surrender charges. He avers that Equitable however
continued to contest whether they were liable for their fraud.
The Plaintiff's Complaint additionally contains allegations
regarding a New York State Department of Finance audit examination
of Equitable's insurance marketing activities between 2011 and
2015. He alleges that on May 8, 2017 the Department released a
report on its examination. The Department's conclusions
demonstrated that Equitable had failed in its duty to ensure that
its disclosure statements consisted of full, clear and accurate
information to applicants.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1)
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, against
Equitable; (2) breach of contract, against Equitable; (3)
violations of New York Insurance Law Section 4226, against all
Defendants; (4) violation of New York General Business Law Section
349, on behalf of the New York Sub-Class and against all
Defendants; (5) violations of the state unfair business practices
statutes, on behalf of the State Sub-Classes and against all
Defendants; (6) unjust enrichment, against the Broker Defendants;
and (7) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), seeking civil remedies against all
Defendants.
Pending before the Court are Defendant Equitable's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint and Defendant Feigenbaum's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. The Plaintiff opposes the
Moving Defendants' motions.
On March 13, 2023, oral argument was held on the instant motions.
During oral argument, the Plaintiff represented that he was
incorporating the annual statements that he received in connection
with his policy into the Complaint "by reference." He also
responded to questions from the Court regarding equitable tolling
and regarding his civil RICO claims. And, the Plaintiff confirmed
that he does not seek leave to amend the Complaint in the action.
In its motion to dismiss, Equitable argues that the Plaintiff's
claims for breach of contract and for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing (the "contract claims")
must be dismissed. First, it argues that the Plaintiff's contract
claims must be dismissed as untimely. Second, Equitable asserts
that the Plaintiff's contract claims must be dismissed because he
fails to plead that Equitable administered his policy other than in
accordance with its terms.
Judge Gujarati concludes that the Plaintiff's contract claims are
time-barred. Contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the tolling of
his claims until September 2019 -- when he received a revised
disclosure from Equitable -- is not warranted. Because the six-year
statute of limitations for New York contract claims runs from the
time of breach, the Plaintiff's contract claims were time-barred at
the time the Complaint was filed.
Furthermore, Judge Gujarati says the Plaintiff has failed to plead
facts demonstrating that equitable tolling is warranted. The
Plaintiff has failed to plead facts demonstrating that he pursued
his rights diligently, that the Defendants engaged in affirmative
concealment warranting equitable tolling, or that any other
extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. The facts as alleged
in the Complaint fail to demonstrate that "rare and exceptional
circumstances" exist as to warrant equitable tolling.
Hence, the Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing are dismissed as
time-barred.
In its motion to dismiss, Equitable argues that the Plaintiff's
claims pursuant to New York General Business Law Section 349 must
be dismissed as time-barred. It asserts that an action seeking
relief under Section 349 must be commenced within three years of
the act of deception or within three years of when "unrealistic
expectations" were not met, and that no discovery rule applies to
extend this statute of limitations.
Judge Gujarati holds that the Plaintiff's argument that his claims
should be statutorily tolled until September 2019, when Equitable
sent him a revised disclosure, is unavailing. The Plaintiff also
has failed to demonstrate that equitable tolling applies to his
Section 349 claims. Therefore, his Section 349 claims are dismissed
as time-barred.
Equitable also asserts that the Plaintiff's Section 4226 claims are
"time-barred for the same reason" that his Section 349 claims are
time-barred, and cites several cases in support of its argument
that the Plaintiff's Section 4226 claims are untimely. In his
motion to dismiss, Feigenbaum joins the arguments raised by
Equitable with regard to the Plaintiff's Section 4226 claims.
Judge Gujarati concludes that the Plaintiff's Section 4226 claims
-- like his Section 349 claims -- are time-barred. She says the
authorities cited by the Plaintiff fail to demonstrate that
C.P.L.R. Section 203(g) is properly applied to Section 4226 claims.
Indeed, he has failed to identify any case in which a court applied
the discovery rule to toll a Section 4226 claim. And, the Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate that equitable tolling applies.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's Section 4226 claims are dismissed as
time-barred.
The Sixth Cause of Action -- for unjust enrichment -- is asserted
against the Broker Defendants only. In his motion to dismiss,
Feigenbaum argues that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim must
be dismissed for two reasons. First, he argues that the Plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim is time-barred because an unjust enrichment
claim that is not distinguishable from a breach of contract cause
of action must be commenced within the six-year statute of
limitations set forth in New York Civil Practice Law and Rules
Section 213(2). Second, he argues that the Plaintiff has failed to
plead an actionable claim for unjust enrichment.
Judge Gujarati concludes that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim must be dismissed as time-barred. The Plaintiff filed the
Complaint more than six years after the issuance of the policy --
the allegedly wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution. As
set forth, the applicable six-year limitations period does not run
from the time when the facts constituting the alleged fraud are
discovered. And, as noted in the context of the Plaintiff's other
causes of action, he cannot rely on equitable tolling to save his
claim. Hence, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is dismissed
as time-barred.
In its motion to dismiss, Equitable advances several arguments as
to why the Plaintiff's civil RICO claims should be dismissed.
Feigenbaum joins in these arguments. Equitable argues that the
Plaintiff's civil RICO claims (i) are subject to a four-year
limitation period running from when he actually discovered his
alleged injury or from when a reasonably diligent investigation
would have revealed the injury to a person of reasonable
intelligence; (ii) must be dismissed because the Plaintiff has
failed to plead a pattern of racketeering activity; (iii) must be
dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to plead a RICO enterprise;
and (iv) should be dismissed because the Plaintiff has failed to
allege any underlying acts of fraud.
Among other things, Judge Gujarati concludes that the allegations
in the Complaint fail to sufficiently allege that Equitable and any
Broker Defendant -- or Equitable and the Broker Defendants
collectively -- acted as a unit with a common purpose. The
Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege a RICO enterprise. She
also concludes that the Complaint also is devoid of factual
allegations regarding any relationship that the Broker Defendants
had with one another. Further, the Complaint does not allege facts
demonstrating that the Broker Defendants -- or Feigenbaum
individually -- entered into an agreement with Equitable to
facilitate the alleged scheme or to otherwise violate RICO's
substantive provisions. Hence, the Plaintiff's RICO claims are
dismissed.
Lastly, Equitable argues that the Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action
must be dismissed because he lacks standing to assert the
Complaint's claims for relief under other states' statutes on
behalf of members of the putative state sub-classes. Feigenbaum
joins this argument.
Judge Gujarati holds that the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state
an individual claim upon which relief can be granted, and
accordingly, his claims pursuant to the unfair business practices
statutes of other states are dismissed.
In sum, Judge Gujarati holds that dismissal of the Complaint in its
entirety is warranted. The Plaintiff's contract, state statutory,
and unjust enrichment claims are time-barred; the Plaintiff's RICO
claims are insufficiently pled; and the Plaintiff's claims pursuant
to the unfair business practices statutes of other states do not
survive, where the Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed.
For these reasons, Equitable's Motion to Dismiss and Feigenbaum's
Motion to Dismiss are granted. The Complaint is dismissed in its
entirety.
Such dismissal is without leave to amend given that the Plaintiff
was apprised of the Moving Defendants' view of the pleading defects
in his Complaint by way of the Moving Defendants' requests for a
pre-motion conference and their motions to dismiss; that the
Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend in light of the Moving
Defendants' aforementioned filings; that the Plaintiff confirmed
during the March 13, 2023 oral argument in connection with the
instant motions that he was not seeking leave to amend; and that
there is no indication that the Plaintiff could provide additional
allegations that might cure the defects set forth above and lead to
a different result.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5t2sn4zt from Leagle.com.
BARNEY INC: Gillogly Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RISA GILLOGLY v. BARNEY, INC., a New York Corporation, and AMANDA
DIXON, Individually, Case No. : 1:23-cv-01980 (N.D. Cal., March 28,
2023) is a class action suit seeking overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act.
The Plaintiff has at all times, other than temporary housing in New
York on and off during 2022, been a citizen of the City of Chicago,
State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is a former "marketing
coordinator" for the Defendants. The Plaintiff worked for
Defendants from approximately January 2022 to December 2022. For
the duration of the Plaintiff's working relationship with the
Defendants, the Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff as
"salary exempt" and compensated Plaintiff on a salary basis, paying
her the same amount each pay period irrespective of pay periods in
which she worked in excess of 40 hours in a statutory week. This
improper salary classification/exemption treatment resulted in
Plaintiff being compensated at a straight time regular rate for all
hours worked and thus, illegally depriving Plaintiff of rightfully
earned overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per work week, says
the suit.
Defendant Dixon was directly involved in all of Defendants’
business operations, including the minute details and specific
duties being performed by Plaintiff and other employees at
Barney's. Dixon directly supervised and managed Plaintiff and other
putative class members on a daily basis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
BOTANIC TONICS: Torres Sues Over Tonics' Concealed Side Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROMULO TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOTANIC TONICS, LLC; 7-ELEVEN, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01460-TSH
(N.D. Cal., March 28, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of California's Business and Professions
Code and for common law fraud, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the product
"Feel Free Wellness Tonic." Defendant Botanic Tonics advertised the
product as a safe, sober, and healthy alternative to alcohol.
Contrary to the marketing, the product's primary ingredient is not
kava, but kratom. Kratom is an opioid that carries similar risks of
addiction as controlled narcotics. Unbeknownst to consumers,
Botanic Tonics not only added kratom in large amounts, but also
manipulated the formula of Feel Free to magnify the effects of
kratom and induce a quicker, longer lasting, and greater high.
Botanic Tonics never disclosed the amount or concentration of
kratom in Feel Free, the fact that it manipulated Feel Free's
formula to magnify the effects of kratom, or that Feel Free had the
potential to cause significant side effects, says the suit.
Botanic Tonics, LLC is a tonic manufacturer located in Santa
Monica, California.
7-Eleven, Inc. is a retail store company headquartered in Irving,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Arns, Esq.
Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
Katherine A. Rabago, Esq.
ARNS DAVIS LAW
515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: (415) 495-7800
Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
jed@arnslaw.com
ssd@arnslaw.com
kar@arnslaw.com
- and -
Anthony L. Label, Esq.
Theo Emison, Esq.
Steven A. Kronenberg, Esq.
Jacqueline K. Oh, Esq.
THE VEEN FIRM, P.C.
20 Haight Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 673-4800
Facsimile: (415) 771-5845
E-mail: al.team@veenfirm.com
t.emison@veenfirm.com
al.team@veenfirm.com
BW PACKAGING: Aguirre Suit Remanded to California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as MARIANO AGUIRRE, JR., Plaintiff v. BW
PACKAGING SYSTEMS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-04980-ODW (GJSx) (C.D. Cal.).
On Oct. 7, 2021, Plaintiff Mariano Aguirre, Jr., filed this
putative class action in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles against the Defendants: BW Packing Systems, Inc.;
Barry-Wehmiller Group, Inc.; Barry-Wehmiller Companies, Inc.;
Barry-Wehmiller Design Group, Inc.; and Thiele Technologies, LLC.
Aguirre brings this action individually and on behalf of a putative
class of all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees whom
the Defendants employed in California at any time during the
applicable limitations period. Aguirre asserts nine causes of
action against the Defendants, all arising from the wage-and-hour
provisions of the California Labor Code.
Shortly after Aguirre filed the operative First Amended Complaint
in state court, BW Group removed the case to federal court,
alleging this Court's subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Class
Action Fairness Act.
Aguirre now moves to remand, arguing that BW Group (1) fails to
establish that at least $5 million is in controversy as required
for subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, and (2) failed to
timely remove the case. BW Group opposes the Motion, arguing that
(1) its amount-in-controversy calculations are based on evidence
and reasonable assumptions, and (2) it timely removed.
In determining the amount in controversy, courts first look to the
complaint. In the instant case, Aguirre does not allege that either
he or the class incurred any specific amounts of damages. When
federal jurisdiction is challenged and the amount of damages is not
evident from the face of the complaint, "the defendant seeking
removal bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence
that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million."
BW Group's calculations of the amount placed in controversy by
Aguirre's meal and rest break claims do not assist BW Group in its
burden because the claimed violation rates are arbitrary. In
particular, BW Group bases its meal and rest break calculations on
a 20% violation rate for each claim, or one meal break violation
and one rest break violation per week for a typical full-time
employee. But BW Group errs in effectively assuming a uniform rate
of one violation per week for the meal and rest break claims. The
absence of any case-specific facts or allegations regarding the
meal and rest break claims makes BW Group's violation rate
assumption an arbitrary one, such that BW Group's argument "amounts
to little more than plucking a violation rate out of the air and
calling it reasonable."
Absent any case-specific allegations or evidence, the Court has no
way of knowing whether any average number of missed meal or rest
breaks (or premiums) per week -- 0.5, 1, 5, or more, or less -- is
a reasonable assumption. BW Group, for its part, presents no
evidence that might provide factual contours to the meal and rest
break claims to support its claimed violation rates.
Accordingly, BW Group fails in its burden of demonstrating the
amount placed in controversy by the meal and rest break claims.
Because BW Group fails in this burden, the Court remands the action
without considering Aguirre's timeliness arguments.
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/ekkpkcay from Leagle.com.
CABELA'S INC: Faces Meta Pixel Privacy Class Action in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Landis, Esq., Daniel Levin, Esq., and Sheri Pan, Esq., of
ZwillGen, disclosed that a recent class action filed in
Pennsylvania federal court may signal the next round of class
actions relating to websites' use of the Meta Pixel. Since February
2022, there have been over 100 suits brought under the Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") based on use of the Meta Pixel by
websites that include video content. But a recent suit filed in
Pennsylvania federal court against Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops
asserts Meta Pixel related claims based on non-video content.
Specifically, Irvin v. Cabela's alleges that the companies' use of
the pixel on their websites constitutes illegal wiretapping under
the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Surveillance Control Act
("WESCA"), as well as violates the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms
Act. According to the complaint, plaintiff purchased firearms
through the companies' websites, both of which incorporate the Meta
Pixel. Plaintiff alleges that because of the presence of the Meta
Pixel on the websites, when he made those purchases (or took other
actions on the website) certain event data was transmitted to Meta.
This includes the URLs of the specific pages he viewed, the buttons
he clicked on those pages, and the type of gun he purchased, along
with his Facebook ID which he alleges can be used to identify him.
In addition, plaintiff alleges that Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops'
used Meta's Advanced Matching feature, which supposedly enables the
Pixel to scan form fields that potentially contain the user's
personal information such as name, email address, city, and state.
Given the use of the Meta Pixel on many websites, similar class
actions are a near certainty. As mentioned in our previous blog
about separate lawsuits brought under WESCA concerning websites'
use of session replay technology, businesses subject to
jurisdiction in Pennsylvania will want to review their use of
pixels and other tracking technologies, as well as their
disclosures surrounding such uses. [GN]
CITY HIVE INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Hive, Inc. The
case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. City Hive, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02552
(E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
City Hive -- https://www.cityhive.net/ -- is a machine learning
platform to build and operate constantly adapting mobile apps.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
COCA-COLA CO: Minute Maid Juice's Label "False," Reynolds Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01446-TSH (N.D. Cal., March 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of California's Business and
Professions Code and for breach of express and implied warranties,
negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Minute Maid
Juice Boxes. The Defendant labeled the product as being "Good for
You!" and "Part of a Healthy, Balanced Diet." In contrast, these
and other representations and omissions of material facts are,
however, false, and misleading, because consuming fruit juices like
the Juice Boxes actually increases the risk of chronic diseases.
The Plaintiff and the Class lost money as a result of the
Defendant's deceptive claims, omissions, and practices in that they
did not receive what they paid for when purchasing the Juice Boxes,
says the suit.
The Coca-Cola Company is a beverage manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
Melanie Persinger, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Irwin Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Irwin, an Arizona resident, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CrossCountry Mortgage,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:23-cv-00544-DJH (D. Ariz., April 1, 2023) is a class action suit
on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
Collective Members who were not fully compensated their overtime
wages.
The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were allegedly compensated
on an hourly basis and were not paid one-and-one-half times their
regular rates with commissions included in that rate of pay for all
time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.
The Plaintiff and the Collective Members1 are current and former
mortgage bankers employed by the Defendant.
CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage lending company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Weiler, Esq.
Jason Barrat, Esq.
WEILER LAW PLLC
5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone & Facsimile: (480) 442-3410
E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com
jbarrat@weilerlaw.com
CULTURALINK LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Interpreters, Pacheco Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIBELLI PACHECO, HANNA ISHCHENKO, and ALEXANDER POGORELOV,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CULTURALINK, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01499 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the
California's Business and Professions Code.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged misclassification of
the Plaintiffs as independent contractors and, as a result, failure
to pay them and other similarly situated employees all earned
minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal and
rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure
to reimburse reasonable and necessary business expenses, and
failure to pay all earned wages due upon separation.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as interpreters at any
time between 2021 and 2022.
CulturaLink, LLC is a company that provides interpretation
services, located in Norcross, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leah M. Beligan, Esq.
BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 224-3881
E-mail: lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza, Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE DENTSPLY SIRONA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 18-cv-7253 (NG) (PK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nina Gershon of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies the
Defendants'
(i) application to strike references to the Cease-and-Desist
Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Dec. 16, 2020; and
(ii) motion to dismiss the Complaint.
Dentsply Sirona is the world's largest manufacturer of professional
dental products.
The action, initially brought by Plaintiff Boynton Beach General
Employees' Pension Plan on Dec. 19, 2018, is a proposed class
action on behalf of shareholders of Dentsply Sirona. On March 8,
2019, Strathclyde Pension Fund was appointed Lead Plaintiff
("Plaintiff") and subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on May 6,
2019.
The Plaintiff makes claims pursuant to Section 10(b) (15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b)) of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5), as well as Section 20(a)
(15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a)) of the Exchange Act. It also brings
claims under Sections 11 (15 U.S.C. Section 77k), 12(a)(2) (15
U.S.C. Section 77l(a)(2)), and 15 (15 U.S.C. Section 77o) of the
1933 Securities Act.
The claims are brought in connection with the merger of Dentsply
International, Inc. ("Dentsply Intl.") and Sirona Dental Systems,
Inc. ("Sirona") on Feb. 29, 2016, and statements made in SEC
filings by these companies and their successor in interest,
Dentsply Sirona, and in public disclosures to the market between
Feb. 20, 2014 and Aug. 7, 2018 ("the Class Period").
Following a fully briefed motion to dismiss, but before Judge
Gershon issued an opinion, Dentsply Sirona, on Dec. 16, 2020,
settled charges with the SEC, relating to the SEC's investigation
into Dentsply Sirona's accounting and disclosures relating to
transactions with a significant distributor. Based on this new
development, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("Complaint") on Jan. 25, 2021.
Dentsply Sirona is named as a Defendant in the Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims, as well as the Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) claims.
Additionally, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) claims
are brought against Nicholas W. Alexos, Donald M. Casey,
Christopher T. Clark, Ulrich Michel, Jeffrey T. Slovin, Bret W.
Wise, and Mark A. Thierer (the "Officer Defendants"), and the
Section 11 and 15 claims are brought against Michael C. Alfano,
Eric K. Brandt, Paula H. Cholmondeley, Michael J. Coleman, Willie
A. Deese, William F. Hecht, Francis J. Lunger, John L. Miclot, and
John C. Miles II (the "Director Defendants") and certain of the
Officer Defendants, specifically, Bret W. Wise, Christopher T.
Clark, Jeffrey T. Slovin, and Ulrich Michel.
The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of two categories of
Plaintiffs. First, it sues on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Dentsply Intl. and its
successor-in-interest, Dentsply Sirona, between Feb. 20, 2014, and
Aug. 7, 2018, pursuant to Exchange Act sections 10(b) and 20(a),
and SEC Rule 10b-5. Second, it sues on behalf of investors who
acquired shares of the common stock of Dentsply Sirona in exchange
for their shares of common stock of Sirona in connection with the
merger of Dentsply Intl. and Sirona on or about Feb. 29, 2016,
pursuant to Securities Act sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially
misleading statements and omissions. Additionally, it alleges that
the Defendants violated Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K by failing
to disclose known trends and uncertainties relating to the lack of
end-user demand and uncertainty with respect to the Patterson
relationship and the distributors' conspiracy's impact on the
company's financial result.
The Plaintiff's claims can be divided into two categories: (1)
claims against Dentsply Sirona and the Officer Defendants under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 on
behalf of itself and others who purchased or otherwise acquired
Dentsply Intl. and Dentsply Sirona common stock during the Class
Period; and (2) claims against Dentsply Sirona, the Director
Defendants and certain of the Officer Defendants under Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of itself and
others who acquired Dentsply Sirona common stock in exchange for
their shares of Sirona common stock in connection with the merger
of Dentsply Intl. and Sirona on Feb. 29, 2016.
All the Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failing to
meet the pleading standards of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
9(b) and 12(b)(6), the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, and the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").
First, the Defendants seek to strike any allegations in the
Complaint that reference the SEC Order, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f), which permits a court to strike any matter deemed
"redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous" from a
pleading.
Judge Gershon opines that any implied reliance on the SEC's
findings is unproblematic. For the most part, the SEC Order does
not add materially new facts to the Complaint; it merely overlaps,
and supports, the Plaintiff's separately stated allegations. In
addition, what new, or at least more specific, information is found
in the SEC Order -- such as that the minimum purchase requirements
"increased annually by 10% for each product line" and details about
a presentation to the Dentsply Sirona Board -- are matters
peculiarly within the Defendants' knowledge. The Plaintiff does not
reference the SEC Order for the purposes of asserting collateral
estoppel and proving liability for the underlying claims. Judge
Gershon thus denies the Defendants' application to strike
references to the SEC Order.
Second, Judge Gershon holds that the Plaintiff separates the
Exchange Act and Securities Act claims into two different sections
of the Complaint and "disclaims any allegations of fraud or
intentional misconduct" in connection with the Securities Act
claims but makes no effort to plead different theories of the
Defendants' wrongdoing. Therefore, she assesses the Plaintiff's
Securities Act claims under Rule 9(b).
Third, Judge Gershon turns to the statute of limitations. The
Plaintiff filed the action on Dec. 19, 2018. The Defendants do not
contest that the Plaintiff's Securities Act claims, but not its
Exchange Act claims, were tolled on June 7, 2018. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff must show that a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have
"discovered" the facts necessary to plead the misrepresentations
and omissions, scienter, and loss causation for the Exchange Act
claims earlier than Dec. 19, 2016, and the misrepresentations and
omissions for the Securities Act claims earlier than June 7, 2017.
The Defendants have not made that showing, Judge Gershon opines.
She says the Defendants have not (i) established that a reasonably
diligent investor would have had sufficient information to plead
the Plaintiff's claim with sufficient detail and particularity to
survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss earlier than the Plaintiff
alleges that it did; (ii) pointed to any disclosures revealing the
"same alleged untruths and omissions" that the Plaintiff alleges
were absent from, or misstated in, its filings; and (iii) shown
that the Plaintiff's Exchange Act claims were untimely.
Fourth, Judge Gershon opines that the Plaintiff has pleaded
actionable misstatements or omissions. Among other things, she
finds that (i) the Plaintiff alleges actionable false or misleading
statements in, or incorporated by, the registration statement,
which was declared effective on Dec. 7, 2015; (ii) the Plaintiff
has plausibly alleged actionable post-merger statements, such as in
the 2016 Forms 10-Q; (iii) the challenged statements concerning
Dentsply Sirona's relationship with Schein and Patterson are not
mere puffery; (iv) the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the
Defendants' statements relating to the sources of their success
were false or misleading; and (v) the Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged at least the third basis for an actionable opinion
statement.
Fifth, Judge Gershon opines that the Plaintiff has alleged facts
supporting a strong inference of scienter. Considering the
Complaint's allegations as a whole, she concludes that the
allegations against Dentsply Sirona and the Officer Defendants
support an inference of scienter that is at least as compelling as
any nonculpable inference. The Plaintiff has pleaded an inference
of scienter with regard to Dentsply Sirona and the Officer
Defendants sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Sixth, the Defendants contend that any misrepresentations or
omissions asserted on behalf of persons who acquired the common
stock of Dentsply Sirona in exchange for their shares of Sirona
stock in the merger were not material. Judge Gershon finds that the
misstatements or omissions are not "so obviously unimportant to a
reasonable investor" to warrant dismissal at this stage. Whether
the truth would have "assumed actual significance" in a reasonable
investor's deliberations is a question that will be best determined
on a more developed factual record.
Seventh, the Defendants challenge numerous statements concerning
"financial forecasts," and perceptions about how Sirona would
benefit from industry trends, which they argue are protected under
the PSLRA's safe-harbor provisions for forward-looking statements.
Judge Gershon concludes that the Plaintiff raises an inference that
the Defendants were aware of undisclosed facts tending to seriously
undermine the accuracy of their forward-looking statements that is
at least as compelling as any nonculpable inference.
Lastly, Judge Gershon opines that the control person claims arising
from primary violations of the Exchange Act and Securities Act
survive. She finds that the Plaintiff's allegations provide a
sufficient basis for the establishment of the Officer Defendants'
control and culpable participation. As to the Director Defendants,
she says the Plaintiff alleges that they signed the Registration
Statement, which, at the pleading stage, is sufficient to make out
a control claim against these individual. Alternative theories of
liability are also permissible at the pleading stage.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gershon denies the Defendants'
application to strike references to the SEC Order. Although certain
of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions are found not to be
actionable, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. Claims 6
and 7 asserting claims under Section 14(a) and SEC Rule 14a-9 are
withdrawn.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/22ba7k96 from Leagle.com.
DERMLITE LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dermlite, LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Dermlite, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02769
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DermLite, the leading brand in handheld dermoscopy, created the
world's first polarized dermatoscope as well as the hybrid
dermatoscope.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
DIAMOND WIRELESS INC: Green Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Wireless Inc.
The case is styled as Rose Green, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Diamond Wireless Inc., Case No.
34-2023-00337300-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
3, 2023).
The case type is stated "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Diamond Wireless LLC is a third party Verizon Wireless
retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213-255-3937
Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
DQ LLC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DQ, LLC. The case is
styled as Ness-Lee Vachnine, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. DQ, LLC doing business as: Duncan Quinn, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02794 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DQ, LLC doing business as Duncan Quinn -- https://duncanquinn.com/
-- is an intimate store offering bespoke shirts & suits, custom
handcrafted shoes & accessories for men.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
EPSILON SYSTEMS: Albert Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ALBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EPSILON SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00005473-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Feb. 7,
2023), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on April 1,
2023.
The Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code sections
2598 et seq., Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Epsilon System provides professional and technical services. The
Company offers barge maintenance, modernization, engineering,
environmental management, and aircraft support.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Linh T. Hua, Esq.
Ani Aslanian, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-5000
Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
E-mails: lhua@grsm.com
aaslanian@grsm.com
EXIT SIGN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exit Sign Warehouse,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Exit Sign Warehouse, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-02771 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Exit Sign Warehouse, Inc. -- https://www.exitsignwarehouse.com/ --
is a lighting wholesaler in Thousand Oaks, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
EXP REALTY LLC: Holton Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Holton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EXP Realty, LLC, Case No.
2023-CA-000662 was removed from the Circuit Court, 10th Judicial
Circuit, Polk County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on April 3, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00734 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
eXp Realty -- https://exprealty.com/ -- is a global full-service
real estate brokerage.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Sara F. Holladay, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
50 N Laura St., Suite 3300
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Phone: (904) 798-3200
Fax: (904) 798-3207
Email: sholladay@mcguirewoods.com
FARMHOUSE POTTERY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmhouse Pottery,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Farmhouse Pottery, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02806 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Farmhouse Pottery, Inc. -- https://www.farmhousepottery.com/ -- is
a Woodstock, Vermont based artisanal potters offering unique
one-of-a-kind handmade pottery, decor, candles, bakeware, gifts and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FIVE STAR: Vasquez Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CECILIA VASQUEZ and GABRIELA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIVE STAR INN, LLC,
LILY HSE, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV06763 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 28, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Family Rights Act, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, California
Government Code, California Labor Code, and California Public
Policy.
According to the complaint, the suit arises from the Defendants'
failure to grant medical leave; interference with, restraint, and
denial of medical leave; disability discrimination; failure to
provide reasonable accommodations, failure to engage in a good
faith interactive process, wrongful termination, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to furnish wage and hour statements; failure
to maintain payroll records; failure to pay meal and rest period
compensation; failure to pay wages in a timely manner; failure to
pay overtime compensation; waiting time penalties; failure to
indemnify/reimburse necessary expenditures incurred during
discharge of work duties; unfair competition; retaliation, wrongful
termination; wrongful constructive termination, and civil
penalties.
Ms. Vasquez worked for the Defendants as a housekeeper from
December 2020 until her termination in September 2022.
Ms. Sanchez worked for the Defendants as a housekeeper from
September 20, 2022 until October 16, 2022.
Five Star Inn, LLC is a motel owner and operator, located in West
Covina, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Lisa Noveck, Esq.
Jameson Evans, Esq.
Amanda M. Thompson, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (310) 853-3461
Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
lisan@pierrelacour.com
jamesone@pierrelacour.com
amandat@pierrelacour.com
FORD MOTOR: Court Dismisses Pacheco's Vehicle Consumer Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George Caram Steeh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case captioned as ANTHONY PACHECO, et al., Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR
CO., Defendant, Case No. 22-11927 (E.D. Mich.).
The putative class action involves the following vehicles
manufactured by Ford Motor Company: Model Year 2020-22 Ford Hybrid
Escapes, 2022 Ford Hybrid Mavericks, and 2021-22 Lincoln Hybrid
Corsairs. Here, the Plaintiffs allege that the engines in affected
vehicles "can leak and cause significant quantities of engine oil
and/or fuel vapors to accumulate near ignition sources, resulting
in under hood smoke and fires." The Plaintiffs refer to this defect
as the "Spontaneous Fire Risk." None of the Plaintiffs allege that
they experienced leaking engines or an engine fire.
As of June 2022, Ford identified 23 reports of under hood fire or
smoke in the affected vehicles. To address this problem, on July 7,
2022, Ford voluntarily initiated a recall supervised by the
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Ford
informed owners to bring their vehicles to a dealer for repairs to
be made at no charge. To address the fire risk, Ford instructed
dealers to modify the under engine shield by drilling additional
holes and to modify the active grille shutter system by removing
four blinds.
The Plaintiffs dispute the effectiveness of Ford's remedy. They
assert that it creates new problems, such as the environmental
hazard of leaking fluids, which "sets the stage for future property
damage and possible injury."
Consequently, the Plaintiffs seek a class-wide relief, on behalf of
a nationwide class as well as state-specific subclasses. They
allege that Ford violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
various consumer protection statutes and they assert state claims
of fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty. The Plaintiffs
seek damages for "overpayment of their vehicles" and an "order
enjoining Ford's deceptive acts and practices."
Ford seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Judge Steeh mentions the case of Winzler v. Toyota Motor Sales
U.S.A., Inc., 681 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir. 2012), where the court
concluded that "the recall rendered the lawsuit prudentially moot.
Although the case was not brought against the government, the
plaintiff 'has in hand a remedial commitment from our coordinate
branches all the same.'"
Judge Steeh holds that "by issuing a recall, Ford has subjected
itself to the continuing oversight of NHTSA, which monitors 'each
safety recall to make sure owners receive safe, free, and effective
remedies from manufacturers according to the Safety Act and Federal
regulations'. . . Ford has offered to repair the vehicles at issue
without charge and reimburse owners who have already paid for
repairs. Ford's promise to remedy the Spontaneous Fire Risk, backed
by the NHTSA, renders Plaintiffs' claims regarding the defect
prudentially moot."
Moreover, Judge Steeh notes that the "Plaintiffs have not alleged a
cognizable danger that this recall process, supervised by NHTSA,
will fail and that they will be left without a complete remedy.
They also have not alleged that a cognizable damages claim exists
after the recall. Under the circumstances, there is no effective
relief the court can provide, and it is appropriate for the court
to exercise its discretion to dismiss this action on prudential
mootness grounds."
A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2023, is
available https://tinyurl.com/zpt9c924 from Leagle.com.
FOTODIOX INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fotodiox, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Fotodiox, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02774
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fotodiox -- https://fotodioxpro.com/ -- offers the largest
collection of lens mount adapters, with over 800 options currently
available (with more in the works).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Final Judgment & Order Issued in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York enters Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice in the case, IN RE: GE/CBPS DATA BREACH
LITIGATION, Case No. 20 Civ. 2903 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Steven Fowler and Defendants Canon Business Process
Services, Inc. and General Electric Co. have entered into a
settlement agreement, which sets forth the terms and conditions for
a proposed settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice as
to the Defendants upon the terms and conditions set forth therein.
On Aug. 24, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, conditionally
certifying a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of the
10,392 of individuals identified on the Settlement Class List to
whom GE sent letters, on March 20, 2020, notifying those
individuals that information relating to them may have been
compromised as a result of the Data Incident announced by the
Defendants in March of 2020.
Judge Failla has considered the Parties' Settlement Agreement, as
well as the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement
Agreement, the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs,
Expenses, And Service Award, together with all exhibits thereto,
the arguments and authorities presented by the Parties and their
counsel at the Final Approval Hearing held on Feb. 22, 2023, and
the record in the Action. She now gives final approval to the
Settlement Agreement, and finds that the Settlement Agreement is
fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved
in all respects.
The Parties are directed to implement the Settlement Agreement
according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is
incorporated into the Final Judgment in full and will have the full
force of an Order of the Court.
Judge Failla dismisses the Action, as identified in the Settlement
Agreement, on the merits and with prejudice. Released Claims will
not include the right of any Settlement Class Member or any of the
Released Entities to enforce the terms of the settlement contained
in the Settlement Agreement and will not include the claims of
Settlement Class Members who have timely excluded themselves from
the Settlement Class. All Settlement Class Members are permanently
barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting,
intervening in, or participating (as class members or otherwise) in
any lawsuit or other action in any jurisdiction based on or arising
out of any of the Released Claims.
Judge Failla has also considered the Plaintiff's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, And Service Award, as well as the
supporting memorandum of law and declarations, and adjudges that
the payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount
of $321,179.52 is reasonable in light of the multi-factor test used
to evaluate fee awards in the Second Circuit. Such payment will be
made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
Judge Failla has also considered the Plaintiff's Motion, memorandum
of law, and supporting declarations for a service award to the
Class Representative, Steven Fowler. She adjudges that the payment
of a service award in the amount of $1,500 to Mr. Fowler to
compensate him for his efforts and commitment on behalf of the
Settlement Class, is fair, reasonable, and justified under the
circumstances of the case. Such payment will be made pursuant to
and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
As outlined in the Settlement Agreement, all payments made to
Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement that
are not cashed within 90 days of issuance will be void. In the
event a check becomes void, the Settlement Class Member will have
until six months after the Effective Date to request re-issuance.
If no request for re-issuance is made within this period, the
Settlement Class Member will have failed to meet a condition
precedent to recovery of settlement benefits, the Settlement Class
Member's right to receive monetary relief will be extinguished, the
Defendants will have no obligation to make payments to the
Settlement Class Member for expense and reimbursement or any other
type of monetary relief.
The Parties, without further approval from the Court, are permitted
to agree and adopt such amendments, modifications, and expansions
of the Settlement Agreement and its implementing documents
(including all exhibits to the Settlement Agreement) so long as
they are consistent in all material respects with this Final
Judgment and do not limit the rights of Settlement Class Members.
The matter is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except
that, without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment for
purposes of appeal, until the Effective Date the Court will retain
jurisdiction over all matters relating to administration,
consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement
Agreement.
In accordance with Rule 23, the Final Order and Judgment resolves
all claims against all parties in the Action and is a final order.
Judge Failla directs entry of the Final Judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 based upon the Court's finding
that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal of
the Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 28, 2023 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/27yda4eh from
Leagle.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Certifies Bosch Fuel Pump Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has certified seven classes of consumers in a
lawsuit against General Motors accusing the automaker of knowingly
selling diesel trucks equipped with defective Bosch CP4 fuel pumps,
according to attorneys at Hagens Berman and Hilliard Martinez
Gonzalez LLP.
The class-action lawsuit was originally filed Dec. 2, 2019, and
states that due to the defective Bosch part, the following affected
trucks with Duramax LGH Engines could experience catastrophic
failure and lead owners to costly repair bills: 2010-2011 Chevrolet
Express, 2010-2011 GMC Savana, 2010-2011 GMC Sierra, 2011-2012
2500HD 3500 Silverado and 2011-2012 2500HD 3500 Sierra. If you own
an affected GMC or Chevy vehicle from a GM-authorized dealership,
find out your rights.
According to experts, the affected vehicles' CP4 pump design is
fragile and fundamentally flawed in several respects, and
incompatible with diesel fuel sold in America. Due to the lack of
proper lubrication in U.S. diesel, the fuel causes metal shavings
to build up in the fuel system and engine, leading to unexpected
total engine failure.
Repair costs range from $8,000-$20,000 and, since the "repair"
consists of installing an identical replacement CP4 pump, still
leaves owners with defective vehicles. Owners are therefore subject
to the inconvenience of an unreliable vehicle, repair costs, and
the potential safety hazard of unexpected engine failure. In
addition to the costs of repair, owners are left with defective
vehicles for which they overpaid or would not have purchased had
they known about the defect.
In Judge Terrence G. Berg's 53-page order, consumers' claims were
upheld under various state laws, and seven classes were certified
for the states of California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New York,
Pennsylvania and Texas, in an overwhelming victory against GM. The
March 31, 2023 order also appointed class counsel, acknowledging
the qualifications of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Hilliard
Martinez Gonzalez LLP and The Miller Law Firm P.C.
The court also upheld the claims of those owners who have not
experienced the defect, but have still been harmed through
purchasing the defective vehicle: "…even those who have not yet
experienced a failure have adequately alleged they have been
damaged by overpaying for their vehicles as a consequence of GM's
failure to disclose the problems with the CP4 pump."
"We are pleased with the court's thoughtful analysis of the issues
and look forward to continuing the case into discovery to fully
uncover the exact extent of what GM knew when it chose to sell
these defective diesel trucks," said Steve Berman, managing partner
at Hagens Berman. "We believe GM has greatly endangered the lives
of many."
"Judge Berg left no rock unturned, and his thoroughness speaks to
the ironclad strength of our claims," said Bob Hilliard of Hilliard
Martinez Gonzalez LLP. "GM knew what was at risk when it decided to
market and sell this extensive line of trucks to the public, and
now GM should be held accountable for its conduct."
In outlining the claims addressed in the case, the order reads,
"Plaintiffs intend to offer common proof -- through testimony of GM
engineers, internal testing data, and GM's correspondence with
Bosch -- that GM knew of the alleged design defect even before it
began production of class vehicles. They also intend to offer
common proof -- through testimony by GM employees, GM's internal
warranty data, GM's instructions to dealerships, and marketing
literature -- that GM failed to disclose the design defect and
actively concealed it even though class vehicles immediately began
failing in the field."
Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against GM for
defective Bosch CP4 pumps installed in its Duramax diesel trucks.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those
harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in
1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,"
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.
About Hilliard Martinez Gonzales
Bob Hilliard has led HMG to the forefront of national trial law
firms. Having tried over 100 jury trials, Mr. Hilliard is also a
two-time winner of the National Law Journal's prestigious Elite
Trial Lawyer of the Year award, as well as being recognized as a
Super Lawyer for the past 18 years. Mr. Hilliard is double board
certified and recognized as one of the top 100 trial lawyers in the
United States. In the past six months, HMG's 40-lawyer firm has
already secured over 100 million dollars in verdicts and
settlements. For more information, visit https://hmglawfirm.com/.
[GN]
GENERAL STORE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Store of
Excelsior, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. General Store of
Excelsior, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02780 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
General Store of Excelsior, Inc. is in the Gift Shop business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Improper Health Data Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trey Salm, writing for Dispute, reports that GoodRx, the
prescription drug discount service, has faced several challenges
relating to the possible improper use of customers' private health
information. And then, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) came
calling and began an investigation. Using its Health Breach
Notification Rule for the first time, the FTC charged that GoodRx
had failed to notify customers and others of its unauthorized
disclosure of consumers' personal health information (PHI) to
Facebook, Google, and others.
GoodRx Class Action Lawsuit Consequences
GoodRx will be prohibited from sharing PHI with certain third
parties for advertising purposes and has agreed to pay a $1.5
million fine for violating the rule. The Court approved the
Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctions, Civil Penalty Judgment,
and Other Relief on February 17, 2023. Despite claiming it had
proactively corrected the disclosure violations several years
earlier, GoodRx accepted the settlement to avoid litigation costs
and admitted no wrongdoing.
Generally, cases for damages where there has been an enforcement
action settle for higher amounts than cases without such actions.
Thus, the settlement above could have led and did lead to suits
against GoodRx making the same allegations as those of the FTC.
In the FTC's Order, GoodRx admits only enough facts to establish
the court's jurisdiction over the case. It neither admits nor
denies "any of the allegations" in the case except as specifically
stated in the order. Thus, civil plaintiffs seeking through a class
action or individually to sue GoodRx and relying on the order will
not gain much in terms of proven evidence. Courts have consistently
held that administrative findings in orders like this (usually in
Securities and Exchange Commission cases) do not constitute
evidence of liability. Nonetheless, plaintiffs often use the orders
early in the case to support the facts they are alleging. In at
least one case, a court, which had previously dismissed two cases
against the defendant, concluded that the "findings" in an SEC
order provided enough support to prevent another dismissal.
The day after the FTC order in this case was entered, GoodRX and
Meta, Google, and advertising company Criteo were sued in a
proposed class action lawsuit alleging improper health data
disclosure. [GN]
GREAT JONES SPA: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Jones Spa, LLC.
The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Great Jones Spa, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02562 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Great Jones Spa, LLC -- https://www.gjspa.com/ -- is a massage spa
in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GREATER NEW YORK: Directives Led to COVID Deaths, Newman Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN S. NEWMAN, as the Administrator of the Estates of MICHAEL J.
NEWMAN (deceased), and DOLORES D. NEWMAN (deceased), individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, MELISSA DeROSA, HOWARD A. ZUCKER, M.D., GREATER
NEW YORK HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, KENNETH RASKE, NORTHWELL HEALTH,
INC., MICHAEL DOWLING, and JOHN DOES A-Z, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-02391 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
The case arises from the directives issued by New York Defendants
on March 25, 2020 and April 7, 2020, which prohibit nursing homes
and assisted living facilities, respectively, from requiring a
hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be
tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission. The New York
Defendants were warned that the directives would be a deadly
disaster for elderly nursing home residents, the most vulnerable
COVID demographic, but exhibited deliberate indifference by
aggressively pushing for the directives anyway. As a result of the
directives, over 9000 COVID positive patients who otherwise would
not have been admitted to the state's nursing homes and assisted
living facilities, were admitted, resulting in as many as 15,000
wholly avoidable COVID deaths. The Plaintiff and Class members now
seek appropriate healing and resolution, as these lives meant
something, and they did not deserve to die such a preventable
death, says the suit.
Greater New York Hospital Association is an organization
representing and engaging in public advocacy on behalf of
approximately 160 hospitals and health systems doing business in
New York and adjacent states.
Northwell Health, Inc. is a nonprofit integrated healthcare network
in New York State. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonna M. Spilbor, Esq.
JONNA SPILBOR LAW
214 Main Street
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 485-2LAW
E-mail: ladylaw@jonnaspilbor.com
- and -
Michael S. Kasanoff, Esq.
MICHAEL S. KASANOFF, LLC
9 Stillwell Street
Matawan, NJ 07747
Telephone: (908) 902-5900
E-mail: mkasanoff@att.net
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Medina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grimmway Enterprises,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Luis A. Medina, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Grimmway Enterprises,
Inc., Arriola Farm Labor, Inc., Case No. BCV-23-101023 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Kern Cty., April 4, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Grimmway Farms -- https://www.grimmway.com/ -- is the largest
grower, producer, and shipper of carrots in the world.[BN]
HELLO PRODUCTS: Flaherty Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORAH FLAHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HELLO PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 2023-CH-01703 (Filed Feb.
21, 2023), was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Chancery Division to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 29, 2023.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-01990 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment based on Hello claiming that toothpaste products
identified in the Complaint contain no artificial sweeteners, when
the products are alleged to contain sorbitol and xylitol.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the following
putative nationwide class:
"All persons within the United States who purchased the
Products
within five years prior to the filing of the Complaint through
the
date of class certification."
The Plaintiff seeks money damages, damages associated with stress,
aggravation, frustration, inconvenience, emotional distress, and
mental anguish, punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul Gamboa, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
One North Franklin, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 619-4937
Facsimile: (312) 565-6511
HOUSE OF LASHES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against House of Lashes. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. House of Lashes, Case No. 1:23-cv-02797
(S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
House of Lashes -- https://houseoflashes.com/ -- offers handcrafted
lashes using 100% premium human hair and cruelty-free synthetic
fibers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
HYPERFLY INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyperfly, Inc. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Hyperfly, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02803
(S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hyperfly -- https://hyperfly.com/ -- is a technical athletic
apparel company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ISABELA'S MEXICAN: Angel Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMADO ANGEL v. ISABELA'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC. (DBA ISABELA'S)
and ISABELA TAPIA, Individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-02522 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 1, 2023) is a class action suit seeking to recover unpaid
minimum wage and overtime wage compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law as recently amended
by the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However,
despite such mandatory pay obligations, the Defendants only
compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $13 per hour and failed to pay
Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a cook. He brings these
claims based upon the allegations herein as representative parties
of a prospective class of similarly situated individuals under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
www.StillmanLegalPC.com
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
JACQUES TORRES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jacques Torres
Manufacturing LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jacques
Torres Manufacturing LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02510 (E.D.N.Y., March
31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jacques Torres Chocolate -- https://mrchocolate.com/ -- creates the
best gourmet chocolate in New York.[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
JOSEPH BIDEN JR: Bosch Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph Biden, Jr., et
al. The case is styled as Gerard van den Bosch, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Joseph Biden, Jr., in
his official capacity as the President of the United States;
Rochelle Walensky, in her official capacity as the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control; The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Troy A. Miller,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection; The United States of America; Case No.
1:23-cv-00018 (M.D. Tenn., April 4, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Declaratory
Judgment.
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. --
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/ -- is an
American politician who is the 46th and current president of the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Siri, Esq.
Christina Xenides, Esq.
Walker D. Moller, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 5th Ave., Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: +1 212-532-1091
Email: aaron@sirillp.com
cxenides@sirillp.com
wmoller@sirillp.com
- and -
Christopher Wiest, Esq.
CHRIS WIEST LAW FIRM
25 Town Center Blvd. Suite 104
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
Phone: 513-257-1895
Email: chris@cwiestlaw.com
- and -
Edwin E. Wallis, III, Esq.
GLASSMAN, WYATT, TUTTLE & COX, P.C.
26 N Second Street Building
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: (901) 527-4673
Fax: (901) 521-0940
Email: ewallis@gwtclaw.com
KAHRS LAW: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Accounts Recovery reports that a District Court judge in Kansas has
granted a defendant's motion to dismiss in a Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act class action, ruling that the plaintiff lacked
standing to sue after accusing a law firm of failing to redact the
plaintiff's personal information from an exhibit filed in an
underlying collection lawsuit.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Sims v. Kahrs Law Offices can
be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff applied for a personal loan, but never finished the
application or received any funds. The defendant, on behalf of the
lender, filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff, attaching
an exhibit to the complain that listed the plaintiff's bank account
number and routing number, as well as her name, address, and phone
number, which the defendant failed to redact. The collection suit
was ultimately dismissed. The plaintiff filed suit, informing the
lender that the exhibit was filed without being redacted, at which
point the lender sought to have the exhibit sealed, but alleging
that her personal information was publicly available for almost a
year.
The first strike against the plaintiff was in failing to allege
that her personal information had any monetary value, and how that
value was lost due to the disclosure of her personal information,
noted Judge John W. Broomes of the District Court for the District
of Kansas. Strike two was that the risk of having her identity
stolen is not enough for her to have standing -- because that
allegation is nothing more than conclusory, Judge Broomes wrote.
Strike three was the emotional distress claim, which also fell
short of conferring standing.
". . . the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
establish that any of her alleged harms are ones that Congress
intended to protect against when enacting the FDCPA," Judge Broomes
wrote. "Plaintiff, however, fails to identify any authority to
suggest that Congress would view the failure to redact a loan
agreement filed as an exhibit to a state court petition as an
unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt. Further, the
court fails to see how this conduct, which Plaintiff has
characterized as negligent, could be re-characterized as an unfair
or unconscionable means to collect a debt. Nor does Plaintiff show
that Congress had in view the types of harms she alleges here --
lost value of her account number; risk of future harm from
disclosure of her account number; or garden variety anxiety and
emotional harm from disclosure of her account number -- when it
passed the FDCPA." [GN]
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: $185MM Class Deal in Senne Suit Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON SENNE, et al., Plaintiffs v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS
BASEBALL CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-00608 JCS (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs and Incentive Awards.
The parties have entered into a class action settlement. Following
preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court, on Aug. 26,
2022, notice was sent to class members, who were given the
opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out. Objections have
been received from class member Eddy Vizcaino and a group of
individuals who describe themselves as "Marti plaintiffs."
Presently before the Court are the Final Approval Motion and the
Fee Motion. A Final Fairness Hearing was held on February 17, 2023
at 9:30 a.m.
The proposed settlement consolidates the Court's already-certified
Rule 23(b)(3) classes into a single (b)(3) class, with a class
membership cutoff of the date of preliminary approval, defining the
(b)(3) class as follows: All persons who: while signed to a Minor
League Uniform Player Contract, participated in the California
League for at least seven days on or after Feb. 7, 2010 through the
date of preliminary approval, participated in spring training,
instructional leagues, or extended spring training in Florida on or
after Feb. 7, 2009 through the date of preliminary approval, or
participated in spring training, instructional leagues, or extended
spring training in Arizona on or after Feb. 7, 2011 through the
date of preliminary approval. Provided, however, that participation
in the activities set forth above must have occurred prior to that
person's signing a Major League Uniform Player Contract.
The proposed settlement further calls for the Court to maintain the
certification of the previously certified Rule 23(b)(2) class and
the FLSA collective.
The Settlement Agreement creates a gross settlement fund of $185
million. The Net Settlement Amount, which is to be distributed to
the Rule 23 class and FLSA collective members, is the gross amount
minus the following: 1) attorneys' fees (an award of up to one
third of the gross settlement amount is permitted under the
Settlement Agreement); 2) costs not to exceed $5.5 million, id.; 3)
incentive awards of $15,000 for each class representative and
$7,500 for the named Plaintiffs who are not be proposed as class
representatives; 4) administration costs of the settlement; and 5)
75% of the agreed settlement amount of $2,315,200 under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal.
Lab. Code Sections 2698, et seq. ("PAGA"), which will be paid to
the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA").
The settlement amount is non-reversionary and class members are not
required to file a claim to receive an award. The Settlement
Agreement establishes a method for calculating each class member's
award using the Defendants' records relating to the periods when
the class member worked and the location of the work.
The class members will have 90 days to cash their checks and
unclaimed funds are to be distributed in a second round of
payments, pro rata, to participating Class Members who timely
cashed their checks unless the amount remaining is too small to
justify the expense of a redistribution. In that case, the
unclaimed funds will be donated to the cy pres designated by the
parties in the Settlement Agreement, Legal Aid at Work.
Rule 23(b)(3) class members, who were previously allowed to opt out
after class certification, were given another opportunity to opt
out, with the deadline for this opt-out period set at 60 days after
the settlement notice. The Settlement Agreement also includes a
provision allowing the class members to correct their employment
information and/or challenge the calculation of their settlement
award.
The Settlement Agreement provides for the injunctive relief for the
Rule 23(b)(2) class. It further provides that the Court will retain
jurisdiction over MLB with respect to the Rule 23(b)(2) Class to
enforce MLB's obligations under this Section 21. It contains the
release provision.
At preliminary approval, the Court approved the notice proposed by
the parties and appointed JND Legal Administration LLC ("JND") as
settlement administrator. JND sent the court-approved notice to
class members as directed. It received a huge response to the
notice of settlement: As of Jan. 11, 2023, JND had received 13,106
calls to the toll-free telephone line and 23,942 emails to the
email address.
To grant final approval, the Court must find that the terms of the
parties' settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule
23(e)(2). Further, following Congress's December 2018 revision of
Rule 23(e), the Court must also consider whether the settlement
resulted from collusion among the parties.
Judge Spero adopts the modified definition of the Rule 23(b)(3)
class contained in the Settlement Agreement and retains the
definitions of the (b)(2) class and FLSA collective previously
adopted. Further, he overrules the objections of Mr. Vizcaino and
the Marti Objectors and approves the Settlement Agreement, both as
it relates to the claims of the Rule 23 classes and the FLSA
claims, and finds that the agreed-upon resolution of the PAGA
claims meets the statutory requirements set forth by PAGA.
The Court previously appointed the following named Plaintiffs as
the Class Representatives of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class, and finds
that they should continue to serve as the Class Representatives for
purposes of final approval: Craig Bennigson, Daniel Britt, Matt
Daly, Aaron Dott, Grant Duff, Matt Frevert, Lauren Gagnier,
Jonathan Gaston, Nick Giarraputo, Brandon Henderson, Bryan Henry,
Mitch Hilligoss, Ryan Hutson, Kyle Johnson, Jake Kahaulelio, Ryan
Khoury, Ryan Kiel, Matt Lawson, Michael Liberto, Barret Loux, Aaron
Meade, Justin Murray, Jeff Nadeau, Joseph Newby, Brett Newsome,
Kyle Nicholson, Oliver Odle, Tim Pahuta, Dustin Pease, Brandon
Pinckney, David Quinowksi, Gaspar Santiago, Cody Sedlock, Aaron
Senne, Les Smith, Brad Stone, Kris Watts, Mark Wagner, Joel Weeks,
and Kyle Woodruff.
The Court previously appointed Korein Tillery, LLC and Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw LLP as the Class Counsel for all classes and the
FLSA Collective. Judge Spero finds that they should maintain that
appointment for purposes of final approval.
The Court previously appointed JND as Settlement Administrator.
Judge Spero finds that they should maintain that appointment for
purposes of final approval.
Other than the 57 opt-outs listed in docket no. 1173-3, all
individuals who fall within the scope of the certified classes
and/or opted in to the FLSA collective are subject to the terms of
the Settlement and the releases set forth therein.
In the Fee Motion, the Class Counsel ask the Court to award the
following amounts: 1) 30% of the common fund in attorneys' fees,
that is, $55.5 million; 2) $4,654,538.33 in litigation costs; and
3) incentive awards of $15,000 to each of the 40 class
representatives and $7,500 to each of the 5 named plaintiffs who
are not class representatives. They further request that the Court
orders that $995,000 be set aside from the common fund for
settlement administration expenses.
Judge Spero grants the Plaintiffs' Fee Motion and awards the
following amounts: 1) 30% of the common fund in attorneys' fees
($55.5 million); 2) litigation costs in the amount of
$4,654,538.33; 3) incentive payments in the amount of $15,000 each
for the class representatives and $7,500 each for the named
Plaintiffs who are not class representatives. He further orders
that $995,000 be set aside from the common fund for settlement
administration expenses.
The Court will make a final determination as to the reasonable
amount of administration fees as set forth in its March 6, 2023
Order Regarding Deadlines for Requesting Disbursement of
Administration Fees by Administrator. In particular, JND will make
its initial request for disbursement of administration fees within
14 days of effectuating the initial class member distribution from
the settlement fund. It will make its final request for
disbursement of administration fees at least fourteen days before
the anticipated final class member distribution from the fund.
The parties are requested to meet and confer and file a joint
proposed judgment consistent with the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9k65nw from Leagle.com.
KETTLEMANS BAGEL: Lopez Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & NJWHL
------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMBERTO LOPEZ individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. KETTLEMANS BAGEL BAKERY AND DELI LLC (DBA KETTLEMAN'S
BAGELS) and ABDO HASSAN, Case No. 3:23-cv-01837 (D.N.J.., April 1,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid $14 per hour
from 2015 until 2016, $15 per hour from 2017 until 2018, and then
again, $15 per hour from February 2020 until November 2020, $16 per
hour from October 2021 until March 2022, and lastly, $17 per hour
from April 2022 until December 2022 and was not paid any overtime,
despite working 55 hours per week.
The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees to work more
than 40 hours per week without providing them with any additional
compensation.
KETTLEMANS BAGEL BAKERY is a bagel shop based in New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
KODIAK LEATHER: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kodiak Leather, LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Kodiak Leather, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02835 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kodiak Leather, LLC -- https://kodiakleather.com/ -- design and
build ultra-durable, versatile and functional leather goods and
gear including leather backpacks, leather and canvas duffel bags,
leather briefcases, leather messenger bags, leather wallets,
leather portfolios and other kodiak leather accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
KOROSEAL INTERIOR: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koroseal Interior
Products, LLC. The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Koroseal Interior
Products, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02497 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Koroseal -- https://koroseal.com/ -- offers a wide range of
commercial wallcoverings and related products for hotels, apartment
buildings, office buildings, restaurants, schools, hospitals, and
other high traffic applications.[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
LA TOURANGELLE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Tourangelle, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. La Tourangelle, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02799 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
La Tourangelle -- https://latourangelle.com/ -- offers specialty
artisan oils that are natural and organic, perfect for cooking or
any recipe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LA-Z-BOY INC: Carroll Sues Over Video Privacy Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
KEITH CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED; and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:23-cv-10744-SFC-APP (N.D. Cal.,
March 30, 2023) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that whenever someone
watches a video on www.la-z-boy.com (the "Website"), the Defendants
secretly report all the details to Facebook, the visitor's
identity, the titles watched, and more. Facebook then can bombard
the person with more ads urging the person to buy La-Z-Boy
products, says the suit.
LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED is one of the world's leading residential
furniture producers, marketing furniture for every room of the
home. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
LEAD SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Awal Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MD AWAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEAD SECURITY GROUP INC.; and IFEANYI T.
OBINALI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02456 (E.D.N.Y., March 30,
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 Awal was employed by the Defendants as security guard.
LEAD SECURITY GROUP INC. is a security solutions firm based in
Manhattan, specialized in providing trained armed and unarmed
security guard services for residential, commercial, VIP and
special events. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 3rdAvenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (718) 669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com
LLR INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in Sales Tax Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey H. Fisher, Esq. of Kilpatrick Townsend, disclosed that in
Van v. LLR, Inc., 61 F.4th 1053 (9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth Circuit
vacated the district court's grant of class certification and
remanded for re-assessment of whether the plaintiff had satisfied
the predominance requirement. Although the court rejected
challenges to class certification based on standing and the
voluntary payment doctrine, it found that individual issues related
to defendants' provision of discounts for the purpose of offsetting
the allegedly improper sales tax assessment potentially defeated
predominance.
Plaintiff Katie Van filed a putative class action against
Defendants LLR, Inc., and LuLaRoe (collectively, "LuLaRoe")
alleging that LuLaRoe over-charged sales tax to Alaskan customers.
LuLaRoe, a multi-level marketing company that sold leggings and
other women's clothing through independent fashion retailers, used
a point-of-sale system that calculated sales tax based on the
retailer's location, not the customer's location. This practice
caused LuLaRoe to overcharge customers in states -- like Alaska --
that did not charge any sales tax. The District Court of Alaska
granted class certification in September 2021 and LuLaRoe
appealed.
Finding that LuLaRoe's provision of retailer discounts created
individualized issues, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Before addressing the discounts, the court addressed -- and
rejected -- LuLaRoe's other challenges to of class certification.
First, the Court of Appeals found that Ms. Van had standing. 61
F.4th at 1063. After the filing of litigation, LuLaRoe had
attempted to refund the money improperly collected as sales tax.
LuLaRoe did not, however, pay interest for the time between the
improper charge and the return. The only injury suffered by many of
the putative class members was a small amount - often less than
$0.05 of the time value of money. LuLaRoe argued that such de
minimis injury was insufficient to establish standing. The court
disagreed, concluding that "[a]ny monetary loss, even one as small
as a fraction of a cent, is sufficient to support standing." Id. at
1064.
Second, the court found that the voluntary payment doctrine did not
defeat predominance. LuLaRoe argued that some retailers informed
purchasers of the sales tax issues before consummating the
purchase. But LuLaRoe's "minimal proffers of evidence" did not
suffice to show "that any class member knew of the sales tax and
then paid it." Id. at 1068. While the voluntary payment doctrine
could create individual issues, the Ninth Circuit found that
LuLaRoe failed to submit evidence sufficient to substantiate its
defense.
Finally, the court addressed LuLaRoe's argument that class
certification should be vacated because some retailers provided
discounts for the purpose of offsetting the improperly assessed
sales tax. Id. Because LuLaRoe only provided evidence that 18 of
the 13,860 discounts were provided for the purpose of offsetting
improperly assessed sales tax, the district court found that any
individual issue was de minimis and insufficient to defeat class
certification.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Id. at 1069. It found that the
evidence that at least 18 of the discounts were targeted at excess
taxes meant that discovery would be necessary to understand the
purpose of each of these discounts. Such discovery "could
potentially involve up to 13,680 depositions and months of trial,
[and] certainly cannot be described as de minimis." Id. After
finding an individual issue, the court remanded to the district
court to "re-assess whether Van has met her burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that common issues predominate over
questions affecting only individual members." Id.
Conclusion: The Van decision emphasizes the importance of fully
developing evidence of individualized issues during discovery. The
district court rejected LuLaRoe's voluntary payment defense because
of a lack of evidence. But it found the LuLaRoe's discounts created
individual issues, and potentially defeated predominance, because
LuLaRoe had demonstrated that at least a portion of the discounts
targeted tax offsets. This contrast highlights the critical
importance of class action defendants promptly identifying factual
strategies for defeating predominance and systematically developing
evidence to support those strategies. [GN]
LUMINAIRE (MIAMI): Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luminaire (Miami),
LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Luminaire (Miami), LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02721 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Luminaire -- https://luminaire.com/ -- has been the pioneer on
bringing authentic furniture design, lighting, and accessories from
the best designers around the world.[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
M&B RESTAURANT: Faces Franco Class Suit Over Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA FRANCO v. M&B RESTAURANT GROUP and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV06880 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 28, 2023) is a class action suit alleging that M&B has
violated numerous Labor Code Sections against the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees, who include all
non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for M&B at their various
locations in the State of California during the relevant Private
Attorneys General Act period.
According to the complaint, M&B violated Labor Code sections 1194,
1194.2, 1197, and 1197.1 because it failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked,
including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for
"off the clock" work. This is so because M&B had a company policy
wherein, they would is proportionately round down the number of
hours worked by the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees,
resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved
employees not being paid for all hours worked, says the suit.
The Plaintiff started working for M&B on or around July 2021 as a
crew member/service member for M&B's "Jack in the Box" store
located in Covina, California. During her tenure, the Plaintiff was
classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and her latest rate of
pay was $15.50/hour. The Plaintiff's employment ended on or around
May 2022, the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
MA LUXURY DESIGN: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MA Luxury Design
Group Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. MA Luxury Design Group
Inc. doing business as: Marli New York, Case No. 1:23-cv-02516
(E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MA Luxury Design Group Inc. doing business as MARLI New York --
https://marlinewyork.com/ -- is the fine jewelry brand from New
York.[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
MARIGOLD & GREY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marigold & Grey, Inc.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Marigold & Grey, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02776 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Marigold & Grey, Inc. is a full-service artisan gifting business
specializing in gift design for weddings, corporate events, client
appreciation, and life's special occasions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
MARQUEE MERCHANDISE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marquee Merchandise,
LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Marquee Merchandise, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02790 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Marquee Merchandise -- https://marqueemerchandise.com/ -- provides
quality merchandising services for Broadway, Off-Broadway and
touring theatrical productions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
MDL 3010: Court Declines Farrell's Discovery Bid in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as In Re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 21-md-3010 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin
Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York denies Mr. Farrell's application asking the Court to direct
the parties to further meet and confer regarding a separate track
for Newspaper Plaintiff discovery responses and report back in
short order.
The Court reasons that "the fact that individual publishers who
have elected to bring their own actions parallel to the Publisher
Class Action are represented by the same law firm, alone and in
combination with the other considerations cited by Mr. Farrell,
does not justify "a separate track for discovery." Some form or
variation on bellwether discovery of a few individual publisher
plaintiffs with fact sheets submitted by all others is. . . an
unworkable solution in the context of these Sherman Act claims.
Section 1 and 2 claims brought by a business entity asserting
injury resulting from a wide array of anticompetitive measures are
quite different in complexity from individual personal-injury
claims in a mass tort action. The responses from each individual
publisher plaintiff logically can be expected to vary greatly."
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/mwyatc4n from Leagle.com.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Winkelman Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Winkelman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00407-VAB (D. Conn., March 31, 2023), is brought against
the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
debt collection practices, the Plaintiff became distressed and
damaged.
The FDCPA was enacted in 1977 in response to the "abundant evidence
of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection
practices by many debt collectors." Before May 4, 2022, Plaintiff
requested that MCM no longer contact her regarding the subject debt
by phone or in writing unless required by law or Plaintiff requests
the resumption of communications. Thereafter, on or about May 4,
2022, Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter in an attempt to
collect the subject debt ("Letter"). Specifically, the Letter sets
forth that "if we don't hear from you or receive payment by
6/3/2022, we may proceed with forwarding this account to an
attorney." The Letter also sets forth that "in the meantime, as
previously requested by you, we will no longer be contacting you
regarding this account by phone or in writing unless required by
law or you request that we resume communications."
From the date that the Notice was issued to Defendant through
November 20, 2022, Defendant sent the Plaintiff at least five (5)
more letters in an attempt to collect the debt. Thus, despite the
Defendant's acknowledgment of the Plaintiff's cease and desist,
Defendant continued to send letters to Plaintiff. Moreover, the
letters are largely duplicative in nature and, upon information and
belief, are not required by law. Further, Plaintiff never requested
the resumption of communications.
The Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, including, but not
limited to anxiety and loss of sleep, as a result of Defendant's
invasion of individual privacy and harassment. Plaintiff
specifically desired to no longer be contacted anymore, yet the
letters continued causing her to become extremely upset and
frightened. Plaintiff has suffered wasted time and annoyance as a
result of Defendant's invasion of individual privacy and
harassment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Connecticut, County of
New Haven.
MCM is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza. Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Hollins Confirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California grants the petition to confirm the final
arbitration award and request for attorneys' fees and costs filed
by Julian Hollins in the case captioned as JULIAN HOLLINS,
Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a
C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation Respondent, Case
No. 2:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPRx (C.D. Cal.).
Julian Hollins performed oil well plug and abandonment work for
Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. in the Port of Long
Beach, as part of a larger project to replace the Gerald Desmond
Bridge.
In April 2015, former Nabors employees who performed similar work
on the project filed a putative class action in the state court
against Nabors for violations under the California Labor Code, on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, including
Hollins. Nabors removed the action to this Court, and thereafter
filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties'
arbitration agreement. The Court denied the motion to compel
arbitration. Nabors appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed
and remanded the court's denial of the motion to compel
arbitration.
On March 30, 2018, Hollins submitted a Demand for Arbitration to
JAMS, asserting the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure
to pay prevailing wages; (2) waiting time penalties; (3) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (4) unfair
competition. Hollins filed a motion for summary adjudication
pursuant to JAMS Employment Rule 18. The Arbitrator granted
Hollins' motion, ruling on the issues pertaining to Nabors'
liability.
On May 9, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a Final Arbitration Award.
Hollins now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks
$10,849 in post-award, attorneys' fees and $402 in costs for filing
of the initial complaint in this confirmation action.
Nabors opposes, contending that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest
disregard of the law through several alleged errors with respect to
Nabors' liability and damages. Specifically, Nabors argues that the
Arbitrator erred in the following: (1) rejecting, and not giving
any deference to, the Labor Commissioner's decision that Nabors'
subject work in the [Port of Long Beach] was not within the
jurisdiction of California Public Work Law and therefore exempt
from California Labor Code Section 1720; and (2) deeming the
subject work as a public work and awarding Hollins prevailing wages
even though there are no prevailing wage rates -- or applicable
classifications -- established by the Department of Industrial
Relations for Hollins' oil field work.
Judge Pregerson finds, however, that Nabors fails to identify any
instances in the record where the Arbitrator "recognized the
applicable law and then ignored it." Judge Pregerson points out
that the alleged errors are based on misinterpretation or
misapplication of the law, and such legal errors are insufficient
to vacate an Arbitration Award. Finding no manifest disregard of
the law exhibited in the Arbitration Award, Judge Pregerson
declines to vacate the Arbitration Award.
Accordingly, Judge Pregerson confirmed the Final JAMS Arbitration
Award issued by Arbitrator Hon. Deborah Crandall Saxe on May 9,
2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058996. Judgment will be
entered in favor of Julian Hollins and against Nabors in the amount
of: $177,755, plus continuing interest after Nov. 18, 2021, at 10%
annum until paid; $1,850 in statutory penalties; $197,795 in
attorneys' fees, and $2,750 in costs as awarded by the Arbitrator.
Judge Pregerson further grants Hollins' request for post-award
attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,887 and for costs in the amount
of $402.
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/367a85f2 from Leagle.com.
NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Rosales Suit OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JESUS ROSALES, Petitioner v. NABORS
COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Respondent, Case No.
2:22-cv-05685-DDP-JPRx, (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants
Jesus Rosales' petition to confirm the final arbitration award and
request for attorneys' fees and costs.
Jesus Rosales performed oil well plug and abandonment work for
Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. in the Port of Long
Beach, as part of a larger project to replace the Gerald Desmond
Bridge.
In April 2015, former Nabors employees who performed similar work
on the project filed a putative class action in the state court
against Nabors for violations under the California Labor Code, on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, including
Rosales. Nabors removed the action to this Court, and thereafter
filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties'
arbitration agreement. The Court denied the motion to compel
arbitration. Nabors appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed
and remanded the court's denial of the motion to compel
arbitration.
Rosales submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, asserting the
following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing
wages; (2) waiting time penalties; (3) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; and (4) unfair competition. Thereafter,
Rosales filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to JAMS
Employment Rule 18. The Arbitrator granted Rosales's motion, ruling
on the issues pertaining to Nabors' liability. On Aug. 2, 2022, the
Arbitrator issued a Final Arbitration Award.
Rosales now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks
post-award attorneys' fees and costs for filing of the initial
complaint in this confirmation action.
Nabors opposes, contending that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest
disregard of the law through several alleged errors with respect to
Nabors' liability and damages. Specifically, Nabors argues that the
Arbitrator erred in: (1) rejecting, and not giving any deference
to, the Labor Commissioner's decision that Nabors' subject work in
the [Port of Long Beach] was not within the jurisdiction of
California Public Work Law and therefore exempt from California
Labor Code Section 1720; and (2) deeming the subject work as a
public work and awarding Rosales' prevailing wages even though
there are no prevailing wage rates -- or applicable classifications
-- established by the Department of Industrial Relations for
Rosales' oil field work.
Nabors, however, fails to identify any instances in the record
where the Arbitrator "recognized the applicable law and then
ignored it." Judge Pregerson points out that the alleged errors are
based on misinterpretation or misapplication of the law, and such
legal errors are insufficient to vacate an Arbitration Award.
Finding no manifest disregard of the law exhibited in the
Arbitration Award, Judge Pregerson declines to vacate the
Arbitration Award.
Accordingly, Judge Pregerson confirmed the Final JAMS Arbitration
Award issued by Arbitrator Hon. Deborah Crandall Saxe on Aug. 2,
2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058992. Judgment will be
entered in favor of Rosales and against Nabors in the amount of:
$326,131 in damages, including statutory interest as of Jan. 6,
2022, plus continuing interest at the rate of 10% per annum until
paid; $3,050 in statutory penalties interest under California Labor
Code Section 226(e); $230,646.38 in attorneys' fees; and $2,228 in
costs.
Judge Pregerson further grants Rosales's request for post-award
attorneys' fees in the amount of $9,357 and for costs in the amount
of $402.
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/yd2nxwcx from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Moehrl's 2 Classes of Home Sellers Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER MOEHRL, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01610
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division:
a. grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify two classes of
similarly situated home sellers; and
b. denies the Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of
two expert witnesses on which the Plaintiffs rely in
seeking class certification.
The Plaintiffs are seven individuals who sold their homes utilizing
a local database of properties for sale known as a Multiple Listing
Service ("MLS"). As a condition of listing their home on an MLS,
each Plaintiff's listing had to include a set offer of compensation
to any broker who found a buyer for their home. Each Plaintiff then
paid that offer amount in connection with the sale of their home.
According to the Plaintiffs, the rules implementing and governing
the requirement that an MLS listing include a set commission offer
to the successful buyer-broker are anticompetitive and caused them
to pay artificially inflated, supracompetitive commission rates.
They have therefore brought the present antitrust action alleging
that Defendant National Association of Realtors ("NAR"), along with
Defendants Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc.,
HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., BHH
Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
(collectively, "Corporate Defendants"), engaged in a conspiracy in
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1.
At issue in the lawsuit are several rules set forth in the MLS
Rules, Code of Ethics, and Case Interpretations that, together,
allegedly work to artificially inflate the commissions paid to
buyer-brokers ("Challenged Restraints"). Most prominently, Policy
Statement 7.23 of the MLS Rules requires that, when listing a home
for sale on an MLS, the listing seller-broker must make blanket
unilateral offers of compensation to buyer-brokers ("Buyer-Broker
Commission Rule").
Under the Buyer-Broker Commission Rule, a seller-broker is not
allowed to submit, and an MLS is not allowed to publish, a listing
that does not include a blanket unilateral offer of compensation to
the broker that finds a buyer for the home. As a result of the
Buyer-Broker Commission Rule, the seller rather than the buyer pays
the buyer-broker's commission.
According to the Plaintiffs, the combined effect of the Challenged
Restraints is to maintain and extend an anticompetitive market for
real estate broker services by causing home sellers to pay
supracompetitive rates of commission to buyer-brokers. At the
center of the antitrust conspiracy alleged by the Plaintiffs is the
NAR, which promulgates the MLS Rules, the Code of Ethics, and Case
Interpretations. The NAR allegedly offers the following deal to
co-conspirators: in exchange for adhering to and enforcing the
Challenged Restraints, the co-conspirators will be allowed to
participate in the MLSs and gain the attendant benefits of
supracompetitive commission rates and protection from competition.
The Plaintiffs claim that Corporate Defendants are among the
offerees that have accepted the NAR's offer, thereby entering into
an antitrust conspiracy with the NAR.
The Plaintiffs contend that together the NAR and Corporate
Defendants have engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain price competition among real
estate brokers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1. Each Plaintiff sold a home on an MLS that
implemented the Challenged Restraints and therefore paid a
purportedly inflated commission to the successful buyer-broker.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes consisting of
homeowners who sold or intend to sell a home on one of twenty
NAR-affiliated MLSs covering various regions across the United
States ("Covered MLS").
Specifically, they propose the following "Damages Class" pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): Home sellers who paid
a commission between March 6, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2020, to a
brokerage affiliated with a Corporate Defendant in connection with
the sale of residential real estate listed on a Covered MLS and in
a covered jurisdiction.
In addition, pursuant to Federal of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2),
the Plaintiffs seek to represent an "Injunctive Relief Class,"
which would consist of: Current and future owners of residential
real estate in the covered jurisdictions who are presently listing
or will in the future list their home for sale on a Covered MLS.
Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
as well as the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert testimony
of the Plaintiffs' two class certification experts. Because the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification relies on the opinions
of the two challenged experts, Judge Wood begins by examining the
admissibility of those experts' opinions. She then decides whether
to certify the Plaintiffs' two proposed classes.
To support certification of their proposed classes, the Plaintiffs
rely on the expert opinions of Professor Einer Elhauge and Dr.
Nicholas Economides. The Defendants move to exclude both experts.
The Plaintiffs have retained Professor Einer Elhauge, a professor
at Harvard Law School where he teaches antitrust law, among other
subjects, to conduct an economic analysis of the evidence and
provide his expert opinion on whether common economic evidence can
answer questions related to market definition, market power,
liability, and impact.
Judge Wood finds that Elhauge's methodology is sufficiently
reliable, as his opinions are derived from his application of his
extensive knowledge of antitrust law and economics to the evidence
in the case. Further, Elhauge does not rely on the type of
unrealistic assumptions or cherry-picked facts that would call his
reliability into question. The Defendants are free to attack the
accuracy of his opinions at a later stage of the case but, for now,
they have given the Court no reason to exclude Elhauge as an
expert.
The Plaintiffs offer Dr. Nicholas Economides as an expert witness
to opine on whether common evidence can prove antitrust impact and
damages. Economides is a professor of economics at New York
University's Stern School of Business. He has a master's degree and
a Ph.D. in economics, both from the University of California at
Berkeley. In his report, Economides.
Judge Wood holds that there is no question that Economides' use of
the established yardstick methodology is reliable. And he
sufficiently explains why his chosen yardsticks are comparable to
the relevant markets in the case. Although the Defendants claim
that Economides's methodology is unreliable, all they can do is
point out weaknesses in his analysis. Whether an expert might have
done a better job is not the test for the admissibility of his
testimony. Thus, Judge Wood concludes that Economides opinions are
admissible. And because she is satisfied that both Elhauge and
Economides are qualified to testify as experts, employed a reliable
methodology, and offer relevant opinions, Judge Wood denies the
Defendants' motion to exclude them as experts in support of class
certification.
Turning to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Judge
Wood states that the proposed class must first satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(a). Of the Rule 23(a) factors, the
Defendants only challenge the Plaintiffs' ability to satisfy the
commonality and typicality requirements.
As to the adequacy of representation requirement, there is no
suggestion that any Plaintiff's interests are adverse to those of
the class. Further, the class counsel have demonstrated that they
are experienced, qualified, and will adequately represent the
interests of the class. Accordingly, Judge Wood finds that the
adequacy of representation requirement has been met.
Having found that the Plaintiffs meet those two Rule 23(a)
requirements, Judge Wood considers the Plaintiffs' showing as to
the commonality and typicality requirements. She opines that there
is at least one central, common question in the case: whether
Defendants conspired to artificially inflate the buyer-broker
commissions paid by the class by adopting the Challenged
Restraints, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Moreover,
the Plaintiffs' claims share the same essential characteristics as
the rest of the class and typicality is established.
With the Plaintiffs having established the requirements of Rule
23(a), Judge Wood next looks to whether they have also met Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements such that the
Damages Class can be certified. She finds that the Defendants
cannot show that individual questions regarding impact predominate
over the common issues capable of common proof identified by the
Plaintiffs. Consequently, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
predominance requirement as to antitrust impact.
In addition, the Defendants' issues with the Plaintiffs' damages
model go to the merits and do not prevent certification of the
Damages Class. And because the Plaintiffs have shown that common
questions predominate as to each element of their claim under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Judge Wood finds that they have met
Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.
In addition to predominance, Rule 23(b)(3) also requires that the
Court determines whether a class action is the superior way to
resolve the Plaintiffs' lawsuit. Judge Wood states that generally,
the more that common issues predominate, the more likely that a
class action is the superior vehicle for deciding the controversy.
Consequently, her findings as to predominance weigh strongly in
favor of finding that a class action is the superior format for the
litigation. Moreover, the large number of potential class members
indicates the superiority of the class action device.
For these reasons, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the superiority
requirement. Because certification is proper pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3), Judge Wood grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
Damages Class.
Judge Wood next considers the Plaintiffs' request for certification
of an Injunctive Relief Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). Because
the Injunctive Relief Class asks only for a single injunction that
applies generally to the class and there are Plaintiffs with
standing to represent the class, certification is proper under Rule
23(b)(2). Moreover, the existence of a separate Damages Class
seeking monetary relief does preclude certification. For these
reasons, Judge Wood grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
Injunctive Relief Class.
Earlier in the case, Defendants HomeServices of America, Inc., HSF
Affiliates, LLC, BHH Affiliates, LLC, and The Long & Foster
Companies, Inc. (collectively, "HomeServices") moved to strike from
the class definition those class members who had signed a listing
agreement with a HomeServices-owned brokerage containing an
arbitration provision. The Court denied HomeServices' motion,
finding that the matter would be better addressed at the class
certification stage. Accordingly, the Defendants' opposition to
class certification reasserts HomeServices' contention that the
class definitions should exclude those members whose listing
agreements contained arbitration provisions.
Judge Wood finds that in the Defendants' opposition to class
certification, they state that HomeServices is willing to file a
separate motion regarding their request to exclude from the class
definitions the unnamed members whose listing agreements contained
an arbitration provision. She believes that is the best course.
Thus, she certifies the Plaintiffs' Damages Class and Injunctive
Relief Class, but if HomeServices wishes to narrow one or both
classes, it may do so by separate motion. And, of course, the
parties' briefs in support of that motion should be responsive to
the concerns laid out by the Court.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood denies the Defendants' motion
to exclude the expert opinions of Elhauge and Economides and grants
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Judge Wood certifies the following class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):
Home sellers who paid a commission between March 6, 2015, and
December 31, 2020, to a brokerage affiliated with a Corporate
Defendant in connection with the sale of residential real estate
listed on a Covered MLS and in a covered jurisdiction. Excluded
from the class are (i) sales of residential real estate for a price
below $56,500, (ii) sales of residential real estate at auction,
and (iii) employees, officers, and directors of defendants, the
presiding Judge in this case, and the Judge's staff.
In addition, Judge Wood certifies the following class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2):
Current and future owners of residential real estate in the
covered jurisdictions who are presently listing or will in the
future list their home for sale on a Covered MLS. Excluded from the
class are (i) sales of residential real estate for a price below
$56,500, (ii) sales of residential real estate at auction, and
(iii) employees, officers, and directors of defendants, the
presiding Judge in this case, and the Judge's staff.
Judge Wood appoints Plaintiffs Christopher Moehrl, Michael Cole,
Steve Darnell, Jack Ramey, Daniel Umpa, and Jane Ruh as the class
representatives and appoints Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Susman Godfrey LLP as the
co-lead class counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mshnhu8 from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: June 5 Trial Set for Hall of Fame Game Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reports that nearly seven
years ago, the NFL couldn't play the Hall of Fame game between the
Colts and Packers due to a bungled effort to paint the field. That
sparked a class action lawsuit on behalf of those who bought
tickets to the game.
The lawsuit, originally filed by Michael Avenatti (more on him in a
second), has been pending for years. It's due to go to trial on
June 5.
Notice has been sent to those who are currently in the class. If
those who had tickets to the game (and who haven't accepted
reimbursement from the league) don't opt out, they'll remain in the
class. (At this point, there's really no reason to opt out.)
The case has been certified for class-action treatment on the issue
of liability only. At that point, the damages calculations would
hinge on the recoverable financial losses experienced by people who
showed up for a game that didn't happen.
Some will have travel expenses. Some will have hotel expenses. Some
may have used vacation leave to travel. Some bought things at the
game, after they were allegedly told the game would still be
played.
For now, the threshold question is whether the Hall of Fame has
legal responsibility to the ticket holders for failing to play the
game.
And why wouldn't it? Someone screwed up the field. It wasn't
weather or external foul play or anything other than negligence by
those responsible for getting the field ready.
More information about the lawsuit can be found here. The website
includes a link to the First Amended Complaint, signed by
Avenatti.
Avenatti handled the class action arising from the Super Bowl XLV
seating fiasco. He later represented Stormy Daniels, when her
issues with Donald Trump first came to light.
Avenatti quickly became a cable-news celebrity, and he actually
flirted with running for president in 2020.
Thereafter, the wheels came off his career. He was convicted of
extorting Nike, and he was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He
also was convicted of stealing millions from clients and tax fraud.
In December 2022, he received a 14-year prison term.
But his case against the Hall of Fame continues. Obviously with
other counsel handling it. [GN]
NATIONAL GRID: Working Solutions Represents Utility Workers in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The employment attorneys at the Working Solutions law firm have
agreed to represent a class of utility workers in New York who were
denied fair, prevailing wages and overtime compensation while
working for the state's National Grid. The defendants of the case
include National Grid PLC, National Grid Electric Services LLC
("National Grid Electric"), USIC LLC, and RECONN Holdings. The
representative plaintiff, Christian Stearns, brought the case to
serve himself and those similarly situated as "Instrument People"
and "Rod People" employed by the defendants in New York.
The companies have been accused of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act for refusing to pay workers a time-and-a-half rate
for hours worked over 40. Workers hired to perform utility services
on publicly funded construction projects were also denied state
prevailing wages, which the New York Labor Law entitles in Article
8. [GN]
NAV TECHNOLOGIES: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nav Technologies,
Inc. The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nav Technologies, Inc.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01200 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Civil
Miscellaneous Case.
Nav -- https://www.nav.com/ -- is the leading financial health
platform for small businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Mardikian Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lillian Mardikian, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. NCB Management
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01246 (E.D. Pa., March 31, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other Contract.
NCB -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- is a national accounts receivable
management company and debt buyer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
NISSAN SHAPIRO: Court Dismisses Huebner's Amended FDCPA Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEVI HUEBNER, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. NISSAN SHAPIRO LAW P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-05747 (HG) (PK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Hector
Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.
Huebner brings the putative class action seeking to recover money
damages from the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692-1692p.
The Defendant is a law firm engaged in debt collection.
In September 2018, the Plaintiff executed a lease for an apartment
in Brooklyn. Shortly thereafter, he permitted another individual,
Elie Poltorak, to occupy the apartment. The Plaintiff alleges that
his landlord refused to honor the occupancy of Poltorak and
orchestrated a scheme to evict him for nonpayment. At some point,
the Plaintiff failed to pay rent and this debt for non-payment of
rent was referred to the Defendant for collection. He asserts that
the alleged debt for non-payment of rent is a result of the
landlord's failure to deposit the rent payment that he made on Oct.
3, 2018.
The Plaintiff further alleges that on Oct. 12, 2018, the Defendant
served the Plaintiff with a three-day notice threatening to evict
him for non-payment. According to the Plaintiff, the Three-Day
Notice demanded "Legal Fees" in the amount of $200 and threatened
to subject him to eviction proceedings unless the legal fees were
paid within three days. He alleges that the demand for legal fees
violates the FDCPA, because such fees were not expressly authorized
by the lease agreement and, therefore, rendered the information in
the Three-Day Notice false, deceptive, or misleading.
The Plaintiff also alleges that the portion of the Three-Day Notice
that was required by the FDCPA to inform him that he could halt
collection of the debt by disputing the debt within 30 days was
rendered misleading because the Three-Day Notice also said that
"nothing" would "prevent the undersigned landlord from commencing
summary proceedings under the law should you fail to pay as
demanded above." He alleges that this language confused him about
whether he had the right preemptively to seek an injunction in
state court to prevent his eviction. He further alleges that
despite "arranging a new payment" of his rent shortly after
receiving the Three-Day Notice, the Defendant did, in fact, file a
"holdover proceeding" against him -- although it waited more than
30 days after he received the Three-Day Notice before doing so.
The complaint does not quantify the damages that the Plaintiff
supposedly incurred as a result of the Defendant's alleged
violations of the FDCPA. Instead, he seeks statutory damages
provided under the FDCPA, attorney fees, litigation expenses and
costs incurred in bringing the action, and any other relief that
this Court deems appropriate and just under the circumstances.
On Oct. 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the action alleging that the
Three-Day Notice violated the FDCPA. Before the case was assigned
to the Court, the proceedings were delayed significantly by the
Defendant's initial default, the Plaintiff's delays in seeking a
default judgment so that he could purportedly pursue discovery
related to a potential motion for class certification, and the
Defendant's eventual, successful motion to vacate its default.
On Aug. 4, 2022, the Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss:
(i) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that
Plaintiff lacks standing under Rule 12(b)(1); (ii) for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6);
and (iii) for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The
Plaintiff subsequently filed his opposition and a proposed amended
complaint on Sept. 22, 2022. On Oct. 6, 2022, the Defendant filed
its reply.
Judge Gonzalez holds that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims because the
allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint do not amount to a
concrete injury sufficient to confer standing. He finds that the
Plaintiff fails to establish a concrete harm or injury and fails to
demonstrate that any alleged deficiencies in the Three-Day Notice
are more than a mere violation of a statutory prohibition or
obligation.
In sum, the allegations in the Plaintiff's proposed amended
complaint do not establish standing. Accordingly, Judge Gonzalez
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 28, 2023 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/38vb9ye8 from Leagle.com.
O'GRADY-PEYTON: Garchitorena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Grady-Peyton
International (USA), Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maricor
Maria Garchitorena, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. O'Grady-Peyton International (USA), Inc., AMN
Healthcare, Inc., Case No. BCV-23-101036 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., April 4, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
O' Grady Peyton International -- https://www.ogradypeyton.com/ --
has over 40 years of experience placing nurses into rewarding
careers across the United States.[BN]
OLDCASTLE SERVICES: Jermon Minor Will Substitute as Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois grants the motion to substitute party filed by
the Plaintiff's son, Jermon Minor, in the case captioned as
JERMAINE MINOR, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLDCASTLE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 21-CV-503-SMY (S.D. Ill.).
Plaintiff Jermaine Minor filed this putative class action, alleging
that Defendant Oldcastle Services, Inc. violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by using a biometric time clock
for employees. Sadly, Jermaine passed away without an estate or a
will on July 1, 2022. He is survived by an adult son, Jermon Minor
and three minor children.
The Court notes that "while BIPA claims are not explicitly
referenced in the Illinois Survival Act and there appears no direct
precedent from an Illinois Appellate Court or the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals, actions to recover damages for injuries to
'personal property' are to be given a broad construction 'with
reference to the conditions of present-day life.'" Because BIPA
creates a property interest in personal biometric information, the
Court finds that the BIPA claim survives Mr. Minor's death.
Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff's adult son,
Jermon Minor, is a proper representative to prosecute the
Plaintiff's BIPA claim.
A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated March 22, 2023,
is available https://tinyurl.com/mry2hpmm from Leagle.com.
ONLINE MEAT AND SEAFOOD: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Online Meat And
Seafood, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Online Meat And
Seafood, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02791 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Online Meat and Seafood, Inc., doing business as Good Chop --
https://www.goodchop.com/ -- is a subscription box that delivers
high-quality meats right to the front door.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
PACIFIC GAS: Scott Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
JAMEELAH FATIMAH SCOTT, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E), AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC-23-604634 (Filed Feb.
10, 2023), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on March 29, 2023.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01484-SK to the proceedings.
The Complaint contains six causes of action, alleging: recovery of
unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages; failure to provide
meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks; and waiting time
penalties under the California Labor Code.
PG&E is an investor-owned utility that provides natural gas and
electricity to most of the northern two-thirds of California, from
Bakersfield almost to the Oregon border.[BN]
The Defendants is represented by:
Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq.
Heather Lanyi, Esq.
Harman Deol, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: (925) 932-2468
Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
E-mail: jkienitz@littler.com
hlanyi@littler.com
hdeol@littler.com
PACIFIC GREEN ENERGY: Mederos Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Green Energy,
LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Mederos, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Pacific Green Energy, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-21282-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Pacific Green Energy, LLC -- https://pacificgreenenergy.com/ -- is
a solar energy equipment supplier in Sausalito, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
PACKED PARTY INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Packed Party, Inc.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Packed Party, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02809 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Packed Party -- https://www.packedparty.com/ -- is a party shop
that designs confetti products for a wide range of events, styles,
and people.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
PAQUETERIA HR: Faces Rosa Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY ROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAQUETERIA HR EXPRESS, INC. and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV06927 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 29, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys' General Act including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, failure to timely pay wages, failure to properly pay
all wages owed upon separation of employment, and failure to
reimburse business expenses.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from July of 2021 through approximately May 3, 2022.
Paqueteria HR Express, Inc. is a business based in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Lisa Noveck, Esq.
Jameson Evans, Esq.
Amanda M. Thompson, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (310) 853-3461
Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
lisan@pierrelacour.com
jamesone@pierrelacour.com
amandat@pierrelacour.com
PLAYTIKA HOLDING UK: Kormos Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Playtika Holding UK
II Limited, et al. The case is styled as Scott G. Kormos, Jordan
Klein, other similarly situated persons v. Playtika Holding UK II
Limited, Craig Abrahams, Robert Antokol, Case No. 2023-0396-SG
(Del. Chancery Ct., April 4, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land for Breach of
Fiduciary Duties.
Playtika -- https://playtika.com/ -- is an Israel-based digital
entertainment company specializing in the development and
publication of mobile games.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J Springer, Esq.
David Sborz, Esq.
Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
Christopher Quinn, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike Ste 250
Wilmington, DE, 19807-2029
Phone: (302) 504-4957
Fax: (302) 397-2681
- and -
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP-DELAWARE
222 Delaware Ave Ste 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 573-6938
Email: nweinberger@labaton.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Callahan Sues Over Mislabeled Detergent Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
TASHA CALLAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02072 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2023) alleges
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
According to the complaint the Defendant manufactures Gain
detergent marketed as sufficient for 32 loads of laundry
("Product"). Plaintiff saw and relied on the label which stated she
could do the specified number of loads of laundry, and like most
Americans, she did not do small loads, because she filled her
washing machine to the point that the clothes container was loosely
filled, to take advantage of its whole usable capacity, which meant
the number of loads of laundry she was able to do did not exceed
half of the 32 indicated on the front label.
The Defendant's false, misleading, and deceptive representations
and omissions are material in that they are likely to influence
consumer purchasing decisions, because value is important to
consumers like the Plaintiff. Plaintiff would not have purchased
the Product or paid as much if the true facts had been known,
suffering damages, says the suit.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY manufactures and markets consumer
products. The Company provides products in the laundry and
cleaning, paper, beauty care, food and beverage, and health care
segments. Procter & Gamble products serves customers worldwide.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Sixth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Cowley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned as JOSHUA COWLEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-1760
(6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms
the district court's order dismissing the Plaintiff's class
action.
Joshua Cowley was a security guard for Prudential Security, Inc. He
thought that he and his fellow security guards were underpaid and
poorly treated. So, he filed a putative class action against
Prudential in the Eastern District of California in 2019. He
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
wage and hour laws.
Prudential moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of
Michigan, and the court granted that motion in January 2021. The
Eastern District of Michigan opened the docket in March 2021. But
from March to June, there was radio silence on the docket. So on
June 11, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice
for failure to prosecute.
Weeks after, Cowley filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(1) for relief from dismissal, explaining that
dismissal would mean that some of his claims would be time-barred.
The district court denied that motion, and Cowley appealed.
The Sixth Circuit sent the case back down for the district court to
"reconsider its order with some guidance." The Court said that "the
brevity of the district court's three-sentence order prevented us
from determining whether the district court had abused its
discretion in dismissing."
The district reconsidered, and it came to the same conclusion --
but with the reasoning that was missing the first go-around --
dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) was
indeed warranted. Cowley now appeals.
As the district court acknowledged, the court evaluates four
factors in deciding whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b). First
factor: the district court found that the first factor worked
against Cowley because Cowley's counsel "showed 'a reckless
disregard for the effect of his conduct on the proceedings' by
failing to appear for four months." In fact, counsel only informed
the district court of its difficulty finding counsel in its Rule
60(b) motion for relief from dismissal after the district court had
dismissed it under Rule 41(b).
Second factor: the district court found that "Cowley's counsel
prejudiced Prudential by failing to appear on the docket. . .
Cowley's 'months-long delay prejudiced' Prudential because
'damages. . . could increase each day' in a case like this." The
district court noted that although Prudential also failed to
appear, it was Cowley's burden to prosecute the case. So, the
district court held that the second factor also worked in favor of
dismissal.
Third factor: the district court acknowledged that it had failed to
warn Cowley that failure to prosecute would lead to dismissal. The
district court said that it hadn't warned because it "believed that
a show cause order -- or any order requiring a party response --
would have been futile since no attorney had appeared in the
case."
Fourth factor: the district court explained that it thought other
lesser sanctions would have been "futile" because no parties had
even appeared in the case. So, it didn't even have a party on which
to serve a show-cause order. And the district court did give a
lesser sanction than a final dismissal -- it dismissed without
prejudice -- so Cowley had a "second chance to file his complaint."
And indeed, Cowley did file a second complaint. That litigation is
ongoing before the same district court.
With three factors working against Cowley, the Sixth Circuit finds
and concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in dismissing Cowley's action.
A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/5n8wuk33 from Leagle.com.
RANDOLPH ENGINEERING: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Randolph Engineering,
Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Randolph Engineering, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02836 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Randolph Engineering, Inc. -- https://www.randolphusa.com/ --
manufactures and sells sunglasses, shooting glasses, and
prescription glasses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Limits New Contracts With Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned as Buffalo Seafood House, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants. A+ Auto
Service, LLC, Plaintiff v. Republic Services of South Carolina,
LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 7:22-cv-1242-RMG, 2:21-cv-01492-RMG
(D.S.C.), Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
control class member contact.
The consolidated, near-nationwide putative class action involves a
form contract, which the Defendants used to enter into agreements
with commercial and industrial customers. The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants price increases and fee assessments violated
the form contract.
In the current motion, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
entered into new contracts with some putative class members and
that the new contracts contain arbitration and class waiver
provisions that bars any party who signs it from participating in
or recovering through this litigation. The Plaintiffs argue that
the Defendants have entered into these new contracts deliberately
with the intention of reducing the Defendants' liability.
On the other hand, the Defendants contend that they did not wrongly
enter new contracts with putative class members and that the
Plaintiffs' motion seeks to interfere with routine business
practices.
The Court finds that "the Defendants conduct was impermissible,
warranting a protective order from the Court. . . it is undisputed
that a 'particular form of communication' has occurred here. The
evidence shows, and the Defendants have not disputed, that the
Defendants have offered agreements with arbitration clauses and
class waiver provisions to existing customers. . . the timing and
context of Defendants communications support a finding that the new
contracts were offered to reduce the number of potential class
members in this case." Accordingly, the Court concludes that such
communications are improper and threaten the proper functioning of
this litigation.
The Court, therefore, orders the following:
(1) The Defendants may enter into new agreements with putative
class members as part of its standard business practices, but if
such agreements purport to limit class members' rights in this
litigation, Defendants must first fully disclose to those customers
the existence of this litigation and the consequence of executing
the new agreement. When notifying those customers of the
litigation, Defendants will also notify the customers of their
right to contact class counsel before entering the new agreement
and provide class counsel's contact information.
(2) The Defendants will notify all putative class members (or
former putative class members) who entered into a new agreement
containing an arbitration and/or class waiver provision after March
2019 of the existence and allegations of the litigation and of the
right to contact class counsel. The Defendants will also provide
such customers the opportunity to replace the new agreement with
the prior contract's standard terms.
A full-text copy of the Order and Opinion dated March 22, 2023, is
available https://tinyurl.com/ym224d23 from Leagle.com.
ROCKY KNOLL MHC: Moynihan Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocky Knoll MHC, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Barbara Moynihan, Jean Warish,
individually and on behalf of Other similarly situated individuals
v. Rocky Knoll MHC, LLC, Arcap, LC, Case No. 2373CV00214 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., April 3, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Equitable Remedies."
Rocky Knoll Technologies focuses on small and medium
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine Njeri Karuga-Ndivo, Esq.
NORTHEAST JUSTICE CENTER
79 Merrimack St., Suite 302
Lowell, MA 01852
- and -
Caroline M Meade, Esq.
NORTHEAST JUSTICE CENTER
50 Island St., Suite 203B
Lawrence, MA 01840
ROOSEVELT TROPICAL: Chavez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN CHAVEZ v. ROOSEVELT TROPICAL, CORP. d/b/a TROPICAL RESTAURANT
and JAIME "JIMMY" ILLESCAS, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-02413
(E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2023) is a class action suit seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief against the Defendants' unlawful
actions and to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of
hours pay, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention
Act.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated non-exempt workers the minimum wages to which
they are entitled under the NYLL and its supporting NYDOL
regulations. For over twelve years, Plaintiff worked under various
front-end and back-end capacities at Defendants' Tropical
Restaurant, where he worked up to 69 hours per week. Throughout his
employment, the Plaintiff did not receive the statutory minimum
wage, overtime pay for hours worked over forty per week or spread
of-hours pay. Additionally, Plaintiff did not receive wage notices,
or wage statements at the end of each pay period, says the suit.
Plaintiff Ruben Chavez is an individual who at all times relevant
to this Complaint, is and has been a resident of the state of New
York.
Roosevelt Tropical is a New York corporation that owns, operates,
and does business as Tropical Restaurant, an Ecuadorian restaurant
located at 67-22 Roosevelt Avenue, Woodside, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Diego O. Barros, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail:jon@norinsberglaw.com
diego@norinsberglaw.com
SAN DIEGO AMERICAN HEALTH: Ramos Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Florencio Ramos, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. San Diego American Health Center,
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00034482-CU-NP-CTL
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on March 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00570-MMA-AHG to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The San Diego American Indian Health Center (SDAIHC) --
https://www.sdaihc.org/ -- is a patient-centered health home that
provides comprehensive medical, dental, behavioral health, and
community wellness services that are available to all San
Diegans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julia Kimberly Deutsch, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JULIA DEUTSCH
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 496-4598
Fax: (510) 473-3723
Email: juliadeutschlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
sec@colevannote.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amrit Dhaliwal, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Ste. 500
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 732-6529
Fax: (949) 732-6501
Email: amrit.dhaliwal@gtlaw.com
- and -
Ian Charles Ballon, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 586-6575
Fax: (310) 586-7800
Email: ballon@gtlaw.com
SANDGRENS LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandgrens, LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Sandgrens, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02777
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sandgrens -- https://sandgrensclogs.com/ -- is a small Swedish
business that has been making clogs for women and men since
1846.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SAZERAC COMPANY: Pizzaro Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sazerac Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Sharon Pizzaro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Case No.
7:23-cv-02751-KMK (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Sazerac Company, Inc. -- https://www.sazerac.com/ -- is a privately
held American alcoholic beverage company headquartered in Metairie
in the metropolitan area of New Orleans, Louisiana, but with its
principal office in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd-Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
SCHUYLKILL VALLEY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schuylkill Valley
Sports, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Schuylkill Valley
Sports, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02779 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Schuylkill Valley (SV) Sports -- https://www.svsports.com/ -- is
your one stop shop for sports gear, sportswear, novelties and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SEA CLUB OCEAN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chirino Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO D. CHIRINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEA CLUB OCEAN RESORT HOTEL, INC.
d/b/a CASA DEL MARE RISTORANTE, Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-60619-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 30, 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 Chirino was employed by the Defendant as line cook.
SEA CLUB OCEAN RESORT HOTEL, INC. d/b/a CASA DEL MARE RISTORANTE is
a retail business operating a hotel and an Italian restaurant and
bar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SELECTED FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Arguelles Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME LEON ARGUELLES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTED FURNITURE, LLC; and TOMER
SHLAFROK, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00554-JMS-TAB (S.D. In.,
March 31, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Arguelles was employed by the Defendants as laborers.
SELECTED FURNITURE, LLC operates retail furniture store and
manufacturer in the state of Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
Chicago, IL. 60646
Telephone: (773) 415-4898
Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com
SHARKY'S COLDWATER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Alcantar Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LILIA ALCANTAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHARKY'S COLDWATER VENTURA ENTERPRISES,
INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23BBCV00704
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 30, 2023) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiff Alcantar was employed by the Defendants as cashier.
SHARKY'S COLDWATER VENTURA ENTERPRISES, INC. specializes in the
making of organic Mexican food such as, burritos, bowls, salads,
nachos, and tacos, and is located in Studio City, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Adams, Esq.
Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
KJT LAW GROUP LLP
230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
Glendale, CA 91206
Telephone: (818) 507-8525
Email: chris@kjtlawgroup.com
vache@kjtlawgroup.com
caspar@kjtlawgroup.com
SHOP DOG & COMPANY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shop Dog & Company
LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Shop Dog & Company LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02512 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dog & Co. -- https://www.shopdogandco.com/ -- is a modern,
multi-brand shop offering the best assortment of contemporary pet
products.[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
SIGNATURE BANK: Singh Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Pirthi Pal Singh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SIGNATURE BANK, SCOTT A. SHAY, JOSEPH
DEPAOLO, VITO SUSCA, MARK SIGONA, STEPHEN WYREMSKI, and ERIC
HOWELL, Case No. 1:23-cv-02501 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023), is
brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Signature Bank securities between April 23, 2020 and March 12,
2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Bank and certain of its top officials.
Signature Bank was co-founded in 2001 by Defendants Scott A. Shay
and Joseph DePaolo, along with John Tamberlane, the Executive Vice
Chairman of the Bank's Board of Directors. The Bank relied on a
network of private client banking teams and offered commercial
banking products and services, with veteran bankers acting as a
single point of contact for all client needs. As it established
itself, Signature Bank cultivated a reputation of working with
wealthy clients, including privately owned businesses, law offices,
and real estate buyers.
Notwithstanding the volatility of cryptocurrency, Signature Bank
consistently assured investors of the soundness of its
crypto-related deposits and downplayed any risks associated with
its lopsided exposure to the cryptocurrency industry, claiming that
the Bank was carefully managing its balance sheet and bolstering
its compliance department. On an April 2021 conference call,
Defendant DePaolo stated that the Bank's deposits were
"sticky"—that is, likely to be renewed or rolled over by the
customer as part of the Bank's funding, including under conditions
of stress, and thus beneficial to Signature Bank's balance sheet.
Ultimately, by late 2022, digital-asset clients represented more
than one fifth of Signature Bank's deposit base.
In November 2022, the cryptocurrency exchange FTX collapsed among
allegations of fraud and mishandled customer funds, resulting in a
wide-ranging disruption of the cryptocurrency markets. FTX's
collapse purportedly prompted Signature Bank to begin working to
reduce, to some degree, the Bank's relationship with the
cryptocurrency industry. On December 6, 2022, Bloomberg reported
that "Signature Bank plans to continue providing banking services
to cryptocurrency firms even as it seeks to remove $8 billion to
$10 billion of deposits from its balance sheet," but quoted
Defendant Eric Howell, Signature Bank's President and Chief
Operating Officer ("COO"), as stating, in relevant part, that
"we're not exiting the space. We don't know who the winners and
losers are going to be. We don't particularly care," and "we're
going to be involved in the cryptocurrency industry but we're going
to be involved in a much more thoughtful way moving forward."
Then, on March 8, 2023, Silvergate Bank announced that it would
voluntarily wind down its operations. Although Silvergate cited
losses suffered in its loan portfolio--a consequence of the Fed's
aggressive interest rate hikes and ensuing decline in the value of
U.S. Treasury securities--the collapse of FTX, a major customer,
had significantly undermined Silvergate's financial stability, as
had Silvergate's lopsided exposure to the volatile cryptocurrency
industry more generally. Just two days later, on March 10, 2023,
following a bank run, Silicon Valley Bank ("SVB") was seized by the
California Department of Protection and Innovation and placed under
the receivership of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
("FDIC"). Whereas Silvergate was known for its relationship with
the cryptocurrency industry, SVB was known for servicing the needs
of the tech industry.
Taken together, the collapses of Silvergate and SVB, both of which
were smaller banks with excessive concentration in specific
industries, highlighted the specific risks associated with banks
with similar concentration and liquidity profiles--i.e., like
Signature, given its own concentration in the cryptocurrency
industry. Accordingly, in response to the two bank failures, on
March 9, 2023, Signature Bank issued a press release to reiterate
the supposed strength of the Bank's financial position, citing its
"well diversified financial position and limited digital-asset
related deposit balances in the wake of industry developments."
Yet Signature Bank's reassurances proved insufficient. On March 10,
2023, given the Bank's close association with the cryptocurrency
industry, Signature Bank customers withdrew more than $10 billion
in deposits. On March 12, 2023, the New York Department of
Financial Services ("DFS") announced that, in order to protect
depositors and pursuant to Section 606 of the New York Banking Law,
DFS had taken possession of Signature Bank. DFS further stated that
it was "in close contact with all regulated entities in light of
market events, monitoring market trends, and collaborating closely
with other state and federal regulators to protect consumers,
ensure the health of the entities we regulate, and preserve the
stability of the global financial system."
Also on March 12, 2023, trading in the Bank's shares were halted,
essentially rendering the Bank's shares illiquid—and, given the
Bank's failure, valueless. On March 20, 2023, Flagstar Bank, N.A,
the wholly owned subsidiary of New York Community Bancorp Inc.
("NYCB"), acquired $12.9 billion of Signature Bank's loans and
assumed $38.4 billion in deposits. Flagstar also acquired all of
Signature Bank's branches, which are now operated under the
Flagstar name. Finally, on March 28, 2023, Signature Bank's common
and preferred stock were delisted from trading on the NASDAQ
Exchange ("NASDAQ").
The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Bank's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: Signature Bank had
failed to acknowledge the inherent volatility of digital-asset
(i.e., cryptocurrency) related deposits; accordingly, the Bank had
overstated the stability and/or sustainability of its deposit base;
the degree of Signature Bank's concentration in the cryptocurrency
industry significantly undermined the health of its balance sheet;
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Signature Bank was exceptionally
vulnerable to a bank run and/or a liquidity crisis; (v) the
foregoing placed Signature Bank at a heightened risk of failure
and/or regulatory takeover; and as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Bank's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Signature Bank securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
Signature Bank was incorporated in New York and its head office was
located in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Emma Gilmore, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: ahood@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
egilmore@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
SUMO LOGIC: Faces Bushansky Suit Over Proposed Merger Sub
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMO LOGIC, INC.; SANDRA E.
BERGERON; RANDY S. GOTTFRIED; JOHN D. HARKEY, JR.; TRACEY NEWELL;
JOSEPH ANSANELLI; CHRISTIAN BEEDGEN; MARGARET FRANCIS; RAMIN SAYAR;
and TIMOTHY YOUNGBLOOD, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01542 (N.D.
Cal., March 31, 2023) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Sumo will be acquired by Francisco Partners
Management, L.P. through Francisco Partners' affiliates Serrano
Parent, LLC and Serrano Merger Sub, Inc.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on February 9, 2023,
Sumo issued a press release announcing entry into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") to sell Sumo to Francisco
Partners. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Sumo
stockholder will receive $12.05 in cash for each share of Sumo
common stock (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction
is valued at approximately $1.7 billion.
On March 24, 2023, Sumo filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Sumo stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) Sumo's projections;
(ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the
Company's financial advisor Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan
Stanley"); and (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction.
Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Proxy Statement in violation of the Exchange Act, says the suit.
Unless remedied, Sumo's public stockholders will be irreparably
harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations
and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed
voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction. Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured, the suit
asserts.
SUMO LOGIC, INC. provides cloud-based log management and analytics
services. The Company enables enterprises to collect and analyze
machine data from virtual sources that include servers,
virtualization and security infrastructure, network devices, custom
applications, and databases. Sumo Logic serves customers worldwide.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 935
Beverley Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
- and -
Michael Rogovin
476 Hardendorf Ave. NE
Atlanta, GA 30307
Telephone: 404/692-7910
Facsimile: 212/682-3010
SYNGENTA CROP: Reduced Competition in CPPs Market, Mercury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MERCURY PROPERTIES, LLC and BULLHEAD ACRES, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, AG, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC,
SYNGENTA CORP., CORTEVA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00267
(M.D.N.C., March 29, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
Sections 4(a) and 16 of the Clayton Act, antitrust laws, consumer
protection and unfair trade practices laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws of several states.
The case arises from the Defendants' use of restrictive agreements
disguised as "loyalty programs" with large agricultural products
distributors and retailers to block the availability of crop
protection products (CPPs) to farmers containing lower-priced
generic versions. The Defendants made this to maintain their market
dominance after their patent and regulatory protection of their
CPPs expired. The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced
competition in the market for the CPPs containing the relevant
active ingredients (AIs), thereby artificially inflating the prices
of such CPPs and of the CPPs manufactured by the Defendants'
generic competitors. The Plaintiff and the Class member farmers who
purchased CPPs containing the relevant AIs have been and continue
to be injured by paying artificially inflated prices for such CPPs,
for which they are entitled to compensation, says the suit.
Mercury Properties, LLC is a farming business based in Slinger,
Wisconsin.
Bullhead Acres, LLC is a farming business based in Slinger,
Wisconsin.
Syngenta Crop Protection, AG is a chemical manufacturing company
based in Basel, Switzerland.
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC is an affiliate of Syngenta Crop
Protection, AG based in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Syngenta Corp. is an agriculture company based in Wilmington,
Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an agricultural chemical and seed company based in
Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin G. Williams, Esq.
Alan M. Ruley, Esq.
BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A.
P.O. Box 21029
Winston-Salem, NC 27120
Telephone: (336) 722-3700
E-mail: kwilliams@belldavispitt.com
aruley@belldavispitt.com
- and -
Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
3355 W. Alabama, Suite 240
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 528-6700
E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com
T.S. MA CHINESE: Jeronimo Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO JERONIMO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. T.S. MA CHINESE CUISINE INC. and Thomas MA, Case No.
2:23-cv-01836 (D.N.J., April 1, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant. He was
employed as a cook and dishwasher for Defendants' restaurant in
Montclair, New Jersey. The Plaintiff was paid $11.81 per hour and
was not paid any overtime, despite working 72 hours per week, says
the suit.
T.S. MA CHINESE CUISINE is a Chinese restaurant in New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
T.S.W. RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bosmeniel Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
YOSNIEL BOSMENIEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T.S.W. RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00714 (M.D. Fla., March
31, 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 Bosmeniel was employed by the Defendants as painter.
T.S.W. RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC. is a construction
and remodeling company providing construction services to
commercial and residential clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Perez Sues Over 25% Drop of Common Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL E. PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, BRIAN C. CORNELL,
MICHAEL J. FIDDELKE, and A. CHRISTINA HENNINGTON, Defendants, Case
No. 0:23-cv-00769-PJS-DTS (D. Minn., March 29, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made a series of false
and misleading statements to investors in order to trade Target
common stock at artificially inflated prices between August 18,
2021, and May 17, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to Target's
business, operations, and prospects: (i) Target's strategy for
mitigating supply-chain constraints by over-ordering inventory had
severely limited the company's ability to timely respond to
evolving consumer behavior; (ii) as a result, the purported
"massive influx of insights" gained from the extraordinary
heightened demand during the pandemic could not be leveraged by
Target to react to rapidly changing trends; and (iii) as a result
of Target's inability to timely react to changes in consumer
trends, Target's sales declined and the company was left with an
overabundance of inventory, forcing Target to take large markdowns,
and severely impacting the company's financial results. As a result
of the foregoing, Target's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, Target's stock price declined $53.67 per
share, or nearly 25 percent, from a close of $215.28 per share on
May 17, 2022, to a close of $161.61 on May 18, 2022. As a result of
their purchases of Target common stock during the Class Period, the
Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered economic loss,
says the suit.
Target Corporation is a retail company, with its principal
executive offices located at 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,
Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
- and -
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: (203) 992-4523
E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
gpotrepka@zlk.com
TENNESSEE ARTISAN: Bid for Leave to File Amended Greer Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT GREER, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. CAROL HAGEN, d/b/a
TENNESSEE ARTISAN HONEY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-262-KAC-DCP
(E.D. Tenn.), Judge Katherine A. Crytzer of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville, denies the
Plaintiffs' "Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action
Complaint.
On June 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an initial Complaint against
six Defendants, alleging (1) Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Count
One) (against all Defendants); (2) violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act (Count Two) (against Defendants Strange Honey
Farm, LLC; Gary Strange; and Fonda Strange (collectively, Strange
Honey Defendants)); (3) violation of the North Carolina Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count Three) (against the Strange
Honey Defendants); (4) violation of the Florida Uniform Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count Four) (against the Strange
Honey Defendants); and (5) violation of the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act (Count Five) (against the Strange Honey
Defendants).
The Strange Honey Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all Counts
on June 3, 2020 and Defendants Ingles Markets, Inc. and K-VA-T Food
Stores, Inc. d/b/a Food City (collectively, Stores Defendants)
filed a separate Motion to Dismiss Count One against them on Aug.
3, 2020. At no time after the filing of these initial motions to
dismiss did the Plaintiffs seek to amend the initial Complaint.
The Court then granted the Strange Honey Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and the Stores Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, concluding
that the Plaintiffs' Complaint failed to plead the 'circumstances'
constituting each of the Moving Defendant's alleged fraud with
particularity under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
9(b). As a result, the sole remaining Defendant in the case is
"Carol Hagen d/b/a Tennessee Artisan Honey," and the sole remaining
claim s Count One against "Carol Hagen d/b/a Tennessee Artisan
Honey."
The Plaintiffs now seek to file an Amended Complaint that
purportedly cures deficiencies in their Complaint by adding factual
support and clarification as to its allegations with regard to the
times and locations of the alleged wrongful conduct of the
Defendants. The proposed Amended Complaint would bring the five
previously-dismissed Defendants back into the case and would revive
four previously-dismissed claims.
The allegations are identical to those contained in the initial
Complaint. Like the initial Complaint, the proposed Amended
Complaint still does not identify the date when any Plaintiff
allegedly informed each of the Defendants of the misrepresentation
or the date that the Defendants were provided any actual notice of
the misrepresentations.
The case is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
File First Amended Class Action Complaint.
Judge Crytzer opines that while the Plaintiffs' proposed Amended
Complaint does provide additional factual support regarding the
dates certain individual Plaintiffs purchased honey, pleading
deficiencies continue to remain as to each count, rendering the
proposed Amended Complaint futile. Among other things, the proposed
Amended Complaint fails to provide any dates associated with an
alleged misrepresentation to Plaintiff Turner and Plaintiff
Goodman. This failure also dooms any fraudulent misrepresentation
claim Plaintiff Turner and Plaintiff Goodman seek to bring under
Count One. As amended, these Plaintiffs' claims still do not meet
the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b), so an amendment as to
these Plaintiffs' claims under Count One is futile.
And to the extent an amendment would not be futile, Judge Crytzer
opines that permitting the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint, as
proposed, at this stage of the proceedings after the Court has
already dismissed nearly all of the Defendants and Counts would
cause the Defendants undue prejudice. Accordingly, the Court cannot
fairly grant the Plaintiff leave to amend without significantly
prejudicing each of the Defendants the Plaintiffs seek to add back
into the action.
For these reasons, because the Plaintiffs' proposed Amended
Complaint does not meet Rule 9(b)'s requirements, Judge Crytzer
concludes that it cannot withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. Granting leave to amend the Plaintiff's Complaint would,
therefore, be futile. And even if permitting amendment would not be
futile as to all claims and all Plaintiffs, allowing the Plaintiffs
to amend their complaint after the Court has dismissed five of the
six Defendants in the case and dismissed all but one claim in one
Count would cause those Defendants undue prejudice. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action
Complaint is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 28, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4sxwmx63 from
Leagle.com.
TERRAN LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terran, LLC. The case
is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Terran, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02722
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Terran, LLC -- https://www.terran.com/ -- is a leading eCommerce
conglomerate with the following brands: Ice Wraps, WildBaby,
Tactical, and more.[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
TMX FINANCE: Domino Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Tommy Domino, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00080-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 4,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. --
https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
P.O. Box 10164
Savannah, GA 31412
Phone: (912) 447-8400
Fax: (912) 629-6347
Email: twithers@gwllawfirm.com
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Kolstedt Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAVANNAH KOLSTEDT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
4:23-cv-00076-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 1, 2023) is a class action
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
personal identifiable information of more than 4.8 million
individuals, including, but not limited to, name, date of birth,
personally identifiable information generally incorporates
information that can be used to distinguish or trace an
individual's identity, either alone or when combined with other
personal or identifying information.
According to Defendant's website, "provides consumer credit
products under the TitleMax (TM), TitleBucks (TM), and InstaLoan
(TM) brands. Since 1998, we have provided access to credit for
consumers who are underserved by traditional lenders."
Prior to and through February 3, 2023, Defendant obtained the PII
of Plaintiff and Class Members, including by collecting it directly
from Plaintiff and Class Members.
On February 3, 2023, the Defendant learned of a data breach on its
network that occurred on or around February 3, 2023, to February
14, 2023 (the Data Breach).
The Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unknown
actor accessed and/or acquired the PII of Plaintiff and Class
Members. On March 30, 2023, the Defendant began notifying various
states Attorneys General of the Data Breach. By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to
those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion, says the suit.
TMX is a subsidiary of TMX Finance, LLC, a consumer lending
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN
200 Stephenson Ave, Suite 200
Savannah, GA 31405
Telephone: (912) 443-1006
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
BUSINESS DIVISION
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
TMX FINANCE: Pickens Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Sophia Pickens, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 4,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Personal
Injury.
TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. --
https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
JUSTIN THARPE HOLCOMBE
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Phone: (770) 427-5600
Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Kris K. Skaar, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Phone: (770) 427-5600
Email: kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
TMX FINANCE: Ross Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Helena Michelle Ross,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TMX
Finance Corporate Services, Inc., TMX Finance LLC doing business
as: TitleMax doing business as: TitleBucks doing business as:
InstaLoan, Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 4,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Personal
Injury.
TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. --
https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy C. Daugherty, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM
200 13th St.
Columbus, GA 31901
Phone: (706) 322-6226
Email: adaugherty@thefinleyfirm.com
TRANSFORM SR BRANDS: Rodriguez Sues Over Secret Reporting of PII
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TRANSFORM SR BRANDS LLC, a Delaware LLC
d/b/a/ www.kenmore.com; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:23-cv-00585-L-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 31, 2023), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA") as a result of the Defendant who secretly report all the
details of the visitor's personally identifiable information
("PII"), the titles watched, and more.
Whenever someone watches a video on https://kenmore.com/ (the
"Website"), Defendant secretly report all the details to Google and
Facebook): the visitor's personally identifiable information
("PII"), the titles watched, and more.
In enacting the VPAA, Congress intentionally chose to extend its
protections to all persons who watch videos, not simply those who
purchase them or claim pecuniary loss. As such, statutes like the
VPPA are largely enforced by civic minded "testers" such as the
Plaintiffs.
When Plaintiff played the video on the Website, Defendant knowingly
disclosed event data, which recorded and disclosed the videos'
title, description, and URL. Alongside this event data, Defendant
also disclosed identifiers and PII for Plaintiff, including the
c_user, fr cookies and _gid. In other words, Defendant did exactly
what the VPPA prohibits: it disclosed Plaintiff's video viewing
habits to a third party.
In summary, based upon the preceding information transmitted by
Defendant to Facebook and Google, Defendant enabled any individual
who possesses basic reading skills to identify the title of the
video viewed by any class member, because the title of every video
watched is transmitted by Defendant to Facebook. Defendant's
conduct is illegal, offensive, and contrary to visitor
expectations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has purchased Defendant's products in the past.
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a variety of websites
and offers multiple videos for consumers to view and play.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
TRI-STAR ENERGY: Milson Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Store Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNELLE MILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRI-STAR ENERGY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00290 (M.D. Tenn., March 29, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated full-time employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Tri-Star Energy, LLC, is an owner and operator of convenience
stores, with its principal offices located at 1740 Ed Temple Blvd.,
Nashville, Tennessee. [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
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
TWENTY SIDED STORE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twenty Sided Store
LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Twenty Sided Store LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02495 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Twenty Sided Store -- https://twentysidedstore.com/ -- is a game
store in New York City.[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
UNIFIN INC: Langner Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc. The case
is styled as Marc Langner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01834 (D.N.J.,
March 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Unifin, Inc. -- https://unifininc.com/ -- is a full-service
Business Process Outsourcing and Accounts Receivable Management
firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Xirum v. ICE
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIBEL XIRUM, JAVIER JAIMES JAIMES, BAIJEBO TOE,
Plaintiffs v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00801-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind.), Judge
Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division:
a. grants in part and denies in part ICE's Motion to Dismiss
the Class Action Complaint; and
b. grants Clay County's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action
Complaint.
The other Defendants are the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
(DHS), ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS under the title of Secretary of DHS, TAE
JOHNSON under the title of Acting Director of ICE, MONICA S. BURKE
under the title of ICE Acting Assistant Director of Custody
Management;, RICARDO A. WONG under the title of ICE Deputy
Assistant Director, Oversight Compliance and Acquisition Division,
SYLVIE RENDA under the title of Acting Field Office Director of the
ICE Chicago Field Office, TRAVIS GRAHAM under the title of ICE
Officer, ANGELINA RAMOS under the title of ICE Officer, VIRGINIA
SUTTER under the title of ICE Officer, CLAY COUNTY, INDIANA, CLAY
COUNTY COUNCIL, CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, PAUL B. HARDEN under
the title of Clay County Sheriff, JACKIE MITCHELL under the title
of Clay County Council Member, JASON BRITTON under the title of
Clay County Council Member, JASON THOMAS under the title of Clay
County Council Member, LARRY J. MOSS under the title of Clay County
Council Member, JOHN NICOSON under the title of Clay County Council
Member, DAVID AMERMAN under the title of Clay County Council
Member, PATRICIA HEFFNER under the title of Clay County Council
Member, BRYAN ALLENDER under the title of Clay County Commissioner,
MARTY HEFFNER under the title of Clay County Commissioner, PAUL
SINDERS under the title of President of the Clay County Board of
Commissioner, ELIZABETH HUGHETT under the title of Clay County
Sergeants and ICE Contract Coordinator, DAVID PARKER under the
title of Clay County Sergeants and ICE Contract Coordinator, JASE
GLASSBURN under the title of Clay County Sergeants and ICE Contract
Coordinator, JENNIFER M. FLATNER under the title of Clay County
Auditor, and DEBRA JAMES under the title of Clay County Treasurer.
The matter is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss filed pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) by
Defendants U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and by
the 19 Defendants who work for or otherwise represent Clay County,
Indiana ("Clay County") (together, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs
Maribel Xirum, Javier Jaimes, and Baijebo Toe are noncitizens who
are or were detained at the Clay County Jail in Brazil, Indiana
pursuant to an Intergovernmental Service Agreement between ICE and
Clay County.
The Plaintiffs initiated the action challenging ICE's authority to
continue detaining them at the Jail pursuant to the Agreement,
ICE's authority to continue paying federal funds to Clay County for
the detention of noncitizens, and Clay County's discretion to use
the federal funds for purposes other than the care and safekeeping
of noncitizens. They filed a Class Action Complaint seeking a
variety of declaratory and injunctive relief that all serve to stop
ICE from continuing to house detainees at the Jail and to prevent
ICE from paying any more federal detention funds to Clay County.
The Plaintiffs initiated the action alleging that ICE regularly
enters into detention contracts with non-federal entities, like the
Agreement with Clay County, and provides federal funds to those
non-federal entities for the "necessary clothing, medical care,
necessary guard hire, and the housing, care, and security" of
detainees. Federal regulations require ICE to manage and administer
the detention funds. ICE is also required to periodically inspect
and evaluate the facilities with which it contracts to ensure they
comply with ICE's detention standards. Congress has mandated that
if a detention facility fails two consecutive evaluations, ICE must
end its detention contract with that facility.
The Plaintiffs allege that for years, Clay County has used federal
detention funds from ICE for improper, unrelated expenditures, and
not for the benefit of detainees. As a result, the Jail's
conditions fall well below ICE's detention standards. The Jail
failed its evaluation in May 2021 due to its horrendous conditions
described above. Plaintiffs allege that the conditions did not
improve after May 2021, and the Jail should have failed its next
evaluation in December 2021. A second failed evaluation would have
required ICE to end its Agreement with Clay County. To avoid that
possibility, ICE improperly gave the Jail a "passing" evaluation in
December 2021. ICE allegedly continues using the Jail despite its
inadequate conditions, and it continues paying federal funds to
Clay County despite knowing that Clay County misuses those funds.
Count I and II of the Complaint assert claims against ICE for
violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section
706(2) (the "APA") and Count III asserts claims against Clay County
for violations of the Indiana Declaratory Judgment Act, Ind. Code
Sections 34-14-1-1-16, and Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 57.
These claims challenge, respectively: (Count I) ICE's decision that
the Jail "passed" its December 2021 evaluation; (Count II) ICE's
decision to continue paying federal funds to Clay County despite
knowing about Clay County's misuse of those funds; and (Count III)
Clay County's misuse of the funds.
The Plaintiffs seek a variety of declaratory and injunctive relief
that all serve to stop ICE from continuing to house detainees at
the Jail and to prevent ICE from paying any more federal detention
funds to Clay County. All the Defendants have moved to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims. Judge Pratt first addresses the Plaintiffs'
claims against ICE before turning to their claim against Clay
County.
Counts I and II are against ICE under the APA. ICE moves to dismiss
both claims for lack of standing and on the merits.
Judge Pratt holds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated Article III
standing as to Count I. She finds that the Plaintiffs' Complaint
does not request an order compelling ICE to direct improvements to
the Jail's conditions. The Complaint seeks to terminate ICE's
relationship with the Jail altogether. ICE's inability to direct
specific improvements to the Jail is no bar to standing.
Although the Plaintiffs have standing to assert Count I, Judge
Pratt says ICE's arguments about the availability of relief under
the APA are well taken as to the merits. The Plaintiffs interpret
the APA too broadly. The Court may at most hold that ICE lacked
adequate grounds for the December 2021 evaluation, vacate the
decision, and remand it back to ICE for a fuller explanation or a
new decision. It may not substitute its judgment for ICE's and hold
that the Jail in fact does not comply with the PBNDS or that the
Jail should have failed its December 2021 evaluation.
Therefore, Judge Pratt dismisses the Plaintiffs' Prayers for Relief
(E) and (G). And for the same reason, she dismisses as premature
the Prayers for Relief (K) and (L). Judge Pratt cannot enjoin ICE
from detaining the Plaintiffs at the Jail or funding the Jail until
and unless ICE determines that the Jail has failed two consecutive
evaluations. Lastly, Count I, excluding Prayers for Relief (E),
(G), (K)-(L), will proceed against ICE. The December 2021
"certification" of the Jail has been adequately defined by the
Plaintiffs and constitutes a final agency action.
Count II alleges that ICE's decision to continue providing federal
funds to Clay County, despite knowing Clay County misuses those
funds, violates ICE's duties under the INA and UAR and is therefore
short of a statutory right and without observance of procedure
required by law. ICE argues that Count II should be dismissed
because Plaintiffs lack standing, because Count II does not
challenge a "final agency action," and because any alleged "final
agency action" is an unreviewable discretionary enforcement
decision.
Judge Tanya first examines ICE's standing arguments and then
addresses whether the challenged agency action is an unreviewable
enforcement decision, as she finds that the enforcement issue is
dispositive. She says the Complaint does not allege that ICE's
payments to Clay County were themselves unlawful under the INA or
UAR, and because ICE's decision not to suspend payments to Clay
County is an unreviewable nonenforcement decision, the Plaintiffs'
Count II must be dismissed. She need not and will not address the
parties' arguments as to whether ICE's payments to Clay County
constitute final agency actions. Hence, ICE's Motion to Dismiss is
granted as to Count II.
The Plaintiffs assert a claim against Clay County under the Indiana
Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and Indiana Rule of Trial
Procedure 57. They seek declarations that Clay County has violated
and continues to violate their rights, status, and/or legal
relations under the Agreement by misusing federal detention funds
and request an injunction prohibiting Clay County from using the
funds for discretionary expenditures.
Clay County responds that Count III should be dismissed because:
1.) the Plaintiffs lack standing; 2.) Count III is duplicative as
to certain Defendants who are not parties to the Agreement; and 3.)
Clay County is not required by law to expend federal funds in any
particular manner.
Judge Pratt discusses only the standing argument, which is
dispositive of Count III. Before deciding whether the Plaintiffs
have standing, she briefly resolves a dispute as to whether Indiana
law or federal common law applies. She agrees with the Plaintiff
that there is no material difference between Indiana law and
federal common law regarding third-party beneficiary status, so the
Court's conclusion would be the same under either body of law. She
cites to both Indiana law and federal common law throughout her
decision.
Turning to allegations, Judge Pratt finds that as pled, the
Plaintiffs lack standing to enforce the Agreement directly against
Clay County, so Clay County's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and
Count III is dismissed. She agrees with Clay County that the
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the parties to the
Agreement intended to grant detainees third-party beneficiary
rights and that any benefits detainees receive under the Agreement
are incidental. And, as a final matter, the unambiguous language in
the Agreement also does not show that the contracting parties
intended to assume direct, enforceable obligations to Plaintiffs or
other detainees. The Plaintiffs are not third-party beneficiaries
to the Agreement.
For the foregoing reasons, ICE's Motion to Dismiss is granted in
part and denied in part.
Count I is dismissed only as to the Plaintiffs' Prayers for Relief
(E), (G), (K), and (L). The Plaintiffs' Prayers for Relief (E) and
(G) are dismissed with prejudice because the Court cannot
substitute its judgment for that of ICE and an amended complaint as
to these requests for relief would be futile. Prayers for Relief
(K) and (L) are dismissed without prejudice as premature. ICE's
request to dismiss Count I is denied in all other respects.
Count II is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs are granted
leave to file an amended complaint as to Count II within 30 days as
of the date of the Order. If an amended complaint is an exercise in
futility and/or if nothing is filed, then the dismissal of Count II
will be converted to a dismissal with prejudice, and only Count I
will proceed against ICE, excluding Prayers for Relief (E), (G),
and (K)-(L).
For the foregoing reasons, Clay County's Motion to Dismiss is
granted and Count III is dismissed without prejudice. The
Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended Complaint with
respect to any viable claims against Clay County, if such claims
exists, within 30 days of the date of the Order. Again, if an
amended complaint against Clay County is an exercise in futility
and/or if nothing is filed, the dismissal of Count III will be
converted to a dismissal with prejudice, and Clay County will be
terminated as a Defendant.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/msznek64 from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Allowed to Use Pseudonym in Suit v. DHS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as SPONSOR, et al., Plaintiffs v. ALEJANDRO
N. MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-712 (JEB) (D.D.C.), Chief
District Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Under
Pseudonym.
The Plaintiffs are members of a family of Afghan nationals, some of
whom remain in hiding in Pakistan. They have moved to proceed under
pseudonyms in this proposed class action challenging the actions of
several Government Defendants in denying their humanitarian parole
applications. They contend that in light of several factors,
revealing their identities in this action will "increase the risk
of threats and violent attacks against them and their families" in
Pakistan at the hands of individuals and "extremists and terrorist
groups hostile to the United States." And they represent that the
United States does not oppose their Motion at this time.
The Court finds that at this early stage, the Plaintiffs have met
their burden to show that their privacy interests outweigh the
public's presumptive and substantial interest in learning their
identities. First, the Plaintiffs do not seek to proceed under
pseudonyms 'merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may
attend litigation,' but to 'preserve privacy in a matter of a
sensitive and highly personal nature.' One Plaintiff identifies the
'many threats' he has already received 'by fellow Afghans' on
account of his work on behalf of the United States Government,
including 'threatening phone calls and messages at his door.' The
Plaintiffs also allege that a terrorist group has previously used
the family's identification information to issue specific threats
that drove them from their home. Their interest is not in avoiding
annoyance, but in maintaining their and their family members'
safety."
Next, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that disclosure of their identities "poses a risk of retaliatory
physical or mental harm" to them and "to innocent non-parties,"
including members of their communities. In addition, the Court
determines that "the ages of the persons whose privacy interests
are sought to be protected," weighs partially in Plaintiffs' favor
-- three are minor children who share a heightened interest in
protecting their identities. The remaining Plaintiffs share that
interest, as revealing their identities risks effectively revealing
the minors' identities, too.
As to the fourth factor, the Court finds that if the Plaintiffs'
Motion is granted, "there is a heightened public interest when an
individual or entity files a suit against the government,"
particularly in a manner that may "alter the operation of public
law both as applied to it and, by virtue of the legal arguments
presented, to other parties going forward."
Lastly, the Court believes that the Defendants would suffer no
"risk of unfairness" if the Plaintiffs' Motion were granted
considering that the Plaintiffs have offered to privately identify
themselves to the Government Defendants in this action.
In sum, although the fourth factor tips toward disclosure, all
remaining ones highlight the Plaintiffs' "legitimate interest in
anonymity" at this early stage, especially in light of the severe
and serious threats they face abroad. Accordingly, the Court grants
the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonym, subject to any
further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom
this case is randomly assigned.
The Court prohibits the Defendants from publicly disclosing the
Plaintiffs' identities or any personal identifying information that
could lead to the identification of the Plaintiffs by nonparties,
except for the purposes of investigating the allegations contained
in the Complaint and for preparing an answer or other dispositive
motion in response.
A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March
22, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/tt8c7rsr from
Leagle.com.
UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK: Sexual Assault Class Suit Discontinued
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Don MacPherson, writing for FTonindependent, reports that a
class-action lawsuit against the University of New Brunswick and a
psychiatrist alleging the doctor had sexually assaulted students is
being discontinued, but only to launch a different kind of court
action.
More than a dozen UNB students -- with Morgan Wilcox as lead
plaintiff -- filed a lawsuit against UNB and psychiatrist Dr. Manoj
Bhargava in April 2021 over the alleged misconduct.
The lawsuit contended Bhargava had touched patients inappropriately
while he examined them at the UNB Student Health Centre.
The case was scheduled to go to be in court Tuesday, but it was
scratched from the docket Tuesday morning, with a newly added
case-management conference set for the afternoon.
However, Erika Hachey and Mike Dull, the lawyers representing the
plaintiffs, issued a news release Tuesday afternoon, announcing
their class-action lawsuit was being discontinued.
But that doesn't bring the legal conflict to a close.
"This proposed class action is now being discontinued to allow
these former patients to come together in a mass tort lawsuit," the
release said.
The reasons for the change in legal tactics are two-fold.
The release noted several women seeking to join the class action
were unable to do so because they saw Bhargava outside of the UNB
Student Health Centre.
As such, it stated, the planned mass-tort lawsuit will name
external clinics as defendants.
The other reason for the change, the release said, is because a
mass tort lawsuit is a more efficient legal avenue that's expected
to bring the claims to a resolution more quickly.
"We are confident that access to justice will be achieved for more
people by proceeding as a mass tort lawsuit", Dull said in the
release.
Hachey, when reached for comment on April 4, said the court
proceeding was for a certification hearing -- a process by which a
lawsuit is tested by a court to see if it qualifies to go forward
as a class action.
With a mass-tort lawsuit, such certification isn't required, she
said, which is one reason it can proceed more expediently.
The case-management conference Tuesday afternoon was essentially a
conference call to advise King's Bench Justice Terrence Morrison of
the change in plans for the case, she said.
Hachey said she expects the new lawsuit will be filed later this
year.
Unlike with a class action, she said, all of the defendants have to
be identified when the new lawsuit is filed, so she and her
co-counsel want to ensure there's enough time for potential
defendants to consider if they want to participate.
"With a mass tort, everyone is named," Hachey said, noting that can
be a sensitive hurdle for potential plaintiffs who have been
sexually assaulted.
She said she's looking to a potential motion to protect some
plaintiffs' identities in the case.
Hachey said she's spoken with Wilcox about the shift in the case.
The lawyer said Wilcox has no comment about these developments at
this time.
Anyone interested in being included in the new lawsuit as a
plaintiff is asked to contact Hachey at Moss Hachey Law or Dull at
Valent Legal.
"Those people need to come forward," Hachey said, noting they've
already heard from several potential plaintiffs Tuesday afternoon.
The release noted that plaintiffs who had already signed up for the
class action and want to be included in the mass tort need to
contact counsel again.
"Those who were previously excluded from the class action, who were
patients of Dr. Bhargava at clinics external to UNB, can now
contact counsel to become part of the mass tort," it said.
The Fredericton Independent reached out to UNB officials and
Cynthia Benson, legal counsel for Bhargava, on Tuesday, but
received no response.
Michael Brenton, counsel for UNB, declined to comment.
Bhargava denied all of the allegations in a statement of defence
filed in 2021 in the class-action case.
UNB terminated Bhargava's contract in late 2020 when the
allegations came to light.
The New Brunswick College of Physicians and Surgeons suspended
Bhargava's medical licence in 2020 as well and reported it had
received multiple complaints about him.
The 2021 lawsuit named UNB as a defendant and sought damages from
the university because it alleged the institution and its employees
were negligent and failed to protect students who availed
themselves of health-care services. [GN]
UTOPIAN SUPPORT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonano Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
OLGA BONANO; and TOBY JAMES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UTOPIAN SUPPORT SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00219 (M.D. Fla., March 30, 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.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as caregivers.
UTOPIAN SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC is a home facility that provides
room, board, personal, and healthcare services to persons with
disabilities. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
VELASCA NEW YORK: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Velasca New York LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Velasca New York LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02792 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Velasca New York LLC -- https://www.velasca.com/ -- make shoes and
clothing that's artisanally produced and entirely Made in Italy,
using only quality designs that age well.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
WALLYS HOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrientos Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
BEATRIZ BARRIENTOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALLYS HOT BAGELS, LLC; and WALLY
HASSAN, Defendants, 2:23-cv-01840 (D.N.J., April 4, 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 Hassan was employed by the Defendants as cook.
WALLYS HOT BAGELS, LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at
New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL P.C
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
YELLOW BYRD: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yellow Byrd LLC. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Yellow Byrd LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02837 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BYRD Hairdo Products -- https://byrdhair.com/ -- is an online
barber shop that sells hair and skin products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION: Brown Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoll Medical
Corporation. The case is styled as Barbara Brown, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Zoll Medical Corporation,
Case No. 1:23-cv-10702-IT (D. Mass., March 31, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Federal
Trade Commission Act.
Zoll Medical Corporation -- https://www.zoll.com/ -- develops and
markets medical devices and software solutions. The Company offers
products that are used by health care professionals to provide
pacing and defibrillation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: jason@blockesq.com
ZUFFA LLC: Reza Suit Moved From California to District of Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as MOISES REZA, et al., Plaintiffs v. ZUFFA,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-09068-MMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the motion the motion to transfer
venue filed by Defendants Zuffa LLC and Neulion USA, LLC.
In the First Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs Moises
Reza, Frank Garza, Tanner Pendergraft, and Federico Navarrete
allege that the Defendants (Zuffa LLC and Neulion USA, LLC) "offer
a digital streaming service called 'UFC Fight Pass' which allows
their customers to stream live and past Ultimate Fighting
Championship combat sporting events." The Plaintiffs further allege
they each "purchased Defendants' UFC Fight Pass service" by using
Defendants' website and, in so doing, each was "enrolled" in an
"automatically renewing monthly subscription service" without his
"knowledge or consent."
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants "failed to provide
clear and conspicuous disclosures" about such renewal and "failed
to provide a clear mechanism by which consumers may cancel their
subscriptions." The Plaintiffs assert five causes of action:
Violation of the California False Advertising Law, Violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, Conversion, and Unjust
Enrichment.
In the Motion to Transfer Venue, the Defendants argue the action
should be transferred to the District of Nevada, in light of a
forum selection clause contained in the "Terms of Use" to which
each plaintiff agreed in order to use the service.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not contend the inclusion of
the above-quoted forum selection clause was the product of fraud,
undue influence, or overweening bargaining power, nor do they
contend the District of Nevada is a gravely difficult and
inconvenient forum. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that enforcement
of the forum selection clause would contravene public policy, for
the reason that their Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim "likely
would be dismissed by a Nevada court," thereby resulting in a
waiver of their rights under the CLRA.
The Court finds persuasive the analysis set forth in Howards v.
Fifth Third Bank, 2018 WL 7890667 (C.D. Cal. December 7, 2018),
where the district court found enforcement of the forum selection
clause would "not implicate public policy concerns, explaining that
a district court in Ohio, applying Ohio law, would "engage in a
choice of law analysis patterned on the. . . Restatement (Second)
of Conflict of Laws Section 187(2)," whereunder application of
California law would be required if application of Ohio law "would
contravene California's fundamental public policy, with no greater
or equivalent countervailing Ohio interest at stake." Given the
cited authority, the Court finds a transfer to the District of
Nevada "does not foreclose the Plaintiffs' ability to challenge the
choice of law provision," as Plaintiffs will "remain free to raise
the issue and the district court in Nevada is fully competent to
decide it."
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to transfer
the action to the District of Nevada and denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss without prejudice to Defendants' renoticing the
matter for hearing in the District of Nevada.
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/2z24jrnv from Leagle.com.
[*] Much Shelist Plaintiff Earns Summary Judgment in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted summary judgment in favor of Much's clients in a wage and
hour class action lawsuit. The clients, owners and operators of a
skilled nursing facility, employed the plaintiff, who alleged that
her employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Act by not classifying her as an hourly worker
entitled to overtime pay.
Steve Blonder and Bob Neiman led the case, with Joanne Sarasin and
Charlotte Franklin writing the briefs. The Much team successfully
argued that the plaintiff and class representative worked as a
Licensed Practical Nurse supervisor paid on a salary basis, and
that she was therefore not entitled to any overtime pay.
The judge cited the Fair Labor Standards Act's requirement that an
employer must pay non-supervisory and other non-exempt employees at
least one-and-a-half times their regular rate for any time over 40
hours a week worked. But the Court correctly noted that this rule
does not apply to employees such as the plaintiff who work in a
managerial capacity. The Court ruled that despite certain
alterations in the plaintiff's regular paychecks, plaintiff had
failed to prove that she worked the majority of the time as a
non-exempt, hourly worker based on the work duties she performed.
The Court therefore entered summary judgment in favor of Much's
clients.
"The case proved to be challenging," Blonder said. "Conflicting
information about the defendant's time spent on exempt versus
non-exempt duties underscored the importance of diligent
recordkeeping pertaining to employees and their responsibilities.
We're impressed with our client's ability to prioritize effective
policies and are thrilled with this result." [GN]
[*] Western Australia's New Class Actions Regime Takes Effect
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Civil Procedure (Representative Proceedings) Act 2022 (WA)
("Act") was enacted in September 2022, establishing a class action
regime in Western Australia in a form substantially similar to the
existing Federal Court of Australia regime, which is set out in
Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
Commencement of the Act was delayed to allow time for the Supreme
Court of Western Australia to establish rules and practice
directions to accommodate the new regime.
Amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) were made in
early March 2023, and the Consolidated Practice Directions issued
by the court were amended in late March 2023, paving the way for
the commencement of the Act and the modernisation of Western
Australia's class actions regime. The rule changes and new practice
directions include familiar features also found in the Federal
Court's regime, including requirements for the disclosure of
funding agreements to the court and other parties, the provision of
opt-out and other notices to group members, requirements to notify
the court of competing class actions, and the procedure for seeking
court approval of settlements. Importantly, like the Federal Court,
the Western Australian regime does not provide for the charging of
contingency fees by plaintiff lawyers (unlike Victoria, which
introduced a contingency fee regime in 2020).
The court has also established a Representative Proceedings List to
manage class action proceedings, which in addition to its own
processes in the early stages of the proceeding, will adopt the
streamlined case management processes of the court's Commercial and
Managed Cases List.
This is a significant development because the new regime provides
class action plaintiffs with an additional forum for filings (being
the Supreme Court, in addition to the Federal Court) and enables
class actions to be pursued in Western Australia for State-based
claims and causes of action, such as the tort of negligence. We
will continue to monitor and report on the impact of the new
regime. [GN]
*********
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 ***