/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230420.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 20, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 80
Headlines
ACER INC: Class Action Over Spin Laptop Hinges Sent to Arbitration
ANAHEIM, CA: Utility Fee Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Trial Date for Lewakowski Suit Not Set
ATLASSIAN CORPORATION: Keane Sues Over Drop in Share Price
BANK OF MISSOURI: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Stover Suit
BIOVENTUS INC: Continues to Defend Ciarciello Class Suit in M.D.N.C
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Swisscanto Class Suit
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment in Covid-19 Refund Suit
CADWALADER WICKERSHAM: Faces Class Action Over 2022 Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Hall Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Bergman Sues Over Drop in Share Price
CE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
COFFEE HOLDING: Settlement Deal Details in Cohen Suit Finalized
CONIFER VALUE-BASED CARE: Kolb Files Suit in N.D. Texas
CRANE COOLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Portorreal Alleges
CULTURALINK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrios Alleges
DAVID PEYSER: Faces Velez Fraud Suit Over Illegal Ads' Scheme
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Gunter Sues Over Marketing of Defective Devices
DISCOUNT TACKLE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EARTH BREEZE: Battles Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
EMERALD HEALTH: Continues to Defend Medical Cannabis-Related Suit
EMTEC GROUP: Velayudhan Class Suit Dismissed as Shotgun Pleading
ENSERVCO CORP: Continues to Defend Safe Class Suit in Colorado
ERICKSON DEMEL: King Files Suit in W.D. Texas
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Chapman Securities Suit
FLUENT HOME: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Stover Suit
FORTRA LLC: Gonzalez Sues Over Data Breach
G.D. BARRI: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Enriquez Alleges
GALT GROUP INC: Newson-Pace Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
GENOVESE PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cantor Says
GLOBAL FITNESS: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOSU LLC: Arango Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GPB HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing in New York
GPB HOLDINGS: Ortiz Class Suit Ongoing in New York
GREG W. BECKER: HERS Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
GRINGER & SONS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GRUV INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HESAI GROUP: Pacella Sues Over Securities Act Violation
HUMAN CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mirzamakhmudova Says
HY-VEE INC: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees
INTEGON NATIONAL: Moors Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
JAZZERCISE INC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JONATHAN NEIL: Robbin Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
KOHN LAW: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Practices
LASTPASS US: Suit Removed to C.D. California
MAJOR ENERGY: Continues to Defend Gilkin Variable Rate Class Suit
MARTIAN SALES: C.B. Suit Removed to S.D. California
MBR FARMS: Hernandez Sues Over Foreign Workers' Unpaid Wages
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Hanson Suit
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Pasternacki
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Poppe Suit
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in RNPS Suit
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Shaffer
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Willis Suit
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Wray Suit
MDL 3067: Recht, EK & Kolwalski Suits Won't Be Centralized in Cal.
MERIDIAN SERVICES: Fails to Pay Engineers' OT Wages Under FLSA
MERRILL LYNCH: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 2
MICHELS CORPORATION: Beyer Bid for Leave to File Sur-reply Tossed
MISSION POINT: Faces Stoner Suit Over Meal Break Deduction Policy
MOMENTUS INC: Faces Burk Putative Class Suit in Delaware
MOMENTUS INC: Faces Lora Class Suit in Delaware
NATIVE PET: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Moen Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Medicaid Beneficiaries Lose Class Cert. Bid
NUTANIX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 13
OFFI ISLAND WING: Palmquist Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
OH! NUTS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY: Ruskiewicz Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 26 Ruling on Stichting Class Suit
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Shah Suit
RADIANT SOLAR: Henriquez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
REGAL CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Acuff Suit Claims
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Ongoing in Miller Class Suit
SKILLZ INC: Jedrzejczyk Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
SKYWORX CONTRACTING: Ortega Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Div.
SMOOTHSTACK INC: Former Employee Files FLSA Class Action
STRATA SKIN: Tentative Settlement in PAGA Suit for Court OK
SW1 TRELLIS: Senk Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
TEN BRIDGES: Must Reply to Interrogatories and RFPs in Taie Suit
TENARIS SA: Plaintiffs Seek Initial OK of Class Settlement
TENNECO INC: Frayer Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plans
TMX FINANCE: Faces Trottier Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rodriguez Suit Says
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Williams Alleges
TURTLE BEACH: Court Dismisses TCPA Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Bagnall Appeals Atty. Fees Bid Ruling to 2nd Cir.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Dorsey Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
USA K.MINAMOTO CO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
USA TODAY: Judge Tosses Sports Editor's Wage Class Action Bid
V-DOG INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MI: Grainger Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene
VIEW INC: Hearing on Bids to Dismiss Mehedi Suit Set for April 20
VISION SOLAR: Bascetta Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Inducement
VOLTA INC: Continues to Defend Exchange Act-Related Class Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Pearlstone May Distribute $169K Excess Deal Funds
WALGREEN CO: Spearman Suit Removed to C.D. California
WB WASTE SOLUTIONS: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
WINDY CITY NOVELTIES: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WP COMPANY: Mendoza Video Privacy Suit Removed to D.D.C.
WTHN LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ZERO HALLIBURTON: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZOLL MEDICAL: Pacholczack Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
[*] Sen. Gillibrand Speaker at May 8 Class Action Conference
*********
ACER INC: Class Action Over Spin Laptop Hinges Sent to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
computer-maker Acer has successfully moved a proposed class action
lawsuit to arbitration thanks to a policy presented to customers
when they first turn on their laptops.
Florida federal judge Steven Merryday made that decision April 6 in
Alex Volinsky's lawsuit, which alleges "Spin" laptops have a
defective hinge mechanism that causes the screen to separate from
the housing.
Acer's motion to compel arbitration said the "initial boot-up" of
every Acer laptop requires the customer to agree to the company's
"end user license agreement." That agreement conspicuously reqires
arbitration of "any dispute" between the customer and Acer,
Merryday wrote.
He rejected arguments Acer failed to properly notify customers of
the arbitration clause.
According to his class action, Volinsky purchased the defendant's
Spin I SP11-33 laptop computer from Staples in 2019. He alleges
that the Acer laptop is made with a defective hinge mechanism,
which caused the top panel and base panel to loosen and disconnect
from each other.
Volinsky further alleges that the laptop's screen separated from
the top panel housing which exposed the inside of the top panel and
made it unable to close properly, which affected the computer's
function.
He claims Acer falsely represented and marketed that the computer
has a "wide range of functionality," is built to last and is
technologically advanced. Volinksy alleges that despite Acer's
representations, the hinge mechanism is made of low quality and low
strength materials, which caused the hinges to break and detach
with numerous complaints about the product appearing online.
He also alleges Acer's misrepresentations about the product caused
consumers to purchase the laptop at a "substantial price premium."
Volinsky is represented by William Wright of The Wright Law Office
PA in West Palm Beach, Florida, and Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan &
Associates in Great Neck, New York. [GN]
ANAHEIM, CA: Utility Fee Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Anaheim
properly enacted increases to its electricity rates, a California
appeals court ruled, affirming dismissal of a proposed class action
alleging the fees were an illegal tax.
Ashlee Palmer argued Anaheim's public electric utility approved
rates that exceeded the cost of providing electricity, in violation
of the state constitution's requirement that voters approve any tax
increases beyond the cost of providing the service.
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected the
argument, finding the voters approved the increases through an
amendment to the city's charter. [GN]
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Trial Date for Lewakowski Suit Not Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-KF Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the
United States District Court of the District of New Jersey has not
set a trial date for the Lewakowski securities class suit.
On March 1, 2021, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey
alleging that the Company and certain of its officers engaged in
violations of the federal securities laws relating to public
statements made by the Company regarding the FDA approval of
Libervant.
Following the court's appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on June 25, 2021.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 2021, which
became fully briefed as of November 1, 2021.
There is no date set for a hearing on the motion to dismiss and no
trial date has yet been set.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation
of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.
ATLASSIAN CORPORATION: Keane Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY KEANE, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant
ATLASSIAN CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL CANNON-BROOKES; SCOTT
FARQUHAR; SHONA BROWN; HEATHER M. FERNANDEZ; SASAN GOODARZI; JAY
PARICKH; ENRIQUE SALEM; STEVEN SORDELLO; RICHARD P. WONG; MICHELLE
ZATLYN; ANU BHARADWAJ;and CAMERON DEATSCH, Defendants, and
ATLASSIAN CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00399-UNA (D. Del., April 10, 2023) is an action against
Atlassian's Board of Directors (the "Board") and certain of
Atlassian's executive officers, seeking to remedy their breaches of
fiduciary duties and violations of the federal securities laws.
According to the complaint, on November 3, 2022, Atlassian issued a
letter to shareholders and held a conference call with analysts to
discuss its financial results for the fiscal first quarter of 2023
ended September 30, 2022. In the November 3, 2022 letter, the
Defendants revealed that "[b]ased on the macro headwinds," the
Company was "lowering our Cloud revenue growth outlook to a range
of approximately 40% to 45% year-over-year" for fiscal year 2023.
In describing the "macro impacts" on the Company, the letter to
shareholders revealed that (1) the Company "saw a decrease in the
rate of Free instances converting to paid plans," calling it a
"trend [that] became more pronounced" in the quarter and (2) the
Company experienced "a slowing in the rate of paid user growth from
existing customers."
Specifically, the Individual Defendants willfully or recklessly
made and caused the Company to make false and misleading statements
to the investing public that failed to disclose, inter alia, that:
(1) macroeconomic factors were having a material adverse impact on
Atlassian's business; (2) the slowing conversions from free to paid
customers the Company was experiencing constituted a negative
trend; (3) paid user growth also had slowed; (4) the Company failed
to maintain internal controls; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's financial guidance,
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
As a result of the foregoing, Atlassian's public statements were
materially false and misleading, says the suit.
The price of Atlassian stock declined almost 29% the following
trading day, from a closing price of $174.17 per share on November
3, 2022 to a closing price of $123.73 per share on November 4,
2022.
ATLASSIAN CORPORATION provides technology solutions. The Company
designs and develops enterprise software platform for project
management, collaboration, issue tracking, integration, deployment,
and support services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
gm@rl-legal.com
hwm@rl-legal.com
- and –
Alan Rosca, Esq.
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
2000 Auburn Drive, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 570-0097
Email: arosca@rscounsel.law
BANK OF MISSOURI: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Stover Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Missouri, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion & Order dated March 15, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled HILMA STOVER, on behalf of herself and a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FLUENT HOME, LLC, THE BANK
OF MISSOURI, d/b/a Fortiva Retail Credit, ATLANTICUS SERVICES
CORPORATION, and FORTIVA FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00191, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Beckley.
On Oct. 12, 2020, a salesperson for Fluent, Larry Araiza,
approached Ms. Stover about purchasing a home security system.
After some discussion between the two, Ms. Stover decided to have
the system installed, believing she could cancel the service within
30 days and receive a refund. Later that evening, another employee
from Fluent began the installation, but Ms. Stover, unsatisfied
with the work, ordered him to stop. After attempting to cancel the
service, Ms. Stover alleges she discovered that her purchase had
been financed using a Fortiva-branded credit card. TBOM issues
Fortiva-branded accounts as part of its private-label credit
program, Fortiva Retail Credit. This program, which is managed by
Atlanticus and Fortiva, finances purchases from certain merchants,
including Fluent.
As a result of these events, Ms. Stover filed suit against Fluent
and TBOM in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia, on
Feb. 26, 2021. On March 29, 2021, TBOM removed the case to the
District Court. On May 14, 2021, Fluent filed a motion to compel
arbitration. Ms. Stover thereafter moved to amend her complaint on
Oct. 12, 2021.
On March 17, 2022, the Court denied Fluent's motion to compel
arbitration, concluding there was a genuine issue of material fact
regarding the existence of a binding arbitration agreement.
Instead, it ordered a summary trial on that issue pursuant to 9
U.S.C. Section 4. Following a disagreement over TBOM's
participation in the trial, TBOM separately moved to compel
arbitration on April 22, 2022.
However, before ruling on TBOM's motion, on April 25, 2022, the
Court granted Ms. Stover's motion to amend her complaint, allowing
Atlanticus and Fortiva to be added as defendants. In response, the
Lending Defendants jointly moved to compel arbitration on May 6,
2022. Fluent subsequently renewed its motion to compel arbitration
on May 9, 2022, but raised no new arguments. The Lending
Defendants, thereafter on Sept. 19, 2022, filed a motion to stay
discovery pending a ruling on their motion to compel arbitration,
which they renewed on Nov. 7, 2022.
In support of their motion to compel arbitration, the Lending
Defendants contend that Ms. Stover entered into their Cardholder
Agreement when she signed up for Fluent's home security system. The
arbitration provision in that agreement, the Lending Defendants
argue, prohibits Ms. Stover from bringing this lawsuit. Ms. Stover
responded that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to
whether she entered into the Cardholder Agreement. Moreover, she
claimed that TBOM has waived its right to arbitrate and that
Atlanticus and Fortiva were not parties to the agreement.
As a preliminary matter, because Fluent raised no new arguments in
support of its renewed motion to compel arbitration, Judge Volk
again denied that motion as the Court did in its Memorandum Opinion
and Order issued on March 17, 2022. Next, he turned to the Lending
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Volk issued a
ruling on March 15, 2023:
a. denying without prejudice Lending Defendants Atlanticus
Services Corp. and Fortiva Financial, LLC's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Dismiss First Amended Class Action
Complaint, filed May 6, 2022;
b. denying without prejudice Defendant Fluent Home, LLC's
Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on
May 9, 2022; and
c. denying as moot Lending Defendant The Bank of Missouri's
("TBOM") Motion to Compel Arbitration and the Lending
Defendants' Motions to Stay Discovery.
The appellate case is captioned as Hilma Stover v. The Bank of
Missouri, Case No. 23-1346, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 31, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on May 10, 2023; and
-- Response Brief is due on June 9, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants BANK OF MISSOURI, d/b/a Fortiva Retail
Credit, et al., are represented by:
Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq.
GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
300 Summers Street
Charleston, WV 25301
- and -
Bryan Alan Fratkin, Esq.
Katherine Elizabeth Lehnen, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 775-4352
- and -
Elizabeth M. Thomas, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
260 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3142
Telephone: (410) 659-4400
Plaintiff-Appellee HILMA STOVER, on behalf of herself and a class
of similarly situated persons, is represented by:
Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
923 Haddonfield Road
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
- and -
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
- and -
Jed Robert Nolan, Esq.
Benjamin Matthew Sheridan, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25266
Telephone: (304) 562-7111
BIOVENTUS INC: Continues to Defend Ciarciello Class Suit in M.D.N.C
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bioventus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Ciarciello class suit in the Middle
District of North Carolina.
On January 12, 2023, the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of North
Carolina, Ciarciello v. Bioventus, Inc., No. 1:23– CV –
00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. 2023). The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act and generally alleges that the Company
failed to disclose certain information regarding rebate practices,
its business and financial prospects, and the sufficiency of
internal controls regarding financial reporting.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The case is
in its early stages, and a lead plaintiff has not yet been
appointed.
The Company believes the claims alleged lack merit and intends to
file a motion to dismiss.
Bioventus Inc. is a global leader of innovations for active healing
and surgical orthobiologics.
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Swisscanto Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending February 28, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that discovery is ongoing
for the Swisscanto putative class action and the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice has not set trial date for the case.
On July 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the putative Ontario class
action (Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG v. BlackBerry Limited, et al.)
filed a motion for class certification and for leave to pursue
statutory misrepresentation claims.
On November 17, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued
an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation.
On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking
leave to appeal this ruling.
On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for
leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation.
On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class
comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares
between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at
least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who
acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired
those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of
Canada when the shares were acquired.
Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019.
The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019.
Discovery is proceeding and the Court has not set a trial date.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments based in Canada.
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment in Covid-19 Refund Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BOSTON UNIVERSITY COVID-19 REFUND LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 20-10827-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard C. Stearns
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts:
a. grants the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinion
of Dr. Hal J. Singer and Motion for Summary Judgment;
b. denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs Olivia Bornstein, Shakura Cox, Gabriella Dube, Julia
Dutra, Natalie Silulu, and Venus Tran brought the putative class
action against Defendant Trustees of Boston University (BU),
alleging that BU breached its contract with students when it
retained tuition and fees collected for the Spring semester of 2020
despite halting in-person instruction and closing on-campus
facilities and resources in March of 2020.
There are several motions now pending before the Court: the
parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class, and the Defendant's motion to exclude the
expert opinion of Dr. Singer.
First, because resolution of the other motions hinges on the
admissibility of Dr. Singer's expert opinion, Judge Stearns begins
with BU's motion to exclude his testimony pursuant to Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Having
considered the parties' briefing and the arguments put forward
during the March 30, 2023 hearing, he determines that Dr. Singer's
opinion does not survive scrutiny under Daubert.
In concluding that Dr. Singer's opinion should be excluded, Judge
Stearns does not mean to impugn the thoroughness or reasonableness
of Dr. Singer's exposition of Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Analysis
or to imply that he does not accurately calculate what he set out
to measure. He also does not mean to question the validity of CBC
Analysis as an accepted statistical methodology. All he questions
is its applicability to the problem Dr. Singer was tasked to
solve.
Second, BU moves for reconsideration of the court's denial of
summary judgment as to its defense of impossibility. Having
reviewed the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Le Fort
Enterprises, Inc. v. Lantern 18, LLC, 491 Mass. 144 (2023), which
clarified that summary judgment may be appropriate if "the material
facts" underlying the defense of impossibility "are not in
dispute," Judge Stearns agrees that it misconstrued Massachusetts
law on the issue and thus will reconsider the merits.
Judge Stearns finds that the Plaintiffs offer only the opinion of
Dr. Singer to establish the amount of any possible restitution
damages. He, however, has already concluded that Dr. Singer's
opinion does not adequately measure damages for breach of the
alleged contractual provisions asserted. His testimony, thus, is
insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to the
existence or amount of any restitution damages. Accordingly, he
enters summary judgment in BU's favor.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Stearns allows that Defendant's
Motion to Exclude and Motion for Summary Judgment and denies as
moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motion for
Summary Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4zz8xe2u from Leagle.com.
CADWALADER WICKERSHAM: Faces Class Action Over 2022 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP faces a proposed class action
over a November 2022 data breach that reportedly affected 93,211
individuals.
According to the 16-page case, the New York-based law firm's
systems were breached between November 15 and 16 of last year by an
unauthorized actor who gained access to files containing consumers'
names, Social Security numbers and shareholding information (which
may have included financial accounts, trading history, holdings and
balances). It wasn't until March 30, 2023 that Cadwalader informed
victims of the incident, although the notice letter did not explain
why the company was unable to prevent the data breach or waited
four months to contact impacted individuals, the lawsuit relays.
Per the complaint, the cyberattack was a direct result of the law
firm's failure to adhere to commonly accepted cybersecurity
standards. More specifically, Cadwalader neglected to implement
even "basic" data security protocols recommended by the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), which is considered an unfair act or
practice under the FTC Act, the filing contends.
"Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff and Class members to
use reasonable means to secure and safeguard their [personally
identifiable information], to prevent its unauthorized access and
disclosure, to guard it from theft, and to detect any attempted or
actual breach of its systems," the case states. "These common law
duties existed because Plaintiff and Class members were the
foreseeable and probable victims of any inadequate security
practices."
The lawsuit stresses that, due to Cadwalader's negligence, affected
individuals now face a substantial risk of financial fraud and
identity theft and will have to spend significant time and money
repairing the damage caused by the breach, which was compounded by
the law firm's failure to timely detect the incident and notify
affected individuals, the suit says.
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone whose personally identifiable
information was maintained on Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP's
servers and was compromised in the data breach. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Hall Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE HALL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Andre Hall, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00857-MSN-JFA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this complaint against the Defendant for breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). The Defendants have allegedly breached their fiduciary
duties to the Capital One Financial Corporation Savings Plan by
selecting, retaining, and/or otherwise ratified poorly performing
investments instead of offering more prudent alternative
investments that were readily available at the time Defendants
selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the Class
Period.
On Dec. 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on Jan. 11, 2023.
On Mar. 1, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff.
The Court determined that the Plaintiffs have failed to present any
factual allegations to support their claims. The Plaintiff's
amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.
The appellate case is captioned Andre Hall v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, Case No. 23-1357, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 4, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ANDRE HALL, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Alec Berin, Esq.
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
- and -
Glenn Edward Chappell, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
- and -
James Edward Miller, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
- and -
John Claude Roberts, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Defendant-Appellee CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION is represented
by:
Jeremy Paul Blumenfeld, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5258
- and -
Jared R. Killeen, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
- and -
Matthew J. Sharbaugh, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 739-5623
- and -
Frank H. Williams, III, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 739-3000
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Bergman Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
RON BERGMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES, INC.; RACHEL E.
HAURWITZ; JASON V. O'BYRNE; RYAN FISCHESSER; SCOTT BRAUNSTEIN;
ANDREW GUGGENHIME; JEFFREY LONG-MCGIE; and NATALIE R. SACKS,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01742-YGR (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2023)
is a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise
acquired: (a) Caribou common stock pursuant and traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about July 23, 2021 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); and (b) Caribou securities between July 23, 2021 and
December 9, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, on July 1, 2021, Caribou filed a
registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with
the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by
the SEC on July 22, 2021 (the "Registration Statement").
On July 23, 2021, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Caribou's
common stock began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Global Select
Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "CRBU". That same day,
Caribou filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection
with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). Pursuant to the
Offering Documents, Caribou issued 19 million shares of common
stock to the public at the Offering price of $16.00 per share for
proceeds of $282.72 million to the Company, before expenses, and
after applicable underwriting discounts.
The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i)
CB-010's treatment effect was not as durable as Defendants had led
investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, CB-010's clinical and
commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein, says the suit.
As of the time this Complaint was filed, Caribou common stock
continues to trade below the $16.00 per share Offering price,
damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
Caribou's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the suit asserts.
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES, INC. provides medical therapies and bio-based
products. The Company offers therapeutic bioproduction, microbial
strains, and agricultural biotechnology products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
Rina Restaino, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Email: brian@schallfirm.com
ivy@schallfirm.com
rina@schallfirm.com
CE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DARNELL BROWN; JEREMIAH JONES; RONALD TURNER; and TERRI COLEMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC; CE SOLUTIONS INC.; CE
RESERVE CORP.; CE FLAGGING PLUS CORP.; ARGANI INC.; HASSAN SIBLINI;
and JEANNINE NAPOLEONE-COLBERT, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03029
(S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as flagger and
spotter.
CE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC offers program office cost estimating,
budget services, EVM, risk analysis, acquisition, scheduling and
other programmatic support. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
COFFEE HOLDING: Settlement Deal Details in Cohen Suit Finalized
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coffee Holding Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 29, 2023, that the parties involved in
the Cohen putative class suit has finalized details of the
settlement agreement.
A significant customer of the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Massachusetts
District Court") on or about February 2, 2021, concerning the
labeling on private label coffee productions it sold to the
customer. The plaintiff, David Cohen, purporting to represent a
class of individuals who purchased coffee products from its
customer, generally allege that the customer sold private label
coffee products manufactured by the Company which falsely described
the number of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of
product purchased.
The Company is not named as a defendant in the action, but has
agreed to indemnify the customer for the costs and expenses
incurred in defending the lawsuit and for any liability the
customer may suffer as a result.
The complaint asserts a variety of claims under Massachusetts
consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary damages as
well as other forms of relief including class certification,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest.
The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are wholly
without merit and that the claims asserted are legally deficient,
and intends to vigorously support the customer in defending the
action.
On February 28, 2022,the Company and the plaintiff, in his
individual capacity and not on behalf of a presumptive class,
resolved the matter in principle and have reported the agreement in
principle to the Massachusetts District Court.
After the end of the period, the parties finalized the details of a
settlement agreement.
Coffee Holding Co., Inc. operates as a coffee roaster and dealer.
The Company focuses on roasting, blending, packaging, and
distributing coffee for sale under private labels and their own
brands for companies throughout the United States and Canada.
Coffee Holding also sells unprocessed green coffee to specialty
gourmet roasters. The company is based in Staten Island, New York.
CONIFER VALUE-BASED CARE: Kolb Files Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conifer Value-Based
Care, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nicole Kolb, on behalf of
hrself and all others similarly situated v. Conifer Value-Based
Care, LLC, Conifer Health Solutions, LLC, Conifer Revenue Cycle
Solutions, LLC, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Case No.
3:23-cv-00744-C (N.D. Tex., April 7, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Conifer Health -- https://www.coniferhealth.com/ -- is a healthcare
business solutions organization that drives patient, financial and
operational outcomes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
CRANE COOLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Portorreal Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ANGEL ANGELINA PORTORREAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRANE COOLING CORP.; LEMA
REFRIGERATION SALES & SERVICES CORP.; RAMON C. MALDONADO a/k/a
RAMON VARDENADO; and MAGGY DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02759
(E.D.N.Y., April 12, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Portorreal was employed by the Defendants as driver.
CRANE COOLING CORP. is engaged in the business of selling new and
used appliances and providing repair services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Anthony Wolff, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor,
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-1627
Email: JWolff@saccofillas.com
CULTURALINK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrios Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN BARRIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CULTURALINK, LLC; and CULTURALINK, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01591-VMC (N.D. Ga., April 12, 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 Barrios was employed by the Defendants as an
over-the-phone interpreter.
CULTURALINK, INC. is a preferred provider of consulting, training
and interpretation, and translation solutions for healthcare
organizations
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 530244
Atlanta, GA 30353-0244
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
DAVID PEYSER: Faces Velez Fraud Suit Over Illegal Ads' Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
NARITHA VELEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DAVID PEYSER SPORTSWEAR, INC., doing business as
"32Degrees.com," Case No. MID-L-002026-23 (N.J. Super., Apr. 11,
2023) alleges that 32Degrees.com engaged in a uniform policy of
advertising and displaying fictitious former prices in the
advertising, marketing, and sale of apparel and other personal
items sold and offered for sale to New Jersey consumers on its
website www.32Degrees.com, in violation of the New Jersey consumer
protection laws including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; the
New Jersey Truth in Consumer, Contract, Warranty and Notice Act;
the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act; and New Jersey common
law.
The Plaintiff contends that the items offered for sale on
Defendant's website were never sold or offered for sale by
32Degrees.com or anyone else for the false and inflated "former"
prices claimed by Defendant, and moreover the items lacked
sufficient objective quality, worth, and value to ever command such
prices in the marketplace. Rather, the purported "sale" prices
listed by Defendant on its www.32Degrees.com website were in fact
the normal, ordinary prices at which the items were routinely sold,
the lawsuit contends.
The Defendant 32Degrees.com's fraudulent advertising scheme harmed
consumers like the Plaintiff Naritha Velez, who was victimized by
the scheme alleged herein and who purchased falsely-discounted
products on Defendant's www.32Degrees.com website, the lawsuit
adds.
The Plaintiff and the other customers who fell victim to this
scheme were harmed because they would not have purchased the items
at the prices they paid (or at all) had they known that the items
had never been previously offered for sale - for a substantial
period of time or at all - at the higher strikethrough reference
prices listed on Defendant's www.32Degrees.com website. Nor did
these customers enjoy the actual discounts that Defendant
represented and promised to them via the lower "sale" prices, the
lawsuit adds.
Consequently, the Plaintiff brings this action individually on her
own behalf as a deceived www.32Degrees.com customer; as a private
attorney general seeking the imposition of public injunctive relief
against the Defendant; and as a representative plaintiff on behalf
of a class of New Jersey consumers seeking, among other things,
that the Defendant be ordered to disgorge all revenues it has
unjustly received from the proposed Class due to the intentional
and unlawful pattern and practice as described herein of using
false and inflated purported "former" prices and illusory
discounts.
The Plaintiff Naritha Velez is a citizen of New Jersey who resides
in Newark, Essex County, New Jersey.
32Degrees.com is a designer, marketer, and retail seller of casual
clothing and accessories which are branded as "32Degrees."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
5 Greentree Centre
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 797-9951
- and -
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone: (425) 233-8650
Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Gunter Sues Over Marketing of Defective Devices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Gunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00937-JKB (D.
Md., April 7, 2023), is brought on behalf of herself and a class of
current and former owners of Dell-brand hybrid computing devices,
including the Inspiron 2-in-1, that utilize a dual hinge system
("Class Devices" or the "Devices") to redress Defendant Dell
Technologies Inc.'s purposeful, knowing and fraudulent marketing,
sale and warranting of defective Class Devices.
Dell claims the Class Devices are mobile and versatile because its
purportedly durable 360-hinges allow the Devices to provide both
the computing power of a laptop and the efficiency of a touchscreen
tablet. Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the dual 360-hinge
system is defective in that the hinges prematurely and unexpectedly
seize and fail after only months of use, rendering the hinges
inoperable and prohibiting Plaintiff and Class members from
changing the configuration of their Devices, and even prohibits
them from simply closing and opening the Devices. The Defect
thereby deprives owners of the Devices' defining feature: the
ability to be configured as either a tablet or a laptop (the
"Defect").
The Defect not only renders the hinges inoperable; it also damages
other Device components. For example, as the Defect manifests and
the hinges begin to seize, the plastic bezel surrounding the screen
can crack, as can the screen itself, rendering Class Devices
useless for their intended purpose.
Dell knew or should have known of the Defect long before it placed
Class Devices into the stream of commerce through, inter alia,
durability testing--where it purportedly subjected the dual
360-hinge system to extensive cycle testing by opening, closing,
and twisting the laptop base and lid tens of thousands of
times--that did or should have revealed the Defect, knowledge
buttressed by consumer complaints that Dell began to receive
shortly after bringing the Class Devices to market.
Yet Dell elected to conceal the Defect from Plaintiff and the
Class. Indeed, even when consumers advise Dell that the Defect has
manifested in Class Devices, Dell denies that the Defect exists and
asserts hinges only fail when misused (and, thus, are not covered
by warranty).
As a result of Dell's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business
practices, current and former owners of Class Devices, including
Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money, property,
and/or loss in value. Had Plaintiff and the Class known about the
Defect at the time of purchase, they would have paid substantially
less for their Class Devices, or would not have purchased them and
avoided the significant out-of-pocket costs they have or will incur
to repair or replace Class Devices once the Defect manifests.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to redress Dell's
violations of various states' consumer fraud statutes, breach of
express and implied warranties, and other common law wrongs, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a Dell Inspiron 7300-5395S 2-in-1 hybrid
computing device on September 27, 2020 from a Best Buy store
located in Rockville, Maryland.
Dell Technologies Inc. is a corporation created under the laws of
the State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Ulwick, Esq.
KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
One South Street, Suite 2600
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410 752-6030
Facsimile: (410) 539-1269
Email: julwick@kg-law.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Ave.
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (888)-711-9975
Fax: (610) 421-1326
Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
- and -
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Olivia A. Lawless, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312)782-4880
Facsimile: (312)782-7785
Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
olawless@caffertyclobes.com
DISCOUNT TACKLE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discount Tackle, LLC.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Discount Tackle, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02964 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Discount Tackle -- https://discounttackle.com/ -- is a source for
every day savings on top brands of fishing tackle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawpc.com
EARTH BREEZE: Battles Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Earth Breeze, Inc.
The case is styled as Allison Battles, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Earth Breeze, Inc., Case No.
16-2023-CA-008352-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., April 10,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil."
Earth Breeze -- https://www.earthbreeze.com/ -- is an eco-conscious
company headquartered in Medford, Oregon (USA), manufacturing
sustainable and environment-friendly products.[BN]
EMERALD HEALTH: Continues to Defend Medical Cannabis-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerald Health Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the medical
cannabis-related class suit in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
In July 2020, Emerald Health Therapeutics, Inc., a subsidiary of
the Company, was added as a defendant in a proposed class action
commenced against a large number of Canadian license holders
including Aurora Cannabis Inc.; Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc.;
AuroraCo.; Aleafiaco; Aleafia Health Inc.; Canopy Growth
Corporation; Emblem Cannabis Corp.; Hexo Corp.; HexoCo; Cronos
Group Inc.; Cronosco; Tilray Canada Ltd.; Organigram Holdings Inc.;
OrganigramCo; MediPharm Labs Corp.; MediPharmCo; CanopyCo; Aphria
Inc.; Broken Coast Cannabis Ltd.; AphriaCo; Emerald Cannabis
Corporation; and EmeraldCo. The proposed class action was commenced
in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sitting at Calgary.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, including Emerald Health
Therapeutics, Inc., marketed and sold medicinal and recreational
cannabis products with an advertised content of THC and CBD and
that the amount of THC and/or CBD as contained on the label was
wrong and outside the permissible variability limits. The claim
alleges the following causes of action indiscriminately against all
of the defendants: breach of contract and breach of consumer
protection legislation, including the various Sale of Goods Acts
and Consumer Protection Acts; common law and statutory
misrepresentation; negligence in product labelling; breach of the
duty to warn; unjust enrichment; waiver of tort.
The claim seeks an aggregate of $505 million in damages as against
all of the defendants) and $5,000,000 in punitive damages against
each defendant plus an accounting of revenues from each defendant.
The proceedings are still at an early stage.
The Company and other defendants are disputing the allegations and
have been and will continue to vigorously defend against the
claims.
Emerald Health is a pharmaceutical company that produces
pharmaceutical grade medical cannabis.
EMTEC GROUP: Velayudhan Class Suit Dismissed as Shotgun Pleading
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AJAIGOPAL VELAYUDHAN, on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EMTEC GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-336-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.), Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division, dismisses Velayudhan's Class Action
Complaint as a shotgun pleading.
Judge Corrigan finds that all Velayudhan's counts reincorporate the
preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that
came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire
complaint. Velayudhan's amended complaint should only incorporate
into each count the factual allegations pertinent to that cause of
action.
Accordingly, Judge Corrigan dismisses the Plaintiff's Complaint
without prejudice. The Plaintiff will file an amended complaint no
later than April 28, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kfksatft from Leagle.com.
ENSERVCO CORP: Continues to Defend Safe Class Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enservco Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Safe class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
On May 22, 2022, Ali Safe, acting individually and on behalf of
others, filed a class action complaint in United States District
Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the Company and
certain of its officers violated securities laws in relation to
certain of its SEC Form 10-Q filings in 2021 which required
amendments and restatements to such filings. On November 28, 2022,
the plaintiff amended their complaint primarily to add Jan Lambert
as lead plaintiff and to include Cross River Partners, L.P. and
Cross River Capital Management, LLC as defendants.
On February 10, 2023, the Company filed a motion in the United
State District Court of Colorado to dismiss the class action
complaint.
The Company believes the class action complaint is baseless and
without merit and have engaged counsel to vigorously defend against
the claim.
Enservco Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
provides various services to the domestic onshore oil and natural
gas industry.
ERICKSON DEMEL: King Files Suit in W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erickson Demel &
Associates, PLLC. The case is styled as Candice King, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Erickson Demel &
Associates, PLLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00398 (W.D. Tex., April 7,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Erickson Demel & Associates -- https://ericksoncpa.com/ -- is an
accounting company offering tax services to individuals, small
businesses, and not-for-profit organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Chapman Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Chapman putative
federal securities class suit in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina.
On September 3, 2020, plaintiff Jim Chapman filed a putative
federal securities class action lawsuit against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, Rostislav Raykov, and Chief Financial
Officer, Robert Andrade, in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Chapman v. Fennec
Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00812. The complaint
alleged that prior to its August 10, 2020 receipt of a CRL from the
FDA concerning our NDA for PEDMARK, defendants made materially
false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about its third-party PEDMARK product manufacturing facility
and the impact the facility would have on regulatory approval for
PEDMARK.
On December 3, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the putative class.
On February 1, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint added members of the Company's Board of
Directors as defendants, asserts a putative class period from
December 20, 2018 through August 10, 2020, makes allegations
similar to those in the original complaint, claims the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
On March 3, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
On April 2, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion
to dismiss.
On April 16, 2021, defendants filed a reply in support of the
motion to dismiss, and on December 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge
entered an order recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss be
granted in its entirety.
On January 24, 2022, lead plaintiff filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation, and defendants filed their
response on February 3, 2022.
On March 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court Judge adopted the
Magistrate Judge's order and recommendation and entered an order
and judgment dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.
On March 30, 2022, lead plaintiff filed a motion for post judgment
relief, seeking leave to file a second amended complaint.
In his proposed second amended complaint, lead plaintiff seeks to
add allegations stemming from the receipt of a second CRL following
the Company's resubmission of its NDA for PEDMARK®, which it
received on November 29, 2021, among other things. Defendants filed
an opposition to plaintiff's motion for post judgment relief on
April 20, 2022.
On May 4, 2022, lead plaintiff submitted a reply in support of his
motion.
On September 27, 2022, defendants filed a request for judicial
notice regarding the FDA's press release announcing that it has
approved PEDMARK®.
On October 18, 2022, lead plaintiff filed his opposition to request
for judicial notice.
On October 21, 2022, defendants filed a reply in support of the
request for judicial notice.
On February 15, 2023, the Magistrate Judge recommended the motion
for post judgment relief be denied.
Lead plaintiff filed no timely objection to the recommendation, and
on March 2, 2023, the U.S. District Court Judge issued an order
adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, denying the motion
for post judgment relief, and entering judgment for defendants.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.
Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc., a British Columbia corporation, is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of Pedmark, a
unique formulation of sodium thiosulfate.
FLUENT HOME: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Stover Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
FLUENT HOME, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion & Order dated March 15, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled HILMA STOVER, on behalf of herself and a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FLUENT HOME, LLC, THE BANK
OF MISSOURI, d/b/a Fortiva Retail Credit, ATLANTICUS SERVICES
CORPORATION, and FORTIVA FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00191, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Beckley.
On Oct. 12, 2020, a salesperson for Fluent, Larry Araiza,
approached Ms. Stover about purchasing a home security system.
After some discussion between the two, Ms. Stover decided to have
the system installed, believing she could cancel the service within
30 days and receive a refund. Later that evening, another employee
from Fluent began the installation, but Ms. Stover, unsatisfied
with the work, ordered him to stop. After attempting to cancel the
service, Ms. Stover alleges she discovered that her purchase had
been financed using a Fortiva-branded credit card. TBOM issues
Fortiva-branded accounts as part of its private-label credit
program, Fortiva Retail Credit. This program, which is managed by
Atlanticus and Fortiva, finances purchases from certain merchants,
including Fluent.
As a result of these events, Ms. Stover filed suit against Fluent
and TBOM in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia, on
Feb. 26, 2021. On March 29, 2021, TBOM removed the case to the
Court. On May 14, 2021, Fluent filed a motion to compel
arbitration. Ms. Stover thereafter moved to amend her complaint on
Oct. 12, 2021.
On March 17, 2022, the Court denied Fluent's motion to compel
arbitration, concluding there was a genuine issue of material fact
regarding the existence of a binding arbitration agreement. As a
result, it ordered a summary trial on that issue pursuant to 9
U.S.C. Section 4. Following a disagreement over TBOM's
participation in the trial, TBOM separately moved to compel
arbitration on April 22, 2022.
However, before ruling on TBOM's motion, on April 25, 2022, the
Court granted Ms. Stover's motion to amend her complaint, allowing
Atlanticus and Fortiva to be added as defendants. In response, the
Lending Defendants jointly moved to compel arbitration on May 6,
2022. Fluent subsequently renewed its motion to compel arbitration
on May 9, 2022, but raised no new arguments. The Lending
Defendants, thereafter on Sept. 19, 2022, filed a motion to stay
discovery pending a ruling on their motion to compel arbitration,
which they renewed on Nov. 7, 2022.
In support of their motion to compel arbitration, the Lending
Defendants contend that Ms. Stover entered into their Cardholder
Agreement when she signed up for Fluent's home security system. The
arbitration provision in that agreement, the Lending Defendants
argue, prohibits Ms. Stover from bringing this lawsuit. Ms. Stover
responds, however, that a genuine dispute of material fact exists
as to whether she entered into the Cardholder Agreement. Moreover,
she also claims that TBOM has waived its right to arbitrate and
that Atlanticus and Fortiva were not parties to agreement.
As a preliminary matter, because Fluent raised no new arguments in
support of its renewed motion to compel arbitration, Judge Volk
again denied that motion as the Court did in its Memorandum Opinion
and Order issued on March 17, 2022. Next, he turns to the Lending
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Volk
issued a ruling on March 15, 2023:
a. denying without prejudice Lending Defendants Atlanticus
Services Corp. and Fortiva Financial, LLC's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Dismiss First Amended Class Action
Complaint, filed May 6, 2022;
b. denying without prejudice Defendant Fluent Home, LLC's
Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on
May 9, 2022; and
c. denying as moot Lending Defendant The Bank of Missouri's
("TBOM") Motion to Compel Arbitration and the Lending
Defendants' Motions to Stay Discovery.
The appellate case is captioned as Hilma Stover v. Fluent Home,
LLC, Case No. 23-1345, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 31, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on May 10, 2023; and
-- Response Brief is due on June 9, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant FLUENT HOME, LLC is represented by:
Helen Mac Murray, Esq.
MAC MURRAY & SHUSTER LLP
6525 West Campus Oval
New Albany, OH 43054
Telephone: (614) 939-9955
Plaintiff-Appellee HILMA STOVER, on behalf of herself and a class
of similarly situated persons, is represented by:
Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
923 Haddonfield Road
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
- and -
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
- and -
Jed Robert Nolan, Esq.
Benjamin Matthew Sheridan, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25266
Telephone: (304) 562-7111
FORTRA LLC: Gonzalez Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------
Iraida Gonzalez and Linda Caudill, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FORTRA, LLC, Case No.
0:23-cv-00876-ECT-JFD (D. Minn., April 7, 2023), is brought arising
out of a massive January 2023 data breach ("Data Breach") of
documents and information stored on the computer network of the
Defendant Fortra, including but not limited to Fortra's
"GoAnywhere" site; and seeking to obtain damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief for a class of individuals (the "Class" or "Class
Members") who are similarly situated and have received notices of a
data breach either from a customer of Defendant Fortra, or directly
from Defendant Fortra.
The third-party customers include Community Health Systems
Professional Services Corporations, LLC ("CHSPSC"), Hatch Bank, and
other companies or organizations who are Fortra's customers
("Customers"), which have been attacked by cybercriminals as a
result of Fortra's negligence.
Entities that handle sensitive, personally identifying information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") owe a duty to the
individuals to whom that data relates. This duty arises based upon
the parties' relationship and because it is foreseeable that the
exposure of PII or PHI to unauthorized persons--and especially
hackers with nefarious intentions--will result in harm to the
affected individuals, including, but not limited to, the invasion
of their private health matters.
On its computer network, Fortra holds and stores certain highly
sensitive PII and PHI on behalf of Customers. Customers collect the
PII and PHI of Plaintiffs and Class Members, i.e., individuals who
provided their highly sensitive and confidential personal
information in exchange for business services offered by the
Customers. The Customers then entrust Fortra to organize, store,
and protect that PII and PHI on their behalf. According to the
Notice of Data Breach Letters that CHSPSC, and Hatch Bank sent to
Plaintiffs and Class Members related to their business, Fortra
first "became aware of the incident the evening of January 30, 2023
and took impacted systems offline on January 31, 2023, stopping the
unauthorized party's ability to access the system."
Fortra's investigation determined that there was a breach to its
computer network from January 30, 2023, to January 31, 2023. On or
about February 2, 2023, Fortra notified CHSPSC and Hatch Bank (and
upon information and belief, other Customers) of the incident.
As a result of Defendant's Data Breach subjecting Customers' data
to unauthorized access and exfiltration, Plaintiffs and millions of
Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of invasion
of privacy and financial losses resulting from identity theft,
out-of pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack.
The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' highly sensitive personal
information--which was entrusted to Defendant by its Customers--was
compromised and unlawfully accessed and extracted during the Data
Breach. Based upon the Notice Letters sent by Hatch Bank and
CHSPSC, CHSPSC's Website Notice, and the SEC filing referenced
above, the PII and PHI compromised in the Data Breach was
intentionally accessed and removed, also called exfiltrated, by the
cyber criminals who perpetrated this attack and remains in the
hands of those cyber-criminals. The Data Breach was a direct result
of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
Plaintiffs and Class Members' PII and PHI, despite selling its
software and data protection services to Customers for that very
purpose.
The Defendant disregarded the privacy and property rights of
Plaintiffs and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that they did
not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices
to safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII and PHI; failing to
take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data
Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members prompt
and accurate and complete notice of the Data Breach, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs' PHI and PII were maintained within the Defendant's
networks.
Fortra is a cybersecurity and automation information technology
software company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Kevin W. Fay, Esq.
GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 346-7338
Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
Email: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com
kfay@golomblegal.com
G.D. BARRI: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Enriquez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ENRICO ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G.D. BARRI & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and
ALEXANDRIA DORSEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00611-MTM (D.
Ariz., April 11, 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 Enriquez was employed by the Defendants as construction
manager.
G.D. BARRI & ASSOCIATES is a contract labor solutions specialist
providing technical & engineering support services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
Facsimile: (602) 926-1479
Email: srandall@randallslaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard ("Rex") J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
GALT GROUP INC: Newson-Pace Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheree Newson-Pace, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. GALT GROUP, INC., a Florida Corporation, and ANDRE
CADOGAN, Individually, Case No. 9:23-cv-80624-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
April 7, 2023), is brought for unpaid overtime compensation, lost
wages due to retaliation, compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other applicable relief pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA by misclassifying the
Plaintiff and the other workers who "contracted" with Defendants as
"independent contractors" (hereinafter the "class") and by failing
to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the class. The
Defendants required Plaintiff and the class to log their hours and
report the hours to Defendants at the end of each workday. The
Defendants maintained exclusive control over the compensation
received by Plaintiff and the class.
The Defendants' customers issued iPads to Plaintiff and the class
to perform their work. However, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff or
the class any additional overtime premium for overtime hours
worked. The Plaintiff and the class routinely worked overtime hours
and were only paid their regular hourly pay ("straight time") by
Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from November 2022 to March
2023.
GALT GROUP, INC., operates as a professional services and
management consultancy business providing disaster relief efforts
among other work.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 530244
Atlanta, GA 30353-0244
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Fax: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
GENOVESE PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cantor Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PABLO CANTOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENOVESE PIZZERIA AND RESTAURANT
INC. (DBA GENOVESE PIZZERIA); and SALVATORE GENOVESE, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02732 (E.D.N.Y., April 12, 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 Cantor was employed by the Defendants as a cook.
GENOVESE PIZZERIA AND RESTAURANT INC. is a company that operates in
the restaurants industry. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
Email: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
GLOBAL FITNESS: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Fitness, Inc.
The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Global Fitness, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02926 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Global Fitness -- https://www.globalfitness.com/ -- is the world's
largest wholesaler of used gym equipment.[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
GOSU LLC: Arango Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOSU, LLC, et al. The
case is styled as Edith Arango, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and on behlaf of the general public v. GOSU,
LLC, Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23605717 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 7, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Gosu LLC is a limited liability company (LLC) located in San
Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
GPB HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
GPB Holdings II, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that a consolidated
class suit is ongoing in the Supreme Court, New York County.
In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
in New York Supreme Court, New York County, against GPB, GPB
Holdings, GPB Holdings II, GPB Holdings III, the Partnership, GPB
Cold Storage, GPB Waste Management, David Gentile, Jeffrey Lash,
Macrina Kgil, a/k/a Minchung Kgil, William Edward Jacoby, Scott
Naugle, Jeffry Schneider, AAS, Ascendant, and Axiom Capital
Management.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering
documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material
misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking
disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief.
Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be
estimated at this time.
GPB Holdings II, LP is a holding company based in New York.
GPB HOLDINGS: Ortiz Class Suit Ongoing in New York
--------------------------------------------------
GPB Holdings II, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the Ortiz class
suit is ongoing at the New York Supreme Court.
In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a class action in New York Supreme
Court, Nassau County, against GPB, Automile Holdings LLC d/b/a
Prime Automotive Group, David Gentile, David Rosenberg, Philip
Delzotta, Joseph Delzotta, and other affiliated entities and
individuals.
In November 2020, the plaintiffs voluntarily discontinued the
action only as against David Rosenberg. The Complaint alleges
deceptive and misleading business practices of the named Defendants
with respect to the marketing, sale, and/or leasing of automobiles
and the financial and credit products related to the same
throughout the State of New York.
Plaintiffs allege defendants' collection of fraudulent rebates
exceeds $1,000,000. The plaintiffs are seeking class-wide
injunctive relief requiring defendant dealerships to disclose
financing options, rebates, interest rates, and risk of
repossession; monetary and punitive damages for violation of New
York General Business Laws, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and breach of contract; and also seek costs and
fees.
Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be
estimated at this time.
GPB Holdings II, LP is a holding company based in New York.
GREG W. BECKER: HERS Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
City Of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System, Asbestos Workers
Philadelphia Welfare and Pension Fund, and Heat & Frost Insulators
Local 12 Funds, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. GREG W. BECKER, DANIEL J. BECK, KAREN HON, ROGER F.
DUNBAR, BEVERLY KAY MATTHEWS, ERIC A. BENHAMOU, ELIZABETH BURR,
JOHN S. CLENDENING, RICHARD D. DANIELS, ALISON DAVIS, JOEL P.
FRIEDMAN, THOMAS KING, JEFFREY N. MAGGIONCALDA, MARY J. MILLER,
KATE D. MITCHELL, JOHN F. ROBINSON, GAREN K. STAGLIN, , GOLDMAN
SACHS & CO. LLC, BofA SECURITIES, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
KEEFE, BRUYETTE & WOODS, INC., and KPMG, LLP, Case No.
3:23-cv-01697 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2023), is brought on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired SVB securities between January 22, 2021, and March 10,
2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including all persons and
entities who purchased SVB securities pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's following offerings of SVB securities (the
"Offerings"), asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"),
against certain of SVB's executive officers, directors, auditors,
and underwriters.
SVB is a diversified financial services company. As is relevant
here, SVB is the parent company of Silicon Valley Bank (the
"Bank"), a California state-chartered bank founded in 1983, which
primarily provided banking and financial services in the technology
and life science/healthcare industries as well as to global private
equity ("PE") and venture capital ("VC") clients. The Bank provided
its clients with, among other things, deposit account, credit
(including secured and unsecured loans, lines of credit, and credit
card programs), treasury management, foreign exchange, trade
finance, and other financial products and services. During the
Class Period, SVB's common stock traded in the United States on the
Nasdaq Global Select Market ("Nasdaq") under the ticker symbol
"SIVB," and SVB's preferred stock traded on the Nasdaq under the
ticker symbol "SIBP."
On November 15, 2019, SVB filed a shelf registration statement on
Form S-3 ASR (the "Shelf Registration Statement") authorizing the
Company to "offer and sell from time to time any combination of the
securities described in the Shelf Registration Statement in one or
more offering." During the Class Period, SVB issued prospectuses in
connection with the Offerings on Forms 424B2 and 424B5, which
incorporated the Shelf Registration Statement and formed part of
the "Registration Statements."
In the Registration Statements, other SEC filings, and multiple
public statements throughout the Class Period, some or all
Defendants misrepresented the strength of the Company's balance
sheet, liquidity, and position in the market. Among other things,
the Defendants understated and concealed the magnitude of the risks
facing the Company's business model that would result from any
decision by the Federal Reserve System (the "Fed") raising the
federal funds rate, thereby undermining the value of the Bank's
securities portfolio and creating an environment in which the
Bank's PE and VC clients (who typically increase investment
activity in lower interest rate environments) would conduct less
business with the Bank, including maintaining lower levels of
deposits.
The Plaintiffs and other members of the Class began to learn the
truth about the Company's precarious financial position, including
the liquidity issues it was facing, through a series of disclosures
beginning on July 21, 2022, when SVB announced disappointing second
quarter 2022 financial results and slashed its 2022 financial
guidance. Among other things, SVB lowered its expected net interest
income ("NII") growth to the mid-forties (down from its April 2022
guidance projecting growth in the low fifties). The Officer
Defendants attributed the reduced NII growth projection to several
factors, including "unprecedented Fed tightening" and "meaningfully
slowed PE and VC investment." In response to this news, the price
of SVB common stock declined $74.81 per share, or more than 17%,
from a close of $436.17 per share on July 21, 2022, to close at
$361.36 per share on July 22, 2022.
Investors continued to learn the truth about the liquidity pressure
facing the Company on October 20, 2022, when SVB reported
disappointing financial results for the third quarter of 2022 and
further reduced its 2022 financial guidance. Critically, SVB
revealed that it now expected NII growth in the low forties (down
from prior guidance projecting growth in the mid-forties),
acknowledging that "the challenging [interest rate and PE/VC
investment] environment is pressuring balance sheet and NII growth,
and the Company expects these conditions to persist for the
foreseeable future until public markets stabilize." On this news,
the price of SVB common stock fell $72.43 per share, or
approximately 24%, from a close of $302.46 per share on October 20,
2022, to close at $230.03 per share on October 21, 2022.
After the market closed on March 8, 2023, and less than two weeks
after KPMG, LLP signed off on the Company's 2022 annual report,
investors were stunned when the Company announced that, due to
"continued higher interest rates, pressured public and private
markets, and elevated cash burn levels from SVB's clients,"
resulting in materially reduced levels of deposits by these
clients, SVB was seeking to raise approximately $2.25 billion in
capital (consisting of a $1.25 billion common stock public
offering, a $500 million preferred stock public offering, and a
$500 million private offering) to address its mushrooming liquidity
issues. In the same press release, SVB also revealed that it had
sold "substantially all of its available for sale securities
portfolio," taking an approximately $1.8 billion loss on the sale,
in order to reinvest the assets to deliver higher returns." On this
news, the price of SVB common stock declined $161.79 per share, or
more than 60%, from a close of $267.83 per share on March 8, 2023,
to close at $106.04 per share on March 9, 2023. Similarly, the
price of SVB preferred stock plummeted $4.27 per share, or more
than 21%, from a close of $19.50 per share on March 8, 2023, to
close at $15.23 per share on March 9, 2023.
The Company's demise quickly followed these disclosures. On March
9, 2023, the financial media reported that VC investor Peter Thiel
was advising companies to pull money from Silicon Valley Bank due
to concerns about the Company's financial stability, leading to a
bank run. In response, on March 10, 2023, Nasdaq halted trading in
the Company's stock, and the California Department of Financial
Protection and Innovation closed Silicon Valley Bank and appointed
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as the Bank's receiver.
On March 17, 2023, SVB filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection,
rendering all of its issued securities essentially valueless, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff Hialeah ERS is a benefit pension plan based in
Hialeah, Florida, that provides pension services and benefits to
employees, retirees, and beneficiaries of the City of Hialeah.
Greg W. Becker served as the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer throughout the Class Period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 819-3470
Email: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
- and -
Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Jeroen Van Kwawegen, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 554-1400
Fax: (212) 554-1444
Email: jerry@blbglaw.com
hannah@blbglaw.com
jeroen@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
GRINGER & SONS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gringer & Sons, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Gringer & Sons, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02660 (E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gringer & Sons, Inc. -- https://www.gringerandsons.com/ -- was
founded in 1975. The company's line of business includes the retail
sale of electric and gas refrigerators, stoves, and other household
appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GRUV INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gruv, Inc. The case
is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Gruv, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03000 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gruv Gear -- https://gruvgear.com/ -- is a premium lifestyle
accessories brand originally rooted in the creative community.[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
HESAI GROUP: Pacella Sues Over Securities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Alan Pacella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HESAI GROUP, YIFAN LI, LOUIS T. HSIEH, KAI SUN,
SHAOQING XIANG, CAILIAN YANG, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, GOLDMAN SACHS
(ASIA) L.L.C., MORGAN STANLEY ASIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, HUATAI SECURITIES (USA), INC., COGENCY
GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02634 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023), is
brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Hesai Group securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Hesai Group's
initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering") and suffered
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
On January 17, 2023, Hesai filed with the SEC a Registration
Statement on Form F-1, which in combination with a subsequent
amendment on Form F-1/A (the "Amended Registration Statement"). On
February 9, 2023, Hesai filed with the SEC its final prospectus for
the IPO on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the
Registration Statement. In the IPO, Hesai sold approximately 10
million ADSs at $19.00 per ADS. The Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation.
The Registration Statement made numerous materially misleading
comments about the Company's margin. While the Company disclosed
that it expected that its margin would decrease in the Fourth
Quarter of 2022, it did not disclose the extent to which the margin
would go down (which it would have been aware of by February 2,
2023, when the Amended Registration Statement was filed), or why it
had gone down.
In its risk disclosures, the Company stated that margins might
decrease because of increased competition, increased component
costs, the Company's failure to adequately control costs associated
with its operations, pricing pressures as a result of cost-cutting
initiatives by the Company's customers, its failure to maintain
sufficient inventory (or conversely, maintaining excessive
inventory), but it did not disclose that gross margin may go down
as a result of a lower "in-house plant capacity utilization rate."
The statements were materially false and/or misleading because it
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial
results. Specifically, the Registration Statement contained false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Hesai
Group's gross margin decrease was caused by a lower in-house
utilization rate; Hesai Group's gross margin was 30% for the fourth
quarter--which was completed over a month before the date of the
amended registration statement; and as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times and negligently prepared. Since the IPO, and as a result of
the disclosure of material adverse facts omitted from Hesai Group's
Registration Statement, Hesai Group's ADS price has fallen
substantially below its IPO price, damaging Plaintiff and Class
members. As of April 6, 2023, Hesai Group's ADSs closed at $12.17,
a 35.9% decline from the IPO price, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO and was damaged thereby.
Hesai Group purports to be the global leader in three-dimensional
light detection and ranging (LiDAR) solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
HUMAN CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mirzamakhmudova Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
FERUZA MIRZAMAKHMUDOVA, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMAN CARE, LLC; and COUNTY AGENCY
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02761 (E.D.N.Y., April 12, 2023)
seeks to redress the Defendants' systematic underpayment of spread
of hours and overtime wages, failure in provide wage notices,
failure in keeping accurate employment records.
Plaintiff Mirzamakhmudova was employed by the Defendants as a home
health aide.
HUMAN CARE, LLC is a licensed Home Care Services Agency in the
State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sang J. Sim, Esq.
SIM & DEPAOLA, LLP
4240 Bell Blvd, Suite 405
Flushing, NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 281-0400
Email: psim@simdepaola.com
HY-VEE INC: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Hy-Vee Inc.
employees challenging the fees tied to the Iowa-based grocer's
401(k) plan asked a federal judge to certify their case as a class
action covering "tens of thousands" of people.
The workers' motion, filed April 14 in the US District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, seeks a class covering all the
Hy-Vee plan's participants and beneficiaries since March 2016. This
proposed class turns on common questions about plan management and
fee levels, and the representative plaintiffs have suffered similar
injuries to those of other class members, according to the motion.
[GN]
INTEGON NATIONAL: Moors Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Victoria Moors filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and/or Opinion dated March 29, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled Victoria Moors, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Integon National Insurance
Company, Case No. 2-22-cv-01516, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was initially
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County before it
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on April 20, 2022.
According to the complaint, the Defendant issued Plaintiff a
Personal Auto Policy that included "stacked uninsured and
underinsured motorist coverages for one vehicle." Before issuing
the Auto Policy, Defendant conducted an underwriting process, and
should have obtained information regarding all policies and
vehicles in Plaintiff's household. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant should have learned from the underwriting process that
Plaintiff only owned one vehicle and that "there were no other
vehicles or policies in [Plaintiff's] household." The Plaintiff
alleges that despite not qualifying for stacked UM/UIM coverage
benefits, Defendant issued a policy that provided stacked uninsured
and underinsured motorist coverage, charged Plaintiff an additional
premium, and "never told [Plaintiff] that the policy did not
provide a stacking coverage benefit."
On March 23, 2023, Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered a Memorandum
and/or Opinion granting Defendant's May 4, 2022 motion to dismiss
the case for failure to state a claim. The Order states that the
complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Victoria Moors v. Integon
National Insurance Co., Case No. 23-1598, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 31,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant VICTORIA MOORS, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, is represented by:
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT KRAMER
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 232-6300
- and -
John P. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES
429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-4663
- and -
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH
1801 Market Street, Suite 100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 350-6633
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB LAW
134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Defendant-Appellee INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. is represented
by:
Mark J. Levin, Esq.
Brittany M. Wilson, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 864-8235
JAZZERCISE INC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jazzercise, Inc. The
case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Jazzercise, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02927 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jazzercise -- https://www.jazzercise.com/ -- is a fitness franchise
company founded by Judi Sheppard Missett in 1968 and headquartered
in Carlsbad, 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
JONATHAN NEIL: Robbin Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
SARA ROBBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JONATHAN NEIL & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendant, seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
JONATHAN NEIL & ASSOCIATES, INC. provides commercial collection
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
KOHN LAW: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a new
class action accuses another debt collection law firm of improper
collection practices regarding the debt collection process.
Kalliopoi Klatsis, on behalf of herself and others, filed a new
class action lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court on April 3
accusing the Kohn Law Firm and Midland Credit Management of alleged
unlawful violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act for
allegedly omitting "safe-harbor" language as a means to allegedly
mislead and collect larger amounts from debtors that what is owed.
According to the complaint, Klatsis incurred an alleged credit card
debt for household goods and services which she was unable to pay
due to unforeseen financial hardship. As a result, the account went
into default and the creditor, Synchrony Bank, filed a claim
against her to attempt to recover it.
On April 5, 2021, a judgment for just over $4,000 was entered on
the state complaint. In February 2023, Kohn mailed a letter to
Klatsis in connection with the judgment entered and the alleged
debt. The letter informed her of the alleged debt, but allegedly
did not inform her that the debt would be increasing at a rate of
5% per day.
The suit accuses Kohn of not including so-called "safe harbor"
language disclosing that they were attempting to collect the full
amount plus interest accrued daily until it's paid off.
Safe harbor language provides debt collectors with a way to notify
consumers that the amounts they owe may ultimately vary.
The complaint alleges debtors had no knowledge or understanding
until informed by her attorney that even if she "paid off" the debt
that had been entered into judgment, she would continue to owe a
larger amount because of the daily interest incurring new charges
she said she was not aware of.
In her complaint, Klatsis asserts she would have pursued a
different course of action concerning the debt she had incurred if
she had known the alleged truth of the 5% daily accrual rate
imposed on unpaid judgements.
The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include potentially
everyone in Cook County who has received such letters from Kohn Law
Firm which allegedly omitted safe harbor language. The complaint
does not estimate how many people that may include, but says it is
at least more than 40 people.
Plaintiff is demanding a trial by jury and is seeking actual,
statutory and punitive damages, plus court costs and legal fees.
Klatsis is represented by attorney Mario Kris Kasalo, of The Law
Office of M. Kris Kasalo, of Skokie. [GN]
LASTPASS US: Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------
The case styled as Doe John, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LastPass US, LLC, GoTo Technologies
USA, Inc., Case No. CGC-23-604214 was removed from the San
Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01723-AGT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
LastPass -- http://www.lastpass.com/-- is a free password manager
and form filler optimized for Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera and
Safari.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
George Volney Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 939-0070
Fax: (212) 253-4272
Email: ggranade@reesellp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Victoria Leigh Weatherford, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 659-2634
Fax: (415) 659-2601
Email: vweatherford@bakerlaw.com
MAJOR ENERGY: Continues to Defend Gilkin Variable Rate Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Major Energy Electric Services LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Gilkin variable rate
class suit In the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et al. v. Major Energy Electric
Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action was filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
attempting to represent a class of all Major Energy customers
(including customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor
to) in the United States charged a variable rate for electricity or
gas by Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations
period up to and including the date of judgment.
The Company believes there is no merit to this case and is
vigorously defending this matter; however, given the current early
stage of this matter, it cannot predict the outcome of this case at
this time.
Major Energy Services LLC -- https://majorenergy.com/ --
distributes energy products. The Company supplies natural gas and
electricity.[BN]
MARTIAN SALES: C.B. Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as C.B., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Martian Sales, Inc., Case No.
37-02023-00007558-CU-FR-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00645-LL-AHG to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Martian Sales, Inc. is a Profit Corporation - Domestic.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1900 California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (206) 491-2207
Email: lsironski@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam R. Fox, Esq.
Hannah Makinde, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
Phone: (213) 689-5166
Fax: (213) 623-4581
Email: adam.fox@squirepb.com
hannah.makinde@squirepb.com
- and -
Erin Gilmore, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS
2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (818) 634-5898
Email: egilmore@manatt.com
MBR FARMS: Hernandez Sues Over Foreign Workers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTHIAN ZUNIGA HERNANDEZ, LUIS ALFONSO PALMILLAS LOPEZ, and RAMON
RODRIGUEZ MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated, Representative Plaintiffs v. MARIA LETICIA PATRICIO,
ENRIQUE DUQUE TOVAR, JOSE CARMEN DUQUE TOVAR, and MBR FARMS, INC.,
a Georgia corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00023-LGW-BWC
(S.D. Ga., April 5, 2023) alleges that the Defendants committed
violations of federal and state laws including the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, and Georgia's
statutory and common law.
The Plaintiffs were admitted to the U.S. on a temporary basis under
H-2A program to work for the Defendants during the 2020-2021
Georgia farm harvests. They were employed in the production of
goods, including the gathering and bailing pine straw and the
harvest and maintenance of various agricultural products, for
interstate commerce. Their employment contracts a promise to comply
with applicable Federal and State minimum wage, and other
employment-related laws, including the FLSA and TVPA. However, the
Defendants failed to pay the wages required by the FLSA and the
employment contract. In addition, did not pay overtime premiums
equal to one-and-a-half the Plaintiffs' and other class members'
regular rate of pay during workweeks when the Plaintiffs and other
class members performed work that was not agriculture or secondary
agriculture.
MBR Farms, Inc. is a for-profit Georgia corporation with its
registered address at 91 The Oaks Cir, Pearson, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Werner, Esq.
RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 1080
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 271-0304
E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com
- and -
Anand Ramana, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
1401 New York Ave N.W. Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 312-3325
E-mail: aramana@vedderprice.com
-and –
Dana Mehlman, Esq.
Allison Czerniak, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street,
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 609-7509
(312) 609-7626
E-mail: dmehlman@vedderprice.com
aczerniak@vedderprice.com
-and –
Charlie Y. Wang, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 204-7700
E-mail: cwang@vedderprice.com
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Hanson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hanson v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01087 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 16, 2019), Hon.
Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the hearing on
the motion for class certification of the California class now
scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Hanson case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Pasternacki
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pasternacki v. Fisher
Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00941 (W.D.N.Y., Filed July
17, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing
the hearing on the motion for class certification of the California
class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Pasternacki case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n
Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Poppe Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poppe v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (W.D.N.Y., Filed June 28,
2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the
hearing on the motion for class certification of the California
class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Poppe case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in RNPS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit e: Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (MDL
2903), Case No. 1:19-md-02903 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 12, 2019), Hon.
Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the hearing on
the motion for class certification of the California class now
scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The actions in this MDL share factual questions arising from
allegations that Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is
unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not
allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly
increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional
asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly
allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS
was false and misleading, and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall
of the RNPS was deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Shaffer
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaffer, et al., v.
Mattel, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D.N.Y., Filed May
22, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing
the hearing on the motion for class certification of the California
class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Shaffer case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Willis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willis v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01107 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 21,
2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the
hearing on the motion for class certification of the California
class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Willis case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Wray Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray v. Fisher Price et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01067 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 13, 2019), Hon.
Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the hearing on
the motion for class certification of the California class now
scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Wray case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 3067: Recht, EK & Kolwalski Suits Won't Be Centralized in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TIKTOK IN-APP BROWSER CONSUMER PRIVACY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3067 (JPML), Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denies the move to
centralize the following actions in the Central District of
California:
a. RECHT, ET AL. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:22-08613
(Central District of California)
b. E.K. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:22-10574 (Southern
District of New York); and
c. KOWALSKI v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:22-04947
(Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
The Plaintiff in the Central District of California action moves
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize three actions in the
Central District of California. The actions are pending in three
districts. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been
notified of 14 potentially related actions pending in three
additional districts. All responding Plaintiffs support
centralization, but they disagree as to the appropriate transferee
district.
The Plaintiffs in five actions support the movant's position, while
the Plaintiffs in seven actions request centralization in the
Northern District of Illinois. The Plaintiff in one potentially
related action alternatively requests centralization in the
District of New Jersey, another alternatively suggests the Northern
District of Georgia, and a third -- in the Central District of
California Moody action -- opposes inclusion of his action in any
MDL. TikTok, on behalf of itself and its affiliates (collectively,
TikTok), opposes the motion.
The Plaintiffs allege that TikTok illegally intercepts users'
communications and activities on third-party websites through the
web browser within the TikTok app. Specifically, they assert that,
when users access third-party websites through the in-app browser,
the browser inserts JavaScript code that tracks users' keystrokes
and activities on such websites and collects all data entered. All
actions are putative nationwide or statewide class actions
asserting claims under the Federal Wiretap Act or state
anti-wiretapping statutes. In addition, the Plaintiffs variously
assert claims for violation of state data privacy and consumer
protection laws, and common-law claims for invasion of privacy or
unjust enrichment.
TikTok does not dispute that the actions involve common questions
of fact and law, and that convenience and efficiency would be
served by coordinated pretrial proceedings. Instead, it argues that
it would be inefficient to create a new MDL because the actions
fall within the scope of an existing MDL concerning the TikTok app
-- MDL No. 2948, In re TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation.
In JPML's order directing centralization of that MDL, they stated
that those actions shared allegations that TikTok, through its
popular social networking app, engaged in "the scanning, capture,
retention, and dissemination of the facial geometry and other
biometric information of users of the app." The litigation was
assigned to Judge John Z. Lee in the Northern District of Illinois
in 2020. After centralization, the MDL appears to have expanded to
include claims that the TikTok app captured certain additional
types of data. On July 28, 2022, the Court approved a class
settlement that resolved the then-pending actions.
The Plaintiffs contend that MDL No. 2948 was limited to claims that
TikTok improperly collected users' biometric data through the
video-sharing functions of the app. They argue that the in-app
browser actions involve distinct questions of fact and law and
should be centralized as a new MDL. In response, TikTok cites
language in the consolidated class complaint, settlement agreement,
and the Court orders in MDL No. 2948 and argues that the scope of
the MDL expanded beyond claims relating solely to biometric data to
encompass claims relating to the improper collection of all user
data through the TikTok app.
Because the in-app browser actions raise questions relating to the
interpretation and scope of the settlement in MDL No. 2948, those
questions are most appropriately resolved by the transferee court,
Judge Caldwell holds. Indeed, in its order and final judgment in
MDL No. 2948, the transferee court expressly retained jurisdiction
over the interpretation and enforcement of the class settlement and
enjoined further litigation by class members relating to the
released claims.
Certain plaintiffs argue that the in-app browser actions should not
be included in MDL No. 2948 because the MDL was reassigned to a new
transferee judge in Fall 2022. They contend that the current
transferee judge, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, had no involvement
with the MDL until after the class settlement had been approved and
will bring no particular expertise to the question whether the
in-app browser claims were included in the settlement.
Judge Caldwell finds this argument unconvincing. She says Judge
Pallmeyer has familiarized herself with the proceedings to date, as
well as with the factual allegations and legal claims in the in-app
browser actions and the parties' positions regarding the actions'
relationship to the MDL litigation. The reassignment of MDL No.
2948 also does not change the fact that the transferee court
retained jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the settlement.
Accordingly, Judge Caldwell concludes that Section 1407
centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Rather, these actions will be handled most efficiently
in MDL No. 2948, to which they are transferred in an order issued
concurrently with this one.
The threshold question whether the actions are subject to the MDL
No. 2948 settlement must be answered by the transferee court. If
the Court concludes that some or all of the claims in the in-app
browser actions were not released under the settlement, coordinated
pretrial proceedings in those actions may proceed as part of MDL
No. 2948.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5h8zmhze from Leagle.com.
MERIDIAN SERVICES: Fails to Pay Engineers' OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD STIRLING, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
MERIDIAN SERVICES GROUP, LLC f/k/a WORK MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-00040-CDL (M.D. Ga., Apr. 11, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Stirling worked for Meridian as an hourly employee. Mr.
Stirling and the Straight Time Employees regularly worked more than
40 hours a week, the suit claims.
Accordingly, Meridian classified Mr. Stirling and the Straight Time
Employees as exempt from overtime and paid them the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek (or "straight time for overtime"). In addition to Mr.
Stirling and the Straight Time Employees' hourly pay, Meridian
uniformly paid these employees a per diem for each day they worked.
But Meridian never included these per diems in calculating Mr.
Stirling and the Straight Time Employees' regular rates of pay for
overtime purposes, the suit alleges.
Thus, Meridian violated the FLSA by failing to pay Mr. Stirling and
the Straight Time Employees overtime at rates not less than 1.5
times their regular rates of pay - based on all renumeration
received - for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Mr. Stirling worked for Meridian as an Initial Test Program
Engineer from approximately February 2018 until January 2022.
Meridian is a recruitment and staffing company that serves over 100
clients including power generation companies, gas and electric
transmission and distribution companies, petrochemical companies,
EPC contractors, and equipment manufacturers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MERRILL LYNCH: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 2
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sarah Valelly v. Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Case No.
1:19-cv-07998-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an
order granting in part proposed briefing schedule on Plaintiff's
class certification motion and motions for summary judgment, as
follows:
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class May 2, 2023
Certification is due by no later
than:
-- The Defendant's opposition is due by June 2, 2023
no later than:
-- The Plaintiff's reply is due no later June 16, 2023
than:
Merrill, previously branded Merrill Lynch, is an American
investment management and wealth management division of Bank of
America.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KL4QyB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Adam J. Blander, Esq.
Philip M. Black, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul S. Mishkin, Esq.
Lara Samet Buchwald, Esq.
Cristina M. Rincon, Esq.
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 4450-4000
MICHELS CORPORATION: Beyer Bid for Leave to File Sur-reply Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BEYER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. MICHELS CORPORATION,
Case No. 21-cv-514-pp (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper
entered an order:
1. denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply
brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss;
2. granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint as to the bonus claim;
3. denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint as to the pre-shift overtime claim or to strike the
class allegations;
4. directing that by the end of the day on April 14, 2023, the
plaintiff must file a second amended complaint that excludes
the
bonus claims; and
5. directing the defendant to file its answer to the amended
complaint by the end of the day on May 5, 2023.
The plaintiff filed a complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and
Wisconsin wage law alleging that the defendant failed to (1) pay
her for the extra time she worked before her scheduled report time;
(2) include her annual bonus of $100 in the regular rate of pay;
and (3) pay her for the times she worked through her meal break.
The Plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to include annual
bonuses in computing the regular rate for overtime pay and failed
to use the computer software time stamps as start times to compute
compensation.
Michels is a family owned and operated energy and infrastructure
construction company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ulh2tc at no extra charge.[CC]
MISSION POINT: Faces Stoner Suit Over Meal Break Deduction Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMRAWIT STONER, individually and for others similarly situated v.
MISSION POINT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a MISSION POINT
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, Case No. 2:23-cv-10781-SJM-CI (E.D. Mich.,
April 5, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Stoner worked for Mission Point as a rehab social worker
at Mission Point's Grandville facility from approximately February
2022 until August 2022. Throughout her employment, Mission Point
classified Stoner as nonexempt and paid her on an hourly basis.
But Mission Point subjected Stoner to its common practice of
automatically deducting 30 minutes a day from her recorded work
time for meal breaks, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff further alleges that the automatic meal break
deduction policy violated FLSA. Among other things, she claims that
Mission Point uniformly denies herself and other similarly situated
hourly, non-exempt employees of overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Accordingly, Stoner seeks to
recover their unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA in an amount
equal to 1.5 times their regular hourly rates of pay, plus an equal
amount as liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs.
Mission Point is a Michigan limited liability company that
maintains its headquarters in Bingham Farms, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjoesphson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
MOMENTUS INC: Faces Burk Putative Class Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
Momentus Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2023, that the
Company faces the Burk putative class suit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.
On March 17, 2023, purported stockholders of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint against certain current and former
directors and officers of the Company in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, in a case captioned Burk v. Kabot, et al., Case No.
2023-0334. Like the Lora complaint, the Burk complaint alleges that
the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and
omitted certain material information, in their public statements
and disclosures regarding the Business Combination in violation of
the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative
class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August
9, 2021.
The putative class action does not name the Company as a defendant.
Regardless, the current and former directors and officers of the
Company named as defendants have demanded indemnification and
advancement from the Company under the terms of the merger
agreement and the exhibits thereto, the Delaware corporate code,
the Company’s bylaws, and their individual indemnification
agreements.
The Company may be liable for the fees and costs incurred by the
defendants, and may have an obligation to advance such fees during
the pendency of the litigation.
Momentus is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space
infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted
payloads and in-orbit services. Momentus believes it can make new
ways of operating in space possible with its in-space transfer and
service vehicles that will be powered by an innovative water
plasma-based propulsion system that is under development.[GN]
MOMENTUS INC: Faces Lora Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------
Momentus Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2023, that the
Company faces the Lora class suit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.
On March 16, 2023, purported stockholders of Momentus Inc. filed a
putative class action complaint against certain current and former
directors and officers of the Company in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, in a case captioned Lora v. Kabot, et al., Case No.
2023-0322. The complaint alleges that the defendants made certain
material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material
information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding
the business combination of the Company, formerly known as Stable
Road Acquisition Corp. ("SRAC"), and legacy Momentus Inc. (the
"Business Combination"), in violation of the securities laws, and
seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who
purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021.
The putative class action does not name the Company as a defendant.
Regardless, the current and former directors and officers of the
Company named as defendants have demanded indemnification and
advancement from the Company under the terms of the merger
agreement and the exhibits thereto, the Delaware corporate code,
the Company's bylaws, and their individual indemnification
agreements.
The Company may be liable for the fees and costs incurred by the
defendants, and may have an obligation to advance such fees during
the pendency of the litigation.
Momentus is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space
infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted
payloads and in-orbit services. Momentus believes it can make new
ways of operating in space possible with its in-space transfer and
service vehicles that will be powered by an innovative water
plasma-based propulsion system that is under development.[GN]
NATIVE PET: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Native Pet, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Native Pet, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02979
(S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Native Pet -- https://nativepet.com/ -- crafts supplements for dogs
and cats that harness the nutritional power of whole food
ingredients.[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
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Moen Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navy Federal Credit
Union. The case is styled as Mark E. Moen, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals v. Navy Federal Credit Union,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00466-RDA-WEF (E.D. Va., April 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending.
Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a
global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered
and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union
Administration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
James Patrick McNichol, Esq.
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7576
Fax: (703) 591-0167
Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Medicaid Beneficiaries Lose Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that New
Hampshire Medicaid beneficiaries can't proceed as a class on
allegations that the state's health department's failure to close
gaps in their home health services violates the Medicaid Act and
other federal laws.
The beneficiaries didn't satisfy the commonality requirement for
class certification, the US District Court for the District of New
Hampshire said. That is, they didn't allege that the protracted
delays or frequent interruptions in their services resulted from a
uniform departmental policy or practice that affected all proposed
class members, the court said. [GN]
NUTANIX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 13
------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a
class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Nutanix (NASDAQ: NTNX) between September 21,
2021 and March 6, 2023. Nutanix purports to provide a leading
enterprise cloud platform, the Nutanix Cloud Platform, that
consists of software solutions and cloud services that power its
customers' enterprise infrastructure.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Nutanix. Shareholders who
want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers
by June 13, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
What is this Case About: Nutanix, Inc. (NTNX) Misled Investors
Regarding its Internal Controls and is Not Currently in Compliance
with NASDAQ Listing Rule 5250(c)(1)
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) the Company maintained deficient
internal controls relating to its use of licensed software and
expense management; (ii) as a result of these deficiencies, the
Company improperly used third-party evaluation software for
business purposes over a multi-year period; and (iii) investigation
and remediation of the foregoing—i.e., by paying vendors the full
cost to use their software for business purposes—would cause the
Company to incur significant expenses.
On March 6, 2023, Nutanix issued a press release reporting selected
preliminary second quarter fiscal 2023 financial results. Among
other items, Nutanix reported that "Company management discovered
that certain evaluation software from one of its third-party
providers was instead used for interoperability testing, validation
and customer proofs of concept over a multi-year period[,]" and
that "it is likely that additional costs would be incurred to
address the additional use of the software." Furthermore, due to an
ongoing Audit Committee investigation into the matter, Nutanix
stated that "it does not expect to be able to [timely] file its
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31,
2023[.]" On this news, Nutanix's stock price fell $2.27 per share,
or 7.98%, to close at $26.50 per share on March 7, 2023.
Then, on March 16, 2023, Nutanix issued a press release announcing
that, on March 15, 2023, "the Company received a standard
notification letter from Nasdaq stating that, because the Company
has not yet filed its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended January 31, 2023, the Company is not in compliance with
Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1), which requires timely filing of all
required periodic financial reports with the [SEC]."
Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Nutanix, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch
today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
OFFI ISLAND WING: Palmquist Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palmquist, and all others similarly situated v. OFFI Island
Wing Rolling Oaks, LLC, and John D. Weissfisch, individually, Case
No. 6:23-cv-00642-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla., April 7, 2023), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Florida Minimum
Wage Act ("FMWA") as a result of the Defendants' violations because
they failed to provide Servers and Bartenders with statutorily
required tip notice and compensated Servers and Bartenders below
the state and federal minimum wage during a plethora of workweeks
as a result of the unlawful pay policies.
The Defendants did not pay Servers and Bartenders any hourly wage.
Instead, during certain time periods within the previous 5 years,
Servers and Bartenders earned a percentage of the service charges
that were collected by the restaurant. However, during various
workweeks within the statute of limitations, the Defendants paid
Plaintiff, and all other Servers and Bartenders, less than the
applicable minimum wage in one or more workweeks, says complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Server and Bartender
at the Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants operate the Island Wings restaurant located in
Kissimmee, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Jake S. Blumstein, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (954) 871-0050
Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
OH! NUTS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OH! Nuts, Inc. The
case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. OH! Nuts, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02642
(E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Oh! Nuts -- https://www.ohnuts.com/ -- is a source for premium
nuts, bulk candy, bulk chocolate, dried fruit and Kosher gift
baskets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY: Ruskiewicz Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA RUSKIEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00303-D (W.D. Okla., April 10, 2023) is
an action seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief from the Defendant OCU, arising from its failure to
safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information ("PII") and
other sensitive, non-public financial information (collectively,
"Personal Information") of thousands of its current and former
students and employees, as well as others whose personal
information was stored on the university's systems.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's failure
to safeguard these individuals' PII resulted in Defendant's email
systems being unauthorizedly accessed by hackers and the Personal
Information of students, employees, and others therein, including
of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, being disclosed,
stolen, compromised, and misused, causing widespread and continuing
injury and damages.
As a consequence of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Proposed
Class Members' sensitive Personal Information have been released
into the public domain and they have had to, and will continue to
have to, spend time, effort, and money to protect themselves from
fraud and identity theft, says the suit.
OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY was founded in 1904. The Company's line of
business includes the operation of colleges and universities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason B. Aamodt, Esq.
Matthew D. Alison, Esq.
INDIAN & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
406 South Boulder Ave., Suite 830
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 347-6169
Facsimile: (918) 948-6190
Email: jason@iaelaw.com
matthew@iaelaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com
athomas@cohenmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson Street Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Email: Sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 26 Ruling on Stichting Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2023, that the District Court
of Rotterdam plans to issue a ruling on the Stichting class suit on
July 26, 2023 that is indicative and may be anticipated or
postponed.
On January 23, 2017, Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation
("Foundation") filed a class action in the Netherlands, at the
District Court of Rotterdam, against PetrOleo Brasileiro S.A. –
Petrobras, Petrobras International Braspetro B.V. (PIB BV),
Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF), Petrobras Oil & Gas B.V.
(PO&G) and some former Petrobras managers.
The Foundation alleges that it represents the interests of an
unidentified group of investors and asserts that, based on the
facts revealed by the Lava-Jato Operation, the defendants acted
illegally before the investors. Based on these allegations, the
Foundation is seeking a series of court declarations from the Dutch
court.
On May 26, 2021, after previous intermediate decisions in which the
Court decided that it has jurisdiction to judge the majority of the
seven requests made by the Foundation, the District Court of
Rotterdam decided that the class action must proceed and that the
arbitration clause of Petrobras' bylaws does not prevent the
Company's shareholders from having access to the Dutch Judiciary
and being represented by the "Foundation:. However, investors who
have already started arbitration against Petrobras or who are
parties to legal proceedings in which the applicability of the
arbitration clause has been definitively recognized are excluded
from the action.
In 2021 and 2022, the parties presented their arguments and
defenses in writing regarding the merits of the claims and the
Court scheduled hearings for oral arguments, which took place on
January 17 and 24, 2023. At these hearings, the Court did not
provide any indications as to the content of its decision on the
merits of the case.
The Court determined that Petrobras and the other defendants may
present additional statements on February 22, 2023, after which the
Court intends to issue a sentence on July 26, 2023. Such deadline
is indicative and the decision may be postponed or anticipated.
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. or Petrobras (in English, Brazilian
Petroleum Corporation - Petrobras) is a semi-public Brazilian
multinational corporation in the petroleum industry headquartered
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Petrobras control significant oil and
energy assets in 16 countries in Africa, the Americas, Europe and
Asia. But, Brazil represents majority of its production.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Shah Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled Rasesh Shah, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00121-JO-MSB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act, by among others, making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that Qualcomm was engaging
and/or had engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain a
monopoly for semiconductors used in mobile phones in violation of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act.
On May 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted in part and denied in part through an Order
entered by Judge Jinsook Ohta on Mar. 20, 2023. The Plaintiffs'
motion in limine was denied without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Rasesh Shah, et al. v. Qualcomm
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 23-80025, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 4, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents RASESH SHAH, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
- and -
Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE, LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
- and -
William H. Narwold, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
20 Church St.
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 882-1676
- and -
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3470
Defendants-Petitioners QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al., are
represented by:
Peter Morgan Adams, Esq.
Koji Fukumura, Esq.
Steven Marc Strauss, Esq.
COOLEY, LLP
10265 Science Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 550-6000
- and -
M. Brent Byars, Esq.
Justin Clarke, Esq.
Yonatan Even, Esq.
Antony Ryan, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
825 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
- and -
Christopher Brian Durbin, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
5 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 843-5000
- and -
Cody S. Harris, Esq.
Laurie Carr Mims, Esq.
Eugene M. Paige, Esq.
KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS, LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
RADIANT SOLAR: Henriquez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin De Henriquez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. William James Bushell Corp. d/b/a Radiant
Solar, Case No. 1:23-cv-02990 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023), is
brought seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor
Law ("NYLL").
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week for the
Defendant without being paid any premium overtime wages of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Defendant knowingly,
deliberately, and voluntarily failed to pay its employees for all
hours worked over forty in a workweek at the federal and state
mandated overtime rate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in March 17, 2022, until
January 5, 2023.
Radiant Solar is an "enterprise engaged in the operation of an
institution primarily engaged in the installation of solar
panels."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, #300
Chicago, IL 60646
Phone: 773-550-3775
Email: dschlade@justicialaboral.com
danschlade@gmail.com
REGAL CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Acuff Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA ACUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00764-N (N.D. Tex., April 11, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's practice of making and initiating prerecorded
telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to
individuals without their consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
REGAL CAPITAL GROUP, LLC funds all types of business including
those who do not qualify for traditional bank loans due to bad
credit, limited credit history, high risk designation or any other
reason. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
Blake E. Mattingly, Esq.
COCHRAN LAW PLLC
8140 Walnut Hill Ln., Suite 250
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (469) 333-3405
Facsimile: (469) 333-3406
Email: stuart@scochranlaw.com
blake@scochranlaw.com
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Ongoing in Miller Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ribbon Communications Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the
class certification determination and discovery in Miller class
suit are on-going.
On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Miller Complaint") in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "Massachusetts District Court") against the Company and three
of its former officers (collectively, the "Defendants"), claiming
to represent a class of purchasers of Sonus common stock during the
period from January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.
Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus
Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an
order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance,
which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018
Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose
findings the Company neither admitted nor denied.
The Miller plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.
After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and
briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts
District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action.
On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a
group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 19, 2019.
On August 30, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Miller Complaint and, on October 4, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
There was an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February 12,
2020, and on October 20, 2022 the court denied the motion to
dismiss.
Discovery and class certification determination are on-going.
Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as
Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications
Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.
SKILLZ INC: Jedrzejczyk Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS JEDRZEJCZYK, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Thomas Jedrzejczyk, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Skillz, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-03450-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Jedrzejczyk and three other Skillz shareholders brought the
putative class action on May 7, 2021, under the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a); SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5; and the Securities Act of
1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k.
In the operative Second Amended Consolidated Complaint ("SACC"),
the Plaintiffs outline a series of averred misrepresentations
and/or omissions of fact made by the Defendants between Dec. 16,
2020, and May 4, 2021.
The Defendants moved to dismiss, and that motion was granted on
July 5, 2022, with leave to amend. The order noted that the
Plaintiffs had failed adequately to plead falsity and scienter with
respect to any of their five bases under the Exchange Act. In
addition, the order suggested that the Plaintiffs will face
challenges in establishing loss causation due to their reliance on
short seller reports.
In the SACC, the Plaintiffs renew only their claims under the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against Skillz and four of its current
or former corporate officers. They aver that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
facts that fall into four categories: (1) the Defendants
misrepresented the state of download rates for Skillz's most
popular and profitable games; (2) the Defendants publicly reported
metrics that painted an overly rosy picture of Skillz's paid user
engagement and failed to capture accurately the company's revenue
model; (3) the Defendants overstated the availability of
"synchronous" games on the Skillz platform; and (4) the Defendants
failed to disclose that user engagement and growth was
"attributable to aggressive and uneconomic spending on paid user
incentives."
The Defendants again moved to dismiss the SACC in its entirety.
On Mar. 1, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Richard Seeborg. The
Court concluded that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead adequately
their claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for any of the
categories of alleged false or misleading statements discussed
above. Accordingly, their Section 20(a) claim fails as well. The
motion to dismiss was therefore granted, without leave to amend. On
same day, the Court entered judgment.
The appellate case is captioned Thomas Jedrzejczyk, et al. v.
Skillz, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-15493, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 4, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Sonny Chung, Thomas Jedrzejczyk, David Lewis and
Kenny Tinkelman Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 11, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on June 2, 2023;
-- Appellants Sonny Chung, Thomas Jedrzejczyk, David Lewis and
Kenny Tinkelman opening brief is due on July 12, 2023;
-- Appellees Miriam Aguirre, Casey Chafkin, Scott Henry, Andrew
Paradise and Skillz, Inc. answering brief is due on August 14,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants THOMAS JEDRZEJCZYK, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Andrea Farah, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Andrea Farah, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC
44 S. Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
- and -
Willem Jonckheer, Esq.
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE, LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Defendants-Appellees SKILLZ, INC., FKA Flying Eagle Acquisition
Corp., et al., are represented by:
Melanie Blunschi, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 485-1234
- and -
Matthew Rawlinson, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 328-4600
SKYWORX CONTRACTING: Ortega Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Div.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ORTEGA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
their lawsuit entitled JUAN ORTEGA; IVAN NOBOA; JOHN JACHERO; and
JAHSAKIE BESWICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKYWORX CONTRACTING INC; HARJIT
SINGH; P&K CONTRACTING INC.; RASHEL CONSTRUCTION CORP.; NEELAM
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION; FIDELIS CONTRACTING; INC.; and JOHN DOE
BONDING COMPANY 1 THROUGH 30, Defendants, Case No. 650826/2020, in
the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter last February 24, 2020,
this class action lawsuit filed against
Skyworx Contracting was filed on Jan. 30, 2020, and was assigned to
the Hon. Lucy Billings.
Skyworx Contracting Inc. is in the General Contractor, Highway and
Street Construction business.
The appellate case is captioned Juan Ortega, et al. vs. Skyworx
Contracting Inc., et al., Case No. 23-01671, in the First Judicial
Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on April 4, 2023.
[BN]
SMOOTHSTACK INC: Former Employee Files FLSA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a former
employee has filed a proposed class and collective action against
Smoothstack Inc. over alleged Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
abuses.
The 43-page lawsuit more specifically claims that Smoothstack, a
staffing company that promises to help "launch" the careers of
aspiring IT professionals through training and work assignments
with its Fortune 500 clients, offers a six-month training program
in which recruits are regularly required to work more than 80 hours
in a workweek. According to the case, Smoothstack fails to pay
recruits for the first three weeks of the program and, during the
remaining five months of training, fails to pay recruits for any
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Under the FLSA, Smoothstack is required to pay employees at least
minimum wage for all hours worked and time-and-a-half wages for
every hour worked past 40 each week, the suit charges.
What's more, recruits are asked three weeks into their training
period to sign a training repayment agreement provision (TRAP)
stating that they will pay a $23,875 penalty should they resign or
be terminated "for cause" before completing 4,000 hours of client
work, which is "the equivalent of approximately two years of
fulltime employment," the filing says.
Should they accept the agreement, recruits are paid minimum wage
during the last five months of their training program until they
are promoted to consultants and can begin working with
Smoothstack's clients for $26 to $31 per hour, the case relays.
At this point, the suit says, Smoothstack once again presents its
employees with an "all-or-nothing" employment agreement that states
consultants cannot resign or get fired before billing 4,000 hours
to Smoothstack clients. According to the suit, consultants are
forced to either sign the employment agreement or resign and
violate the TRAP they had already agreed to in the training
agreement.
"Specifically, the TRAP in the Training Agreement cannot be
performed until after the Training Program is complete, at which
point the Consultant can begin counting hours towards the 4,000
Service Commitment Period," the case reads. "In fact, if
Consultants refuse to sign the Employment Agreement, they would be
in violation of the Training Agreement and forced to pay the
$23,895 penalty in the Training Agreement."
The complaint goes on to explain that if a consultant's assignment
with a client ends, Smoothstack "benches" the employee. Benched
consultants are paid minimum wage, and their hours no longer count
toward the 4,000-hour service commitment period, but they cannot
quit due to the TRAP, the filing contends.
"If a Consultant on Bench Status has not yet fulfilled their
Service Commitment Period, they are functionally tied to a minimum
wage position with Smoothstack indefinitely – because the only
way for the Consultant to enter the job market is to put themself
at risk of paying the TRAP penalty, which can have the economically
devastating effect of undoing months or years of careful savings,"
the complaint states, adding that it is unlawful under the FLSA to
pay employees on the condition that they do not quit.
The TRAP is also considered an "illegal kickback of wages" to
Smoothstack and thus prohibited under the FLSA, given that
employees who leave their jobs before the service commitment period
is complete and must pay the company $23,875 end up receiving wages
well below the minimum wage and even into the negative numbers, the
suit alleges.
Per the complaint, Smoothstack has taken former employees to court
in order to enforce the TRAP, although a Virginia state court
reportedly found that the agreement is "unconscionable" under state
law.
The plaintiff, who began working for Smoothstack in the spring of
2020, says he "immediately" recognized the potential consequences
of signing the training contract but felt that he had no choice but
to agree. The complaint notes that the agreement was presented as
an "all or nothing" offer that the man had to accept to continue
his employment at Smoothstack, and he "desperately" needed the job
to support himself, especially after working three weeks without
pay, the case says.
Per the suit, the "Plaintiff is one of hundreds of Smoothstack
employees who worked grueling hours at minimum wage, or no pay at
all, and with no overtime wages, but was unable to seek out a
better opportunity because of the TRAP."
The case relays that the plaintiff, who signed Smoothstack's
employment agreement in October 2020, sought counsel and alerted
the company to its FLSA violations in November 2022. The plaintiff
attempted to negotiate a class-wide settlement on behalf of himself
and similarly situated employees, but Smoothstack's counsel
repeatedly ignored the man's communications, the suit alleges.
In January 2023, Smoothstack's chief operating officer, Boris
Kuiper, called the plaintiff to discuss his wage claims against the
company in an attempt to either "intimidate and harass" the man or
"pressure" him into conceding certain facts relating to his claim,
the complaint says.
According to the suit, the plaintiff told Smoothstack on April 4
that he planned to file a class action lawsuit after he was demoted
to bench status the month prior. Three days later, the company
terminated his employment in an alleged act of retaliation, the
case contends.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who has participated in
Smoothstack's training program and/or signed TRAPs since April 13,
2020. [GN]
STRATA SKIN: Tentative Settlement in PAGA Suit for Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Strata Skin Sciences Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the $0.1 million
tentative settlement of the proposed PAGA class suit is subject to
the approval of the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.
On April 1, 2022, a proposed representative class action under
California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") was filed in
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego against the
Company and an employment agency ("Co-Defendant") which provided
the Company with temporary employees. The complaint alleges various
violations of the California Labor Code, including California's
wage and hour laws, relating to current and former non-exempt
employees of the Company. The complaint seeks class status and
payments for allegedly unpaid compensation and attorney's fees.
In a related matter, the attorneys in this matter and the proposed
class representative, in a letter dated March 12, 2022, to the
California Labor & Workforce Development Agency made nearly
identical claims seeking the right to pursue a PAGA action against
the Company and the employment agency.
On or about May 16, 2022, the plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint adding a PAGA claim to the action.
On or about June 2, 2022, the plaintiff filed an Application to
Dismiss Class and Individual Claim without prejudice, in an attempt
to pursue a PAGA only complaint.
On or about June 30, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation
to allow the plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to
clarify the PAGA claim and to stay the pending action to allow an
attempt at through mediation.
The mediation was held on February 23, 2023, and the matter was
settled on terms agreeable to the Company.
The settlement, which would require us to pay $0.1 million, is
tentative and subject to court approval and the right of individual
class members to reject the settlement and proceed on their own.
STRATA Skin Sciences Inc. is a medical technology company in
dermatology based in Pennsylvania.
SW1 TRELLIS: Senk Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK SENK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SW1 TRELLIS OWNER LLC D/B/A TRELLIS AT THE
LAKES, Defendant, Case No. 23-006566-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty.,
April 12, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
SW1 TRELLIS OWNER LLC D/B/A TRELLIS AT THE LAKES provides
apartments for rent in the N Saint Petersburg. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
TEN BRIDGES: Must Reply to Interrogatories and RFPs in Taie Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY TAIE, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEN BRIDGES LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. C21-0526-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C.
Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle:
a. grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel, motion
for leave from the discovery cutoff, and motion for an
extension of time for summary judgment motions; and
b. grants in full the parties' motions to seal.
The putative class action involves the surplus proceeds resulting
from the sale of a property, which was owned by the Plaintiffs'
father and judicially foreclosed upon after he passed away. The
Plaintiffs allege the Defendants improperly represented that
obtaining the surplus proceeds was a difficult procedure. On this
basis, they agreed to assign all rights they had to the proceeds,
by Quit Claim Deed, in exchange for $15,000.
Ten Bridges then filed a motion in the King County Superior Court
Registry to claim the proceeds. The Plaintiffs allege the
Defendants violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA")
by receiving an amount exceeding 5% of the foreclosure sale surplus
proceeds. They also bring claims of voidable transfer and alter-ego
liability, alleging Defendant Demian Heald intermingled his assets
and was in charge of Ten Bridges' actions such that Plaintiffs can
recover from him.
In July 2022, the Plaintiffs propounded to Ten Bridges
interrogatories and requests for production of documents,
requesting company profit and loss statements, tax returns, and
records of capital contributions. Ten Bridges provided statements
and capital contribution information for a period from April 30,
2019 through July 18, 2019, but refused to produce additional
information.
The parties met and conferred but could not come to a consensus
over the documents and information that Ten Bridges was required to
produce, so the Plaintiffs moved to compel. Since that time, the
discovery cutoff and summary judgment deadlines have passed. As a
result, the Plaintiffs moved for leave from the discovery cutoff
and for an extension of time for the su mmary judgment motions.
First, Judge Coughenour grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel. He says the records produced so far
show that money regularly moved between Mr. Heald and Ten Bridges;
and additional records may help further support the Plaintiffs'
claims for alter ego liability. So this appears far from a fishing
expedition. And additional records may help support its voidable
transfer claims. However, the Plaintiffs' request is overbroad.
Judge Coughenour concludes that allowing the Plaintiffs access to
financial information and documents dating to the period beginning
on Jan. 1, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2022 is reasonable.
Next, Judge Coughenour grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to extend the discovery cut-off. The discovery
deadline was March 3, 2023. The Plaintiffs move for relief from
this deadline to conclude their deposition of Mr. Heald, following
Defendants' production of additional documents. Because the
Plaintiffs will receive additional information unavailable prior to
the current cutoff, Judge Coughenour finds good cause to extend it,
at least for the limited purpose of concluding Mr. Heald's
deposition related to the previously withheld financial information
and documents.
Judge Coughenour then grants the Plaintiffs' motion to defer
consideration of the Defendant's summary judgment motion and
extends the dispositive motion cutoff. He says the Plaintiffs have
diligently pursued this information but were denied access. In the
interests of judicial economy, he will consider all of the issues
presented at the same time. And the Plaintiffs do not have all the
necessary information to present their arguments.
Lastly, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants both ask to seal certain
exhibits and portions of their briefs that contain sensitive
financial information subject to the protective order. For this
reason, Judge Coughenour finds a compelling interest in maintaining
them under seal. He further finds those interests are likely to be
harmed if disclosed and no less restrictive alternatives exist to
protect that interest. Accordingly, the motions to seal are
granted.
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants will provide responses to
the Plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production for the
period of Jan. 1, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2022 within 21 days of the
Order. The discovery cutoff is extended until two weeks after the
Defendants produce the requested information, for the limited
purpose of the Plaintiff concluding the deposition of Mr. Heald.
The Defendants' summary judgment motion is stayed until two weeks
after the new discovery cutoff date. The dispositive motion cutoff
is reset to this date, as is the due date for either party to file
revised briefs in opposition to currently outstanding summary
judgment motions. The Clerk is directed to maintain Docket Numbers
79 and 84 under seal.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mp8v889h from Leagle.com.
TENARIS SA: Plaintiffs Seek Initial OK of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the lead plaintiffs in
a consolidated class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a motion for class settlement
preliminary approval.
Two putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On April 29, 2019, the court consolidated the complaints into a
single case, captioned "In re Tenaris S.A. Securities Litigation,"
and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
On July 19, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Tenaris securities during
the putative class period of May 1, 2014, through December 5, 2018.
The individual defendants named in the complaint are Tenaris's
Chairman and CEO and Tenaris's former CFO.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, the Company and
the individual defendants inflated the Tenaris share price by
failing to disclose that the nationalization proceeds received by
Ternium (in which the Company held an 11.46% stake) when Sidor was
expropriated by Venezuela were received or expedited as a result of
allegedly improper payments made to Argentine officials.
The complaint does not specify the damages that plaintiff is
seeking.
On October 9, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court partially granted and
partially denied the motion to dismiss the claims against the
Company and its Chairman and CEO.
In addition, the court granted the motions to dismiss as to all
claims against San Faustin, Techint, and Tenaris's former CFO.
On November 11, 2022, the parties filed a joint notice of
settlement announcing a settlement in principle of all claims in
the action, subject to finalizing the settlement agreements and
court approval.
The parties' agreement in principle provides that, in exchange for
dismissal of the action and customary releases from class members
and with no admission of liability by Tenaris or Mr. Rocca, Tenaris
will pay to the class $9.5 million (inclusive of legal fees to lead
plaintiff's counsel).
On March 10, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement.
Tenaris S.A., through its subsidiaries, produces and sells
seamless
and welded steel tubular products; and provides related services
for the oil and gas industry, and other industrial applications.
The company operates in North America, South America, Europe, the
Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific. Tenaris S.A. was
founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Luxembourg City,
Luxembourg. Tenaris S.A. is a subsidiary of Techint Holdings S.a
r.l.
TENNECO INC: Frayer Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plans
---------------------------------------------------------
RYAN FRAYER; and TANIKA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TENNECO INC.; DRIV
AUTOMOTIVE INC.; TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERA TING COMPANY INC.; THE
TENNECO BENEFITS COMMITTEE; and JOHN ANDJANE DOE DEFENDANTS 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10816-GCS-KGA (N.D. Ark., April 10,
2023) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.
The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint, when selecting and
monitoring investment options and service providers for an
ERISA-governed plan, the plan's fiduciaries are required to act for
the exclusive benefit of the plan and its participants and
beneficiaries, perform with undivided loyalty, act prudently,
defray reasonable plan expenses, diversify investments to minimize
large losses unless clearly prudent not to do so, and discharge
their duties in accordance with the governing documents and
instruments so long as they are consistent with ERISA.
The Defendants could have leveraged the Plan's assets to qualify
for lower-cost versions of the same investments, chosen less costly
and equally or better-performing investment options for the Plan,
and used the Plan's size to reduce recordkeeping fees. Defendants
failed to fulfill these duties, says the suit.
TENNECO INC. designs, manufactures, and markets emission control
and ride control products and systems for the automotive original
equipment market and the aftermarket. The Company's products
include shocks and struts, shock absorbers, mufflers, and
performance exhaust products, as well as noise, vibration, and
harshness control components. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emmett Bowers Chiles IV, Esq.
QUATTLEBAUM,GROOMS & TULLPLLC
111 Center Street, Suite 1900
Little Rock, AK 72201
Telephone: (501)379-1734
Facsimile: (501)379-1701
Email: cchiles@ggtlaw.com
- and -
Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
Emily L. Matta, Esq.
FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
1551 N. Waterfront Pkwy, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Telephone: (316) 291-9716
Facsimile: (316)771-6011
Email: bbyers@foulston.com
ematta@foulston.com
- and -
Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600
9225 Indian Creek Parkway
Overland Park, KS 66210-2000
Telephone:(913) 253-2144
Facsimile:(913) 498-2101
Email: snehrbass@foulston.com
TMX FINANCE: Faces Trottier Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TROTTIER, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00083-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 5, 2023)
arises out of the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information (PII) of more than 4.8
million individuals.
On or before Feb. 3, 2023, Defendant learned of a data breach on
its network that occurred on or around Feb. 3, 2023, to Feb. 14,
2023. Defendant determined that, during the data breach, an unknown
actor accessed and/or acquired the PII of Plaintiff and class
members. On or around March 30, 2023, Defendant began notifying
various states' Attorneys General of the data breach. Defendant
also began notifying Plaintiff and class members of the data
breach.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to adequately
protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; warn Plaintiff and
Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security
practices; and effectively secure hardware containing protected PII
using reasonable and effective security procedures free of
vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendant's alleged conduct
amounts to negligence and violates federal and state statutes.
TMX Finance provides consumer credit products under the TitleMax,
TitleBucks, and InstaLoan brands. The company claims to have
provided access to credit for consumers who are underserved by
traditional lenders since 1998. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Brandon Smith, Esq.
CHILDERS SCHLUETER & SMITH
1932 North Druid Hills Road Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30319
Telephone: (404) 383-5321
Facsimile: (404) 419-9501
E-mail: bsmith@cssfirm.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
David Almeida, Esq.
Elena A. Belov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP
849 W. Webster Ave.
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
elana@almeidalawgroup.com
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rodriguez Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES,
INC.; and TMX FINANCE LLC d/b/a/ "TITLEMAX," "TITLEBUCKS," and
"INSTALOAN,", Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00093-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.,
April 10, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class
Members' personally identifiable information stored within
Defendants' information network, including, without limitation,
full names, dates of birth, passport numbers, driver's license
numbers, federal/state identification card numbers, tax
identification numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account
information, phone numbers, addresses and email addresses (referred
to as "personally identifiable information" or "PII").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
responsible for the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly
discovered by Defendants on February 13, 2023, by which
cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected
network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII, which was being
kept unprotected (the "Data Breach").
As a result, the PII of Representative Plaintiff and Class Members
was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized
third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to
profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff
and Class Members in the future, says the suit.
TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. operates as a consumer finance
company. The Company provides loans and consumer credit products.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles H. Van Horn, Esq.
BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
3475 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 1640
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 261-7711
Email: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com
- and -
Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Cody A. Bolce, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Email: sec@colevannote.com
cab@colevannote.com
- and -
Jeffrey N. Mykkeltvedt, Esq.
MYKKELTVEDT & LOFTIN, LLC
5229 Roswell Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (404) 228-1550
Email: jeff@ml-llc.com
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Williams Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Williams, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc., d/b/a TitleMax,
TitleBucks, and InstaLoan, Case No. 4:23-cv-00095-RSB-CLR (S.D.
Ga., Apr. 11, 2023) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address the Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they
collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff(s) and other Class Members that their
information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information
was accessed.
According to its notice letters, TMX first became aware of the Data
Breach on February 13, 2023 and began investigating. This data
breach has included the personally identifiable information (PII)
of millions of people including their names, dates of birth,
passport numbers, driver’s license numbers, federal/state
identification card numbers, tax identification numbers, social
security numbers, and or/financial account information and other
information such as phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses,
the lawsuit alleges.
The stolen data of over 4,800,000 individuals have been affected by
this breach. TMX also admits that "the earliest known breach of
TMX's systems started in early December 2022" and that its
investigation also revealed "that information may have been
acquired during February 3, 2023-February 14, 2023," the lawsuit
claims.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in
the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this
action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, seeking
redress for TMX’s unlawful conduct. The Plaintiffs seeks remedies
including compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket
costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to
Defendant’s data security systems, future annual audits, and
adequate, long term credit monitoring services funded by the
Defendant, and declaratory relief, says the suit.
Plaintiff Williams is and at all times relevant to this Complaint
an individual citizen of the State of Florida, residing in the city
of Brandon (Hillsborough County). He utilized financial services
through the Defendant TMX.
TMX is a company that provides financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua G. Schiffer, Esq.
JD LAW GROUP, LLC
912 Holcomb Bridge Rd, Ste. 203
Roswell, GA 30076
Telephone: (404) 842-0909
E-mail: Josh@jdgrouplaw.com
TURTLE BEACH: Court Dismisses TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2023, that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California Judge
Fernando Olguin dismissed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) related putative class suit on January 25, 2023.
On June 13, 2022, an individual filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc. ("VTB") in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
complaint alleged that VTB violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), by sending marketing-related
text messages to the plaintiff and other members of the public who
have registered their telephone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call
Registry.
The plaintiff sought to represent a class of all persons in the
United States whose telephone numbers were present on the national
Do-Not-Call Registry and received text messages from VTB within the
last four years.
The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice, and
District Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order dismissing the case
on January 25, 2023.
Turtle Beach Corporation headquartered in White Plains, New York
and incorporated in the state of Nevada in 2010, is a premier
audio
and gaming technology company based in New York.
UNITED STATES: Bagnall Appeals Atty. Fees Bid Ruling to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Bagnall, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated January 31, 2023, entered in the
lawsuit entitled CHRISTINA ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs v. XAVIER
BECERRA, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant, Case No.
3:11-cv-01703-MPS, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut, New Haven.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
are 14 Medicare beneficiaries, or representatives of their estates,
who were taken to a hospital for various acute medical conditions
between 2009 and 2011. Each of the Plaintiffs suffered serious
financial consequences as a result of the fact that they were not
admitted and were instead placed on observation status. Because
they were not considered inpatients, the medical services that
Plaintiffs received while in the hospital were covered under
Medicare Part B rather than Part A. Plaintiffs brought the putative
class action against the "use" of observation status, which,
according to Plaintiffs, deprives "thousands of Medicare
beneficiaries annually of Part A coverage for their hospitalization
and [denies] coverage of their follow-up nursing home care."
The Plaintiffs in this long-running case against the Secretary of
Health and Human Services have filed a post-judgment motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
which requires the court to "award to a prevailing party . . . fees
and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action
. . . brought . . . against the United States . . . unless the
court finds that the position of the United States was
substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award
unjust." The Government opposed the award on the ground that its
position was "substantially justified" and that, in any event, the
amount sought is unreasonable.
Because the Court found that the Government has borne its burden of
showing that its position was substantially justified, the Court
denied the motion through an Order entered by Judge Michael P. Shea
on January 31, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned as Bagnall v. Becerra, Case No.
23-478, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on March 31, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Richard Bagnall, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Alice Bers, Esq.
CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC.
P.O. Box 350
Willimantic, CT 06226
Defendant-Appellee Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human
Services, is represented by:
Sandra Slack Glover, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Connecticut Financial Center
157 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Dorsey Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Veronda Dorsey, individually and for others similarly situated v.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-00962-BPG (D. Md., April 10, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid wages and other damages from University of Maryland Medical
System Corporation (UMMS), in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL).
Like many companies across the United States, UMMS uses Kronos
timekeeping and payroll systems. In December 2021, Kronos
experienced a ransomware attack that resulted in an outage to all
Kronos timekeeping and payroll systems, including UMMS's. As a
result, UMMS's non-exempt employees, including Dorsey and the
Putative Class Members, did not timely receive their agreed wages
for the hours they actually worked during the Kronos outage. UMMS
easily could have implemented a system to accurately record time
and properly pay these employees until the Kronos outage was
resolved. But UMMS did not do so.
Instead, UMMS paid Dorsey and the Putative Class Members a set
amount based on an arbitrary prior pay period, regardless of the
actual number of hours they worked during the Kronos outage. UMMS
foisted the costs of the Kronos outage onto the most vulnerable
people in its workforce, shifting the economic burden onto its
frontline workers who rely on the full and timely payment of their
wages to make ends meet. UMMS's failure to timely pay Dorsey and
the Putative Class Members proper wages, including overtime, for
all hours worked violates the FLSA, the MWHL, and the MWPCL, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff has worked for UMMS as a Respiratory Therapist at
UMMS facilities, including the Capital Region Medical Center, since
September 2017, when UMMS assumed ownership of Dimensions
Healthcare System and all Dimensions' facilities.
UMMS "is a private, university-based regional health system focused
on serving the health care needs of Maryland".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: tjones@mybackwages.com
mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
USA K.MINAMOTO CO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA K.Minamoto Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. USA K.Minamoto Co., Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02644 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
USA K.Minamoto Co., Inc. -- https://www.kitchoan.com/ -- is a
modern sweet shop selling artisanal Japanese desserts & wagashi
made from rice, beans, sugar & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
USA TODAY: Judge Tosses Sports Editor's Wage Class Action Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bennett, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a USA
Today Sports Media Group LLC site editor allegedly misclassified as
an independent contractor must collect more information before
pursuing wage claims on behalf of a collective because federal law
doesn't allow conditional certification, a district judge said.
Editor Liz Mathews, who covered the NFL's Seattle Seahawks for the
Gannett Co. subsidiary's "Seahawks Wire" site from January 2017
through August 2021, filed a proposed collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. But the FLSA doesn't say anything about
conditional certification, and a closer look is necessary before
they can move forward as a group. [GN]
V-DOG INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against V-Dog, Inc. The case
is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. V-Dog, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03001
(S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
V-dog -- https://v-dog.com/ -- makes 100% complete & balanced
(AAFCO) vegan dog food with healthy superfoods and plant-powered
protein.[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
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MI: Grainger Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Frederick Grainger, Jr., et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated March 27, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled WAYSIDE CHURCH, MYRON W. STAHL, and HENDERSON HODGENS,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, v. VAN BUREN COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01274, in
the United States Western District for the District of Michigan at
Grand Rapids.
The Plaintiffs brought this action in 2014 to obtain damages for
all former property owners in the State whose real property was
sold at tax auction with the municipality keeping the surplus.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
sought a review of the Court's Order dated February 16, 2021,
granting in part and denying in part their motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction.
On March 23, 2023, Mr. Grainger filed a MOTION to intervene for a
limited purpose or, in the alternative, to oppose Wayside's Motion
for Preliminary Approval considering him as a non-intervenor
movant.
On March 27, 2023, Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an Order
dismissing Mr. Grainger's motion to intervene.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Frederick Grainger, Jr.,
et al., Case No. 23-0103, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 31, 2023.[BN]
Movants-Petitioners FREDERICK GRAINGER, JR., et al., are
represented by:
Philip Lee Ellison, Esq.
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL
P.O. Box 107
Hemlock, MI 48626
Telephone: (989) 642-0055
- and -
Matthew Edwin Gronda, Esq.
GRONDA
4800 Fashion Square Boulevard, Suite 200
Saginaw, MI 48604
Telephone: (989) 233-1639
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
- and -
Donald Ray Visser, Esq.
VISSER & ASSOCIATES
2480 44th Street, Suite 150
Kentwood, MI 49512
Telephone: (616) 531-9860
Defendants-Respondents WAYSIDE CHURCH, an Illinois Not-For-Profit
(Ecclesiastical) Corporation, individually and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
David H. Fink, Esq.
Nathan Joshua Fink, Esq.
Philip David White Miller, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
- and -
Owen Dennis Ramey, Esq.
Ronald William Ryan, Esq.
LEWIS, REED & ALLEN
136 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 388-7600
- and -
James Shek, Esq.
JAMES SHEK ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. Box A
Allegan, MI 49010
Telephone: (269) 236-6125
- and -
Kyle Michael Asher, Esq.
Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
DYKEMA
201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
Lansing, MI 48933
Telephone: (517) 374-9100
- and -
Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq.
CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO
2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 203
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Telephone: (616) 975-7470
VIEW INC: Hearing on Bids to Dismiss Mehedi Suit Set for April 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
View Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 31, 2023, that the Mehedi securities class suit
motions are scheduled for hearing on April 20, 2023 at the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On August 18, 2021, plaintiff Asif Mehedi filed a putative
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Mehedi v. View, Inc. f/k/a CF
Finance Acquisition Corp. II et al. (No. 5:21CV06374, N.D. Cal.))
alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the Company,
Rao Mulpuri, and Vidul Prakash.
On February 8, 2022, the Court appointed Stadium Capital LLC lead
plaintiff and denied the competing motion of Sweta Sonthalia.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ms. Sonthalia's petition
for a writ of mandamus to vacate the lead plaintiff order.
On July 15, 2022, Stadium Capital filed an amended complaint
against View, Mulpuri, and Prakash; certain current and former View
board members; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. and related entities;
officers and board members of CF II; and PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP.
The action is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of
(i) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
View and/or CF II securities between November 30, 2020 and May 10,
2022, inclusive; (ii) all persons or entities who were holders of
CF II Class A common stock as of the January 27, 2021 record date
that were entitled to vote to approve the merger between View and
CF II; and (iii) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired View securities pursuant or traceable to the Form S-4
Registration Statement filed by CF II on December 23, 2020.
The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 thereunder), 14(a) (and Rule 14a-9 thereunder), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act.
The amended complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to
disclose to investors that the Company's warranty-related
obligations and associated cost of revenue were materially false
and misleading because they excluded expenses the Company incurred
and expected to incur due to significant quality issues.
The amended complaint alleges that certain defendants' positive
statements about the Company were false and materially misleading
as a result, and that such statements caused the price of the
Company's stock to be inflated.
The amended complaint alleges that class members were damaged when
the price of the Company’s stock declined on the trading day
following (1) August 16, 2021, when the Company announced an
independent investigation concerning the adequacy of the
Company’s previously disclosed warranty accrual, and (2) May 10,
2022, when the Company stated that management anticipated that it
would be disclosing substantial doubt about the Company's ability
to continue as a going concern and that the Company's cash position
was $200.5 million at the end of Q1 2022.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
costs, including attorneys' fees.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on October 6, 2022, Stadium
Capital filed its opposition to the motions on November 14, 2022.
Defendants filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss on
December 14, 2022.
The motions are set for hearing on April 20, 2023.
View Inc. is a smart buildings platform and technology company
based in California.
VISION SOLAR: Bascetta Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Inducement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Bascetta, Ar-Rahman Buskey, Sandra Cuenca, Xiroyma Disla,
Deborah Donahue, Brian Fahey, Shawn Froment, Carlyn Hastraiter,
Lyndsey Henderson, Stephanie Lupien, Dennis Lupien, Matthew
McClelland, Nicola Noralus, Darlene Pagano, Evelyn Perez, Jorge
Perez, Karen Quantz, Gregg Rorris, Janice Schmidt, Joe Schmidt,
Danielle Stevens, and Chris Underwood, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. VISION SOLAR, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02010-KMW-AMD (D.N.J., April 10, 2023), is brought arising
out of the Defendant Vision Solar's fraudulent, deceptive, and
unfair inducement of homeowners in Arizona, Connecticut, Florida,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to enter into
agreements to purchase residential solar photovoltaic systems
("Solar Panel Systems").
Vision Solar deliberately targeted vulnerable
populations—including low-income, disabled, and elderly
individuals—and induced them into the purchase or lease of Solar
Panel Systems by systematically misrepresenting the benefits of
Solar Panel Systems, including homeowners' eligibility for tax
credits, the performance of the Solar Panel Systems, and the
financial terms of the loans and leasing transactions.
Hundreds of complaints have been filed with the attorneys general
of the states in which Vision Solar and its financing partners,
including Sunlight Financial LLC ("Sunlight"), KeyBank, N.A.
("KeyBank") Dividend Finance ("Dividend"), IGS Solar LLC ("IGS
Solar" or "IGS"), Additional Financial LLC ("Additional
Financial"), GoodLeap, LLC ("GoodLeap"), and Technology Credit
Union ("TechCU" and, collectively with Sunlight, TechCU, IGS Solar,
Additional Financial, Dividend, GoodLeap, and KeyBank, the
"Financing Companies"), operate.
Vision Solar's lies and deception regarding material and
foundational aspects of the sales and financing agreements for the
Solar Panel Systems render each and every agreement void ab initio.
Plaintiffs and class members would never have entered into
agreements with Vision Solar absent Vision Solar's lies, which is
why Vision Solar and its partners engaged in the activity in the
first place. They are selling a shoddy product via fraudulent,
deceptive, and unfair means.
In recognition of the egregiousness of Vision Solar's conduct, on
March 15, 2023, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (the "CT
AG") initiated a parens patriae enforcement action against Vision
Solar for predatory practices and deceptive sales tactics violating
the Connecticut Home Improvement Act and the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act. The CT AG's description echoes the experience
of Plaintiffs and members of the Class that Vision Solar took
advantage of low-income, elderly, and disabled homeowners,
pressuring them into unaffordable loans for solar panels that were
never activated or were installed without proper permits via
unfair, high-pressure sales tactics, including instances of
altering the scope of work without consent, overstating tax
benefits, and using unlicensed contractors to install Solar Panel
Systems. As a result of the conduct, Plaintiffs and members of the
Class seek relief from Defendant Vision Solar in the form of
restitution, disgorgement of profits, recission of the sales and
financing agreements, and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were induced by the Defendants to purchase a Solar
Panel System.
Vision Solar, LLC is a solar energy company that installs solar
panels for residential homes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zachary A. Rynar, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Krystyna D. Gancoss, Esq.
Brett Burgs, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, CT 06901
Phone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
Email: zrynar@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
kgancoss@sgtlaw.com
bburgs@sgtlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Gentes, Esq.
CONNECTICUT FAIR HOUSING CENTER
60 Popieluszko Court
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: (860) 263-0741
Fax: (860) 247-4236
Email: jgentes@ctfairhousing.org
VOLTA INC: Continues to Defend Exchange Act-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Volta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 30, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Exchange Act related putative class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On March 30, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and two of the Company's officers
(collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges
that Defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased Volta securities between August 2, 2021 and November 14,
2022.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.
While the Company believes that the claims are without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend against them, however, any litigation
is inherently uncertain, and any judgment or injunctive relief
entered against the Company or any adverse settlement could
materially and adversely impact its business, results of
operations, financial condition, and prospects.
Volta Inc. provides electric vehicle charging solutions. The
Company offers EV charging solutions to property owners, as well
as
power to the electric vehicle communities. Volta serves clients in
the United States. [BN]
WAL-MART STORES: Pearlstone May Distribute $169K Excess Deal Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT PEARLSTONE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17CV2856 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward
Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Approval of Cy Pres Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds.
On April 22, 2021, the Court granted final approval to the Class
Settlement Agreement reached. Under the Settlement, the Defendant
agreed to deposit $5 million into a Qualified Settlement Fund
("QSF") to pay (among other things) all approved Claims submitted
by the Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Administrator began
distributing payments from the QSF to Claimants who had timely
submitted valid Claims by distributing individual payments by check
or electronic means.
After the initial distribution, the Settlement Administrator made
several additional attempts to effectuate payments to Claimants
that had either failed to cash their check or otherwise failed to
claim their payment electronically prior to the void-by date for
those payments. Despite multiple attempts to effectuate payments to
all Claimants, there are residual funds remaining in the QSF
established under the Settlement.
The most recent report sent to the Parties by the Settlement
Administrator stated that there was approximately $169,183.87 -- or
3.4% of the total QSF -- in residual funds remaining after payment
of all outstanding Notice and Administration Costs. In accordance
with the Parties' Settlement Agreement, unclaimed funds from the
Settlement are to be distributed to one or more cy pres designees.
The Plaintiff seeks the Court's approval for distribution of
unclaimed residual funds to the following organizations: 20% to
Legal Services of Eastern Missouri; 20% to Legal Aid Western
Missouri; 20% to Mid-Missouri Legal Services Corporation; 20% to
Legal Services of Southern Missouri; and 20% to Washington
University School of Law's Low Income Taxpayer Clinic. The
Defendant does not oppose this request.
Judge Autrey holds that a cy pres distribution is appropriate
because the amounts involved are too small to make individual
distributions economically viable. Because the amount of residual
settlement funds after payment of all outstanding Notice and
Administration Costs is approximately $169,183.87, and more than
250,000 Claims were submitted, any further pro rata distribution
would only allow for payments of less than one dollar per person,
most of which would be absorbed by the administrative costs of
mailing or distributing such payments.
Additionally, Judge Autrey says a cy pres distribution is
appropriate because: (1) it is authorized under the Parties'
Settlement Agreement; (2) it was approved by the Court's Final
Approval Order approving the Settlement; (3) the Settlement Class
Members have received fair and complete relief under the
Settlement; (4) the Settlement Class Members were notified of the
possibility of a cy pres distribution through the Settlement's
Notice Plan; and (5) there were no objections to the Settlement or
the Settlement's proposed cy pres distribution of uncashed checks.
Plaintiff maintains Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, Legal Aid
Western Missouri, Mid-Missouri Legal Services Corporation, and
Legal Services of Southern Missouri are charitable legal aid
organizations whose goals and missions are aligned with the nature
and purpose of the Settlement in the matter. Judge Autrey agrees
that Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, Legal Aid Western
Missouri, Mid-Missouri Legal Services Corporation, and Legal
Services of Southern Missouri are charitable legal aid
organizations whose goals and missions are aligned with the nature
and purpose of the Settlement.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Cy
Pres Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds is granted. The 20%
of the residual settlement funds will be distributed to
Cy pres designees, Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, Legal Aid
Western Missouri, and Mid-Missouri Legal Services Corp., Legal
Services of Southern Missouri, and Washington University School of
Law's Low Income Taxpayer Clinic will each receive 20% of the
residual settlement funds.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Opinion, Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ha8xshy2 from
Leagle.com.
WALGREEN CO: Spearman Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Richard Spearman, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO.; WALGREENS SPECIALTY
PHARMACY, LLC; WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC; WALGREENS
HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV04245 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 10,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02691.
The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against the
Defendants on behalf of himself and the putative class: Violation
of Cal. Labor Code (Unpaid Minimum Wages); Violation of Cal. Labor
Code (Unpaid Overtime); Violation of Cal. Labor Code (Unpaid Meal
Period Premiums); Violation of Cal. Labor Code (Unpaid Rest Period
Premiums); Violation of Cal. Labor Code (Failure to Provide One
Day's Rest in Seven); Failure to Comply with Cal. Labor Codes;
Violation of Cal. Labor Code (Wages Not Timely Paid During
Employment); Violation of Cal. Labor Code (Failure to Provide
Accurate Written Wage Statements; Violation of Cal. Labor Code
(Final Wages Not Timely Paid); Violation of Cal. Labor Code
(Failure To Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses); and Violation
of Cal. Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
Amelia Alvarez, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614-7276
Phone: (949) 223-7000
Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
Email: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
amelia.alvarez@bclplaw.com
WB WASTE SOLUTIONS: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Gabriel Blanco Lopez and Melqui Ismael Quintanilla, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WB Waste
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00963-GLS (D. Md., April 10,
2023), is brought seeking to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); Maryland Wage and Hour Law
(MWHL); and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL)
(collectively, the "Maryland Wage Laws").
Federal and Maryland law requires employers to pay employees for
all time worked, and to pay minimum wages and overtime to
employees, and do not recognize an exception for these "temporary"
employees. The Defendant intentionally flouted these laws, seeking
to maximize profits by erroneously treating employees as
independent contractors, and making Plaintiffs work as many hours
as possible while shorting them the wages they were legally
entitled to receive.
More specifically, the Defendant knowingly violated applicable wage
and hour laws by not paying minimum wage rates required by federal
and Maryland law to "temporary" employees; not paying overtime
wages required by Federal and Maryland law to "temporary"
employees; and reducing the wages of "full-time" employees for
purported meal breaks that were not taken, thereby not paying them
for all time worked and depriving them of overtime pay, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were an employee of the Defendant.
The Defendant operated a garbage and recyclables sorting business
in Prince George's County, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Joni S. Jacobs, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 223-2620
Fax: (202) 296-9600
Email: mhanna@murphypllc.com
jjacobs@murphypllc.com
WINDY CITY NOVELTIES: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Windy City Novelties,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Windy City Novelties, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-03004 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Windy City Novelties -- https://www.windycitynovelties.com/ -- is
an online wholesaler of party goods and decorations.[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
WP COMPANY: Mendoza Video Privacy Suit Removed to D.D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
EMMA MENDOZA, c/o Jeffrey Ostrow KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
WEISELBERG GILBERT v. WP COMPANY LLC d/b/a THE WASHINGTON POST
(TWP), Case No. 2023-CAB-001101 (Filed Feb. 17, 2023) was removed
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 11,
2023.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00998 to the proceeding.
The complaint brings claims under the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2710. The Plaintiff alleges TWP
violated the VPPA by allegedly disclosing to Facebook information
that allows Facebook to identify a user's video watching behavior.
TWP owns and operates the website WashingtonPost.com. It is a Video
Tape Service Provider.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacob Sommer, Esq.
ZWILLGEN PLLC
1900 M Street NW, Suite 250
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 296-3585
Facsimile: (202) 706-5298
E-mail: jake@zwillgen.com
WTHN LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wthn, LLC. The case
is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Wthn, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02661 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
WTHN -- https://wthn.com/ -- is the modern Acupuncture & TCM
clinic, with locations throughout NYC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ZERO HALLIBURTON: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zero Halliburton,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Zero Halliburton, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02989 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zero Halliburton, stylized as ZERO Halliburton --
https://zerohalliburton.com/ -- is a company that manufactures
hard-wearing travel cases and briefcases, mainly of aluminium.[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
ZOLL MEDICAL: Pacholczack Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoll Medical
Corporation. The case is styled as David Pacholczack, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Zoll Medical Corporation,
Case No. 1:23-cv-10755 (D. Mass., April 10, 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
[*] Sen. Gillibrand Speaker at May 8 Class Action Conference
------------------------------------------------------------
Catch Senator Kirsten Gillibrand at the 7th Annual Class Action
Money & Ethics Conference on May 8, 2023.
Senator Gillibrand will serve as Keynote Luncheon Speaker at CAME
2023.
Senator Gillibrand, who was first elected to Congress in 2006,
among others, helped lead the fight to pass the PACT Act, which
ensured veterans exposed to toxins during their service would get
the care and benefits they earned. Senator Gillibrand is chair of
the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, and also
serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senate
Agriculture Committee and Senate Aging Committee.
Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics
Conference! The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie
Club, New York City, on Monday, May 8, 2023.
This year's event boasts of an All-Star lineup of speakers:
* Michael P. Canty, Partner, Labaton Sucharow LLP
* Neil Kornswiet, CEO, Optium Capital LLC
* Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP
* Edward E. Neiger, Esq., Co-Managing Partner, Ask LLP
* Graham Newman, Partner, Chappell, Chappell & Newman
* Bola Oyesanya, Managing Director and Private Banker, Citi
Law Firm Group
* Paige Richardson, Director of Operations, Milestone
* Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP
* Daniel Stefany, Associate, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
* Thomas R. Waskom, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Ms. Oyesanya is this year's conference chair.
The value-packed event features special presentations from keynote
speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and
networking with other professionals.
Contact:
Bernard Toliver, CMP
(240) 629-3300 ext. 149
E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com
or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more
information.
The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc.
*********
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 ***