/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230426.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, April 26, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 84
Headlines
451 GRAND AVENUE: Rugerio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AC CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Seeks OT Pay for Laborers Under FLSA
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for June 15
ALCOVE VENTURES: Fails to Pay Specialists' OT Wages Under FLSA
AMANDO FLORES: Navarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Boudreau Suit Alleges
AMERICO LIFE: Faces Fabrikant Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
ARQIT QUANTUM: Faces Weeks Suit Over False Registration Statements
ASHLYNN MARKETING: C.B. Files Suit in S.D. California
ATLANTIS MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Crews' Minimum Wages Under FLSA
AUTONOMY PRODUCTIONS: Ward Files Suit in C.D. California
AVIANAYA LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AXCESS FINANCIAL: Linton Sues Over Unlawful "Rent-a-Bank" Scheme
AXCESS FINANCIAL: Linton Suit Removed to C.D. California
BAR 9 ENTERTAINMENT: Cruz ADA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
C. STUDIO MANUFACTURING: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
C3.AI INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 1
CAMERON MITCHELL: Haase Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
CETERIS PORTFOLIO: Fralish Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
CHOICE PET FOOD: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHRIS REYKDAL: Class Cert Bid Deadline Extended to July 10
CLASSY CLOSETS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 23
COME READY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Martinez Alleges
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Martin Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
CVS HEALTH: Brandywine Hospital Sues Over Health Services Scheme
DC HEALTH: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, McAteer Says
DESERT HAVEN: Franklin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIRECT ENERGY: Newman TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
DMCG INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Abeyta Suit
DONG BANG: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lee Says
DOORDASH INC: Hecox Files Suit in D. Maryland
DWD TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Baker Suit Alleges
EARLY WARNING SERVICES: Lezcano Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
ENCEPHALON INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FALL RIVER FIVE: Class Action Suit Over Overdraft Fees Ok'd
GAOTU TECHEDU: Continues to Defend Zhang Securities Class Suit
GEICO INDEMNITY: Bid for Class Certification in McCoy Suit Granted
GEICO: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by March 1, 2024
GENERAL PANTS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GEO SECURE: Continuance of Class Cert Hearing Sought
GRUBHUB INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Davitashvili Suit
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Holden Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
HERTZ CORPORATION: Sconce Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOME HEALTH: Fails to Pay Attendants' OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
HRM USA INC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUA DA INC: Gannon Appeals ADA Suit Dismissal Ruling
IKON MOTORSPORTS: Fails to Pay Employees' OT Wages, Suit Says
IMPERIAL SECURITY: Kennedy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Isip Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
INFINITY FASTENERS: $60K Class Settlement in Rendon Suit Approved
JRCRUZ CORP: Court Certifies Class in Thomas Suit Over Unpaid Wages
KELLY SERVICES: Kring Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LACTALIS HERITAGE: Faces Mosley Suit Over Managers' Unpaid Wages
LAKE GEORGE STEAMBOAT: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LANNETT CO: Bid for Securities Fraud Class Certification Denied
LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Discloses Subscribers' Info to Facebook
LOANCARE LLC: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Thai Appeals Sanctions Ruling to 9th Cir.
LUME DEODORANT: Johnson Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Houston Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
MAZDA MOTOR: Sonneveldt Appeals Summary Judgment, Decert. Rulings
MEMPHIS, TN: Class Action Suit Over Delays in Rape Kits Certified
MONCIER SERVICES: Medcalf Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
NATURAL BABY: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Denies Special Education Services, Class Suit Says
NO PARKING TODAY: Ross Appeals Breach of Contract Claim Dismissal
NUTANIX INC: Gorsline Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
OLO INC: Bid for Dismissal of Shareholder Class Suit Denied
PIGRI LLC: Fails to Pay Bartenders' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
PLANNED BUILDING: Lochnicki Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments
PRO-HEALTH LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Act Violations
PRO-HEALTH LLC: Fails to Give 60-Day Layoff Notice, Class Suit Says
REALPAGE INC: Armas Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
REALPAGE INC: Boelens Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
REALPAGE INC: Cherry Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
REALPAGE INC: Godfrey Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
REALPAGE INC: Morgan Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
RECKITT BENCKISER: Settlement Approval in Williams Suit Vacated
RELIANCE VITAMIN: Costa Consumer Suit May Proceed as Class Action
RITE AID: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Monmouth Suit
SALVATORE PRESCOTT: Gonzalez Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
SEACOR MARINE: Luno Seeks OT Pay for Operators Under FLSA
SHARBERT ENTERPRISES: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Dresner Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
SITREP SECURITY: Sarnowski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SMOOTHSTACK INC: O'Brien Seeks OT Wages for Recruits Under FLSA
SPEAR WILDERMAN: Raniell Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Morrison Files Suit in E.D. Texas
STALLEX SKIN CARE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STERIGENICS US: A. Freeman Can't Intervene in Vallejo Labor Suit
TENSUNITS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Jackson Alleges
TMX FINANCE: Mahone Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
TMX FINANCE: Millner Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
TMX FINANCE: Mitchell Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
TRANS UNION: White Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRANSPORTATION ONE: Kuljanin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNILEVER UNITED: Court Rejects Mislabeling Claims in False Ads Suit
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Appeals Court Ruling in Long Suit
VAPORE TECHNOLOGY: Tiscareno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: NatalierRahe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WILCO LIFE: West's Bid to Compel Production of Docs Granted in Part
WL GENERAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Lopez Suit Alleges
WORN & WOUND LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
YS CONSTRUCTION: Perez-Quinteros Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
YUM! BRANDS INC: Stinson Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
ZENSAH COMPANY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] Sen. Gillibrand Speaker at May 8 Class Action Conference
*********
451 GRAND AVENUE: Rugerio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Aldo Rugerio, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
451 Grand Avenue, LLC, and Joseph R. Pagliaro, Case No.
3:23-cv-00481 (D. Conn., April 17, 2023), is brought against
Defendants' to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and violations of the Connecticut Wage Act ("CWA").
The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. The Plaintiff was not required to keep track of his
time, nor to his knowledge, did the Defendants utilize any time
tracking device, such as sign in sheets or punch cards, that
accurately reflected his actual hours worked. No notification,
either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever
given to Plaintiff regarding wages are required under the FLSA or
the CWA. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one
and one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess
of forty per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a driver and instillation worker.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control the flooring, painting,
and window treatment company company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
AC CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Seeks OT Pay for Laborers Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO SANCHEZ, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. AC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, ANTHONY FIUMARA,
individually, and CHRISTOPHER PUOPOLA, individually, Case No.
2:23-cv-02116 (D.N.J. April 14, 2023) seeks to recover overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and
Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a
collective and class action on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated -- non-exempt "construction laborers" --
who suffered damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the
FLSA pursuant to the collective action provisions of 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) and as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule
23, the NJWH and the NJWPL
AC specializes in drywall installation, finishing, repairs, texture
and painting.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
Andrew Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for June 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al. V. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., ET AL., Case No.
2:21-cv-03382-HB (E.D. Pa.), Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III entered
an order that the Court will hold oral argument on Lead Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class on June 15, 2023, following the in-person
status conference on that date.
Adapthealth provides home medical equipment. The Company sells and
leases mobility and oxygen equipment, wheelchairs, walkers, sleep
therapy supplies, and hospital beds.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MS2qQm at no extra charge.[CC]
ALCOVE VENTURES: Fails to Pay Specialists' OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN HOLMER and MELANIE HOWELL and CONITA OAKES, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ALCOVE VENTURES,
LLC, d/b/a PSYCH360 and MINDCARE SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00747 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 13, 2023) seeks to recover overtime
compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio
law.
Plaintiffs Holmer, Howell and Oakes worked frequently 50 to 70
hours a week throughout their employment. However, instead of
paying the Plaintiffs at one and one-half times their "regular
rate" of pay for their overtime hours, their pay stubs were
manipulated to show that they worked only 40 hours per week and
were paid a maximum of 40 hours notwithstanding his overtime hours
worked, the lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Holmer has been employed by the Defendants as a Clinical
Field Specialist since October 3, 2022. Plaintiff Melanie Howell
has been employed by the Defendants as a Clinical Field Specialist
since November 16, 2022. Plaintiff Oakes was employed by the
Defendants as a Clinical Field Specialist from September 2019 to
September 9, 2022.
Psych360 is a healthcare provider group that offers on-site
psychiatric services for long term care facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley A. Sherman, Esq.
F. Allen Boseman, Jr., Esq.
Ashley M. Fuchs, Esq.
SHERMAN BOSEMAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
800 West St. Clair Avenue, 4th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 239-1414
Facsimile: (216) 239-1316
E-mail: bradley@shermanboseman.com
allen@shermanboseman.com
ashley@shermanboseman.com
AMANDO FLORES: Navarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amando Flores
Gutierrez Contracting. The case is styled as Pedro Navarro, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Amando Flores Gutierrez Contracting, Case No. BCV-23-101177 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 14, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Amando Flores Gutierrez in Bakersfield, California in the all other
specialty trade contractors industry.[BN]
AMERICAN HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Boudreau Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN BOUDREAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00681-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 17, 2023) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
SVM Holding Corporation, whose common stock is indirectly 80% owned
by service master com- pany and 20% by current and previous
management investors. American home shield provides homeowners
throughout the United Stated with contracts covering the re- pair
or replacement of appliances. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
Lemberg Law, LLC
1100 West Town & Country Road Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (480) 247-9644
Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com
AMERICO LIFE: Faces Fabrikant Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
BEN FABRIKANT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICO LIFE, INC., a Texas corporation, LESLIE RIOS,
an individual, and JOHN DOE, Case No. 4:23-cv-03055-JMG-MDN (D.
Neb., Apr. 13, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made thousands of
unsolicited phone calls that played an artificial or prerecorded
voice message. The Defendants also did not obtain express written
consent prior to sending these artificial or prerecorded voice
messages.
On February 11, 2023, at 3:37 p.m., the Plaintiff received an
unsolicited phone call from John Doe soliciting Americo's final
expense insurance. The Plaintiff pressed 1 to identify the caller
and was connected with Leslie Rios. The call lasted approximately
36 minutes. The Plaintiff then received a follow up text from
Leslie Rios containing a quote for final expense insurance from
Americo. The Defendants' call violated Plaintiff's statutory rights
and caused actual and statutory damages, the Plaintiff claims.
On February 28, 2023, the Plaintiff's attorney wrote a letter
requesting Defendants' telemarketing policy, but the Plaintiff did
not receive a response. In addition to causing statutory damages,
the illegal calls caused annoyance, intrusion on privacy and
seclusion, wasted cell phone battery, and time to Plaintiff to
investigate the intrusion to find out who was calling, the
Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff therefore seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to
stop its unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and/or
statutory damages to the Class members, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.
Americo markets and sells final health insurance to
individual.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200
San Mateo, CA 94401
Telephone: (650) 781-8000
Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
ARQIT QUANTUM: Faces Weeks Suit Over False Registration Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS WEEKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARQIT QUANTUM INC. F/K/A CENTRICUS ACQUISITION CORP.,
DAVID WILLIAMS, NICK POINTON, CARLO CALABRIA, STEPHEN CHANDLER,
MANFREDI LEFEBVRE D'OVIDIO, VERALINN JAMIESON, GARTH RITCHIE, AND
STEPHEN WILSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-02806 (E.D.N.Y., April 14, 2023)
is a class action on behalf of a Class of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Arqit securities pursuant or
traceable to the F-4 Registration Statement and Prospectus for the
September 1, 2021 offering of Arqit securities in connection with
the merger between Arqit and Centricus seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933.
Arqit is the registrant for the securities registered in the
Registration Statement for the offering of securities in connection
with the Merger.
The Defendants, individually and in concert, directly or
indirectly, disseminated or approved the untrue statements of
material fact in the Registration Statement specified above or
omitted to state material facts required to be stated in the
Registration Statement or necessary to make the statements in the
Registration Statement not misleading, the lawsuit says.
On March 31, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry
issued a Memorandum and Order, pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4 et seq. (PSLRA),
appointing Plaintiff as the Lead Plaintiff in Glick v. Arqit
Quantum Inc., Case No. 22-cv-2604-PKC-MMH (E.D.N.Y.).
The Plaintiff is filing this action as Lead Plaintiff in Glick and
as a related action to Glick, and to toll the statute of
limitations for claims under the Securities Act in anticipation of
filing a motion to consolidate this action with Glick and a
consolidated or amended complaint in the consolidated action.
The Plaintiff has received an assignment of claim from his wife,
Judy L. Smith, who purchased Arqit securities pursuant or traceable
to the Registration Statement and was economically damaged thereby.
According to Arqit's SEC filings and public statements, Defendant
Arqit is a cybersecurity company that "supplies a unique quantum
safe encryption Platform-as-a-Service which makes the
communications links or data at rest of any networked device or
cloud machine secure against current and future forms of attack -
even from a quantum computer." Arqit is incorporated in the Cayman
Islands and its principal executive offices are located at Nova
North, 7 Floor, 11 Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5BY, United
Kingdom.
Prior to the Merger, Arqit was known as Arqit Limited. Arqit's
common shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol
"ARQQ" and Arqit warrants trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the
ticker symbol "ARQQW."
Centricus was a special purpose acquisition corporation (SPAC), or
blank-check company, incorporated as a Cayman Islands exempted
limited liability company, and formed for the purpose of effecting
a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock
purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination with one
or more businesses. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
Arqit Limited.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.
Robert C. Finkel, Esq
Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq
Sasha D. Marseille, Esq
MATTHEW INSLEY-PRUITT
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
jruthizer@wolfpopper.com
Minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
smarseille@wolfpopper.com
ASHLYNN MARKETING: C.B. Files Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashlynn Marketing
Group, Inc. The case is styled as C.B., R.V.H., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashlynn Marketing Group,
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00603-DMS-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 13, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Ashlynn Marketing Group is a Center for Tobacco Products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: lsironski@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
ATLANTIS MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Crews' Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LeeSandra Moore, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Atlantis Management Group
LLC, AMG 10th Ave Quickserve LLC, AMG Broadway Quickserve LLC, and
Berk Basatemir, Case No. 1:23-cv-03121 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 14, 2023)
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid
minimum wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor
Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants had a policy and
practice commonly known as "time shaving." Specifically, the
Plaintiff was forced to "clock-out" at around 6:00 a.m., i.e.,
three (3) or four (4) hours before the end of their shift, which
actually concluded around 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. As a result, the
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, were forced to
work off the clock, without pay, during this period. The Defendants
also did not pay the Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half
times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty
per workweek, the lawsuit says.
Plaintiff Moore was employed as a crew worker at Defendants'
Dunkin' franchises, located at: (i) 3936 10th Ave., New York, New
York; and (ii) 4353 Broadway, New York, New York from June 2014 to,
through and including June 2018.
Atlantis owns, operates and/or controls the Dunkin'
franchises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
AUTONOMY PRODUCTIONS: Ward Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Autonomy Productions,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Paul Ward, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Autonomy Productions,
LLC, Sheriff Robot Production Services, LLC, Case No. 2:23-mc-00063
(C.D. Cal., April 14, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Labor/Mgt. Relations.
Autonomy Productions LLC is a company that operates in the Media
and Entertainment industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
AVIANAYA LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avianaya, LLC. The
case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Avianaya, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02777
(E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Avianaya is located in Bedford, New York primarily operates in the
lingerie (outerwear) business/industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
AXCESS FINANCIAL: Linton Sues Over Unlawful "Rent-a-Bank" Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
alleges Axcess has operated an illegal "rent-a-bank" scheme whereby
it has charged California residents high interest rates on loans
while evading state usury laws.
The eight-page lawsuit claims that Axcess, which does business
under the business brand Xact, has issued loans to California
residents through Xact.com with interest rates as high as 200
percent while purporting to be operated by a state-chartered bank
in Utah, Capital Community Bank. Although it appears on paper that
Capital Community Bank issues the loans offered through Xact.com,
the case contends that the Utah institution has "virtually no
involvement" in these loans and that Axcess merely uses its name on
loan documents in an attempt to circumvent California interest rate
limitations.
According to the complaint, Axcess is the entity that markets,
underwrites, originates and services the loans at issue to
California consumers. In fact, Capital Community Bank says on its
website that it only serves "the banking needs of Utah residents,"
the case relays.
"Axcess directs its marketing activities for illegally-priced loans
to low-income California residents, many of whom are vulnerable to
exploitation," the filing reads, adding that high-interest rate
loans can trap such consumers in cycles of debt.
The plaintiff, a California resident, says they obtained from the
Xact website in November 2022 a $1,000 loan with an annual interest
rate of 214.41 percent. As an unlicensed lender, Axcess was
prohibited under California law from issuing loans with interest
rates higher than 10 percent per annum, the suit claims.
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in California who, during the
applicable statute of limitations period, obtained a loan that was
advertised, made or serviced by Axcess and paid interest on such
loan at a rate in excess of 10 percent. [GN]
AXCESS FINANCIAL: Linton Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lakisha Cole Linton, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Axcess Financial Services,
Inc., Case No. 23CV028384 was removed from Alameda County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 14, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01832 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Axcess Financial Services, Inc. provides financial products and
services . The Company offers businesses with payday loans in
retail locations and online, as well as provides alternative retail
financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott Michael Pearson, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS
2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-4283
Fax: (310) 312-4224
Email: spearson@manatt.com
BAR 9 ENTERTAINMENT: Cruz ADA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Conidi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bar 9 Entertainment, Corp., Case
No. 1:22-cv-05504 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on April 14, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03133-LJL to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bar Nine -- https://bar9ny.com/ -- is the a dueling piano bar in
New York City.[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
The Defendant is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 350-9700
Fax: (510) 350-9701
Email: ds@classlawgroup.com
C. STUDIO MANUFACTURING: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Manuel Martinez, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and
unknown v. C. Studio Manufacturing, LLC, Case No. 2023CH000053 was
removed from the Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April
13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02319 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
C-Studio is a mixed reality creative agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
James Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC
6232 North Pulaski Rd., Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60646
Phone: (773) 550-3775
Email: dschlade@justicialaboral.com
jdore@justicialaboral.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert Collins, III, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 876-7700
Email: robert.collins@lw.com
C3.AI INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 1
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC of BusinessWire reports that if
you suffered a loss in C3.ai you have until June 1, 2023 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff in a class action
lawsuit has been filed against C3.ai, Inc. ("C3.ai" or the
"Company") (NYSE: AI) and certain of its officers, on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired C3.ai
securities between March 2, 2022 and April 3, 2023, inclusive (the
''Class Period''). Such investors are encouraged to join this case
by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ai1.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies and
specifically, that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) C3.ai had been
engaging in improper accounting practices; (2) the foregoing, once
revealed, would likely subject the Company to financial and/or
reputational harm; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ai1 or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in C3.ai you have until June 1, 2023 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
CAMERON MITCHELL: Haase Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Haase, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CAMERON MITCHELL RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-01316-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 14, 2023), is brought
challenging policies and practices of Defendant that violate the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio
Revised Code by failing to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages.
The Defendant pays its servers, including the Plaintiff, the
Putative Collective Members, and the Ohio Class Members at an
hourly rate below minimum wage. By paying the Plaintiff, the
Putative Collective Members, and the Ohio Class Members less than
the minimum wage per hour, Defendant is taking advantage of a tip
credit which allows employers to count a portion of the amount
servers receive as tips towards Defendant's obligation to pay
tipped employees a minimum wage. Defendant's policy and practice of
paying the Plaintiff, the Putative Collective Members, the Ohio
Class Members the tipped minimum wage (or less than the allowed
tipped minimum wage) while they were performing non-tip producing
work violated the FLSA and the Ohio law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a server at one of the Defendant's
restaurants (Cap City Fine Diner and Bar in Franklin County, Ohio)
within the last three years.
The Defendant owns and operates various restaurants in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher St NW, Ste. B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 230-2944
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
CETERIS PORTFOLIO: Fralish Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Fralish, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. Ceteris Portfolio
Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00176-DRL-MGG (N.D. INd.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a preliminary
approval of the parties' class action settlement.
-- The settlement, which followed a year of contested litigation,
resolves the claims of Settlement Class Members under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA.
-- To that end, Defendant will create a non-reversionary,
all-cash
settlement fund of $761,850.00, from which participating
Settlement Class Members will receive pro rata payments after
deducting related settlement costs. Plaintiff anticipates a
per-
claimant recovery of between $300 and $900 each, which is well
in
line with, and in most cases far surpasses, similar TCPA class
settlements recently approved.
Th Plaintiff seeks the Court's preliminary approval of the parties'
class settlement, his appointment as class representative, and his
counsel's appointment as Class Counsel for the following Settlement
Class:
"All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to
whom
Ceteris Portfolio Services, LLC delivered, or caused to be
delivered, a voice mail box direct drop or ringless voice
message,
(2) between June 1, 2021, and February 1, 2023, (3) to a
cellular
telephone number Ceteris Portfolio Services, LLC designated with
an
internal "wrong number" designation at some point during the
accoun
history."
The Plaintiff's and the Settlement Class Members’ claims are
eminently suitable to class treatment, particularly in the context
of the settlement presented. Furthermore, the resolution reached is
fair and reasonable and should be preliminarily approved such that
the parties may move forward with their proposed class notice
program.
Ceteris is an accounts receivable management firm providing
end-to-end accounts receivable management solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40o7Wgw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Greenwald , Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
CHOICE PET FOOD: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Choice Pet Food
Distributors, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Choice Pet Food
Distributors, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03104 (S.D.N.Y., April 13,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Choice Pet Products -- https://choicepetproducts.com/ -- is a
distributor of high-quality pet brands and products headquartered
in Palmetto, Florida.[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
CHRIS REYKDAL: Class Cert Bid Deadline Extended to July 10
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.D., et al., v. CHRIS
REYKDAL, et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-LK-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file amended complaint.
The Plaintiffs shall electronically file the Amended Class Action
Complaint, within seven days of the date of this Order.
The deadline to conduct class-related discovery is extended to June
9, 2023, and the deadline to file a motion for class certification
is extended to July 10, 2023.
The Defendants have not provided any evidence concerning the length
of time needed for the Selah School District to process a similar
request.
That motion further demonstrates the need for an extension of the
class discovery period in this case. Extending the class discovery
deadline by two months, from April 10, 2023, to June 9, 2023, will
allow the Court to rule on the joint motion and provide the
Defendants with additional time to conduct class discovery
regarding E.A.
Therefore, the Court extends the discovery deadline to June 9,
2023. And because the Court is extending the deadline to conduct
class-related discovery, the Court also extends the class
certification motion deadline from May 10, 2023, to July 10, 2023.
The Plaintiff N.D. is an individual with a disability who turned 21
years old in the summer of 2022. Seattle Public Schools provided
him a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under IDEA until the
extended school year period ended on August 31, 2022.
At that time, he had not graduated from high school with a regular
high school diploma. On November 11, 2022, he filed suit in this
Court alleging that he was denied his right to a continued FAPE
until his 22nd birthday as required by the IDEA "solely because he
had exceeded the age cutoff the State of Washington has established
at Wash. Admin. Code section 392.172A.02000(2)(c) pursuant to Wash.
Rev. Code section 28A.155.020."
He seeks to represent the following putative class:
"All individuals who turned 21 within two years before the
filing
of this action or will turn 21 during the pendency of this
action
who are provided or were provided a FAPE under the IDEA by any
school district in Washington and who but for their turning 21
would otherwise qualify or would have qualified for a FAPE
because
they have not or had not yet graduated from high school with a
"regular high school diploma" as defined at 34 C.F.R. section
300.102(a)(3)(iv) (The Plaintiff Class)."
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KNZIIW at no extra charge.[CC]
CLASSY CLOSETS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 23
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ivol Stever, v. Classy
Closets, Etc. Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-01337-SPL (D. Ariz.),
Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order that the second joint
motion to extend is granted.
The deadlines are modified as follows:
1. Class Certification Motions shall May 23, 2023
be due by:
2. Responses to Class Certification June 7, 2023
Motions shall be due by:
3. Replies to Class Certification June 14, 2023
Motions shall be due by:
4. A Joint Report on Settlement May 10, 2023.
shall be filed by:
Classy Closets designs and installs cabinetry and shelving
solutions for home organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ohtdLI at no extra charge.[CC]
COME READY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Martinez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COME READY FOODS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-02826 (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http//:www.Teamready.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
COME READY FOODS LLC is engaged as a sports nutrition company.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Martin Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Angela Martin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Community Health Systems, Inc., CHSPSC, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00354
(M.D. Tenn., April 14, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.
Community Health Systems -- http://www.chs.net/-- is one of the
nation's leading healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 274-9420
Fax: (202) 463-2103
Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Benjamin A. Gastel
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC
223 Rosa L Parks Ave., Ste. 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 800-6225
Email: ben@hsglawgroup.com
CVS HEALTH: Brandywine Hospital Sues Over Health Services Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDYWINE HOSPITAL, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS
PHARMACY, INC.; CVS SPECIALTY, INC.; and WELLPARTNER, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01458 (E.D. Pa., April 17, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants are engaged in anticompetitive scheme
to limit competition among services provided to "safety net"
healthcare providers in the United States, a scheme that ultimately
harms providers of healthcare services for low-income people who
otherwise would be largely unable to access critical health
services.
CVS Health Corporation provides health care and retail pharmacy
services. The Company offers prescription medications, beauty,
personal care, cosmetics, and health care products, as well as
pharmacy benefit management, disease management, and administrative
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
apessin@finekaplan.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
David W. Asp, Esq.
Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Derek C. Waller, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
dwasp@locklaw.com
kgmarttila@locklaw.com
jcboune@locklaw.com
dcwaller@locklaw.com
- and -
Marco Cercone, Esq.
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC
111 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
Jamestown, NY 14701
Telephone: (716) 854-3400
Email: cercone@RuppPfalzgraf.com
bailey@RuppPfalzgraf.com
DC HEALTH: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, McAteer Says
--------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN MCATEER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE
AUTHORITY, d/b/a DC HEALTH LINK, Case No. 1:23-cv-01043 (D.D.C.,
Apr. 14, 2023) sues the Defendant for its failure to secure and
safeguard her and approximately 56,415 other individuals'
personally identifying information (PII) and personal health
information (PHI), including names, Social Security numbers, dates
of birth, gender, health plan information, employer information,
and enrollee information such as address, email, phone number,
race, ethnicity, and citizenship status.
On March 6, 2023, DC Health Link learned that an unauthorized
individual, or unauthorized individuals, had gained access to DC
Health Link's network systems and accessed and acquired files from
the system that contained the PII/PHI of the Plaintiff and Class
members and published some of that information online. As a result
of DC Health Link's inadequate security and breach of its duties
and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff’s and
Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Class members,
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment,
and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages,
statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all
other relief authorized by law.
DC Health implements a health care exchange (HBX) program in the
District of Columbia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: mason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Suite. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
DESERT HAVEN: Franklin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Desert Haven
Enterprises. The case is styled as Mark Franklin, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public v. Desert Haven Enterprises, Case No. BCV-23-101153 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Desert Haven Enterprises -- http://www.deserthaven.org/-- is a
non-profit organization in Lancaster, California.[BN]
DIRECT ENERGY: Newman TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Holly Newman, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. DIRECT ENERGY, LP, Case No.
8:21-cv-02446 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on April 13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-01388 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Direct Energy LP -- http://www.directenergy.com/-- is a North
American retailer of energy and energy services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, ET AL
275 Battery St., 29th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 956-1000
Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com
- and -
Evan J. Ballan, Esq.
175 N. Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 616-3068
Email: evan.j.ballan@usdoj.gov
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
- and -
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (212) 946-9305
Fax: (865) 522-0049
The Defendant is represented by:
David L. Villarreal, Esq.
Diane S. Wizig, Esq.
James M. Chambers, IV, Esq.
Michael D. Matthews, Jr., Esq.
William B. Thomas, Esq.
MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2400
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 337-5580
Fax: (713) 337-8850
Email: david.villarreal@mhllp.com
diane.wizig@mhllp.com
james.chambers@mhllp.com
matt.matthews@mhllp.com
william.thomas@mhllp.com
- and -
Joseph Andrew Smith, Esq.
THOMPSON HINE LLP
1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036-3537
Phone: (202) 263-4145
Fax: (202) 331-8330
DMCG INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Abeyta Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT ABEYTA, Plaintiff v. DMCG, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-07089-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies
DMCG's motion to dismiss and alternative motion for transfer of
venue.
On Oct. 3, 2022, Abeyta, a resident of Oakland, filed the class
action lawsuit against DMCG in Alameda County Superior Court. DMCG
removed the case to this Court on Nov. 11, 2022. DMCG is a
California corporation that operates as a bond agent "throughout
the State" and has its headquarters in Riverside, California.
Abeyta claims that DMCG, doing business as "Bail Hotline Bail
Bonds," did not provide him with written disclosures required under
California consumer protection laws when he signed documents to
obtain a loan for a non-refundable bail bond premium to bail a
friend out of jail. Abeyta seeks to represent a class of "all
people who cosigned a bail bond credit agreement from DMCG which
did not include the notice described in California Civil Code
Section 1799.911 prior to signing, and who (1) owed, were asked to
make, or made a payment on or after Oct. 3, 2018, to DMCG and (2)
were not a spouse of the person who received release services under
the arrangement at the time of cosigning."
To bail his friend out of jail, Abeyta signed three documents -- a
"Surety Bail Bond Agreement," a "Promissory Note," and a "Plain
Talk Contract" -- and he claims that those "credit agreements" were
part of the same transaction and collectively created a contract.
As part of these credit agreements, he co-signed a "consumer credit
contract" financing a bail bond premium of $15,500. He paid a
$4,500 "down payment" and one installment payment of $300.
Abeyta alleges that DMCG did not provide the written notice
required under California Civil Code Section 1799.91, and that
instead, Bail Hotline put him under the impression that his
signature was merely needed to process his friend's release from
jail, not that doing so would create an ongoing set of financial
obligations and liabilities for him. He claims he would not have
agreed to co-sign or make any payments if DMCG had provided the
notice required by Section 1799.91. Abeyta also claims that DMCG
attempted to collect on the remaining balance of the premium by
calling him and mailing him letters despite California Civil Code
Section 1799.95 rendering these collection attempts unlawful.
The complaint asserts causes of action under California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. Abeyta seeks monetary restitution, statutory
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and all other
appropriate relief from DMCG's unenforceable and unlawful credit
bail agreements.
On Dec. 23, 2022, DMCG filed a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a) for improper venue, or in
the alternative to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
It invokes a venue selection clause contained in the Promissory
Note signed by Abeyta, which provides that "Any litigation arising
out of this bail bond(s) will take place in Riverside,
California."
First, Judge Illston considers DMCG's move to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a) on the ground that venue is
improper in the Northern District of California because of the
Promissory Note's clause designating Riverside, California as the
venue for litigation. However, she finds that a forum-selection
clause may be enforced by a motion to transfer under Section
1404(a), not a motion to dismiss under Section 1406(a) or Rule
12(b)(3). In addition, she says dismissal under Section 1406(a) is
not warranted as venue is proper here because the case was filed in
a state court within this district and then removed to federal
court.
DMCG moves in the alternative to enforce the Promissory Note's
venue provision and transfer venue to the Central District of
California. Abeyta argues that the venue clause is invalid because
it is contrary to California law and public policy governing venue
for specific types of consumer litigation as set forth in
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 395(b)-(c).
Judge Illston concludes that the Promissory Note's venue selection
clause is void and unenforceable. She, among other things, says the
venue clause is unenforceable under federal law, and thus need not
decide whether state law governs the validity of the venue
selection clause. A bail bond premium agreement is also a "consumer
credit contract for use primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes," under Section 395(b).
Judge Illston then considers DMCG's motion to transfer venue to the
Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). To
support a motion to transfer, she says DMCG must establish: (1)
that venue is proper in the transferor district; (2) that the
transferee district is one where the action might have been
brought; and (3) that the transfer will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and will promote the interests of
justice. She concludes that transfer to the Central District will
not further the convenience of the parties or the interests of
justice under Section 1404(a).
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Illston denies DMCG's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), or in
the alternative, to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a).
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mrxp4y7b from Leagle.com.
DONG BANG: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lee Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH LEE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. DONG BANG CORPORATION, MI JA KIM, JU HE KIM and SANG KYU KIM,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02087 (D.N.J., Apr. 13, 2023) seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, and
other wages for Plaintiff and her similarly situated co-workers
servers, bartenders and all other tipped, hourly food service
workers who work or have worked at Defendants' Dong Bang Grill
Restaurant, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
The Defendants allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff, the FLSA
Collective, and members of the Rule 23 Class the lawful minimum
wages for all of the hours they worked each workweek. The
Defendants also did not inform the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective,
or the Rule 23 Class members of the tipped minimum wage or tip
credit provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.203(m). The Defendants
repeatedly suffered and/or permitted the Plaintiff, the FLSA
Collective, and the members of the Rule 23 Class to work over 40
hours per week without paying them the premium overtime rates
required by the FLSA and/or NJWHL, the suit claims.
Ms. Lee was employed as a Server at Dong Bang Grill by the
Defendants from February 15, 2020, until March 17, 2020, and again
from a July 17, 2020, and until August 20, 2020. She started
working again on April 21, 2021, and last worked for the defendants
on April 27, 2022.
DBG is a fine dining restaurant located in Fort Lee, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com
DOORDASH INC: Hecox Files Suit in D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doordash, Inc. The
case is styled as Ross Hecox, individually and as next friend of
his minor child R.E.H and for themselves and for those similarly
situated minor individuals v. Doordash, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01006-JRR (D. Md., April 14, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
DoorDash, Inc. -- http://www.doordash.com/-- is an American
company that operates an online food ordering and food delivery
platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Robinson Bundy, III, Esq.
LAWRENCE & BUNDY LLC
8115 Maple Lawn Blvd., Suite 275
Fulton, MD 20759
Phone: (240) 500-3595
Fax: (404) 609-2504
Email: thomas.bundy@lawrencebundy.com
DWD TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Baker Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DWD TRUCKING, LLC; and DENISE SOMERVILLE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00664-JMS-KMB (S.D. Ind., April 17,
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 Baker was employed by the Defendant as a truck driver.
DWD TRUCKING LLC is a licensed and DOT registred trucking company
running freight hauling business from Spring, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
WELDY LAW
11268 Governors Lane
Fishers, IN 46037
Telephone: (317) 842-6600
Facsimile: (317) 842-6933
Email: rweldy@weldylegal.com
EARLY WARNING SERVICES: Lezcano Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lesly Lezcano, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Early Warning Services LLC, Bank of
America NA, Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00115 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on April 13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-00674-CEM-LHP to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Early Warning -- https://www.earlywarning.com/ -- has been a leader
in technology that helps protect and advance the financial system
for over 25 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Allen Yanchunis, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
One Tampa City Center Ste 700
201 N Franklin Street
Tampa, FL 33602-5157
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
Krystal Flores, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN - PHOENIX, AZ
2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 335
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (520) 870-7171
The Defendants are represented by:
Jacob Alexander Maskovich, Esq.
Meridyth Marie Andresen, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP - PHOENIX, AZ
2 N Central Ave., Ste. 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406
Phone: (602) 364-7000
Fax: (602) 364-7070
- and -
Gregory James Marshall, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP - PHOENIX, AZ
1 E Washington St., Ste. 2700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: (602) 382-6000
Fax: (602) 382-6070
ENCEPHALON INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Encephalon, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Encephalon, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03108
(S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Encephalon provides global teaching of Dr. Joe Dispenza's work
through events, media and training.[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
FALL RIVER FIVE: Class Action Suit Over Overdraft Fees Ok'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pat Murphy of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports that a Superior
Court judge has allowed a putative class action to go forward that
alleges a local bank unlawfully maximizes its revenues from
overdraft fees by delaying the availability of deposits and piling
on the charges whenever a debit transaction that has initially been
returned for insufficient funds is resubmitted for payment.
Judge Peter B. Krupp in Pereira v. Fall River Five Cents Savings
Bank, d/b/a BankFive denied a motion to dismiss claims for breach
of contract, breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair
dealing, and violations of Chapter 93A.
Plaintiff Justin Pereira filed his action against BankFive in the
Suffolk Business Litigation Session in May 2022. In a second
amended complaint filed in October, Pereira alleges that, while he
maintained a BankFive checking account, the defendant engaged in an
"unlawful" business practice in two ways.
First, he says the bank posts "deposits to customer accounts at the
very end of the business day after posting all debit items in order
to maximize its ability to assess $32 fees against its customer
accounts."
Secondly, he alleges that BankFive engages in a practice of
assessing multiple fees with regard to single debit transactions
that trigger overdrafts.
"Unbeknownst to customers, when Defendant reprocesses an electronic
payment item, [automated clearing house] item, or check for payment
after it was initially rejected for insufficient funds, Defendant
chooses to treat it as a new and unique item that is subject to yet
another fee," the complaint states.
In moving to dismiss, BankFive argues that it acted in conformity
with the clear language of customer agreements fully disclosed to
its accountholders.
BankFive's General Disclosures and Agreements provides that, with
the exception of cash deposits, "any items accepted for deposit
(including items drawn 'on us') will be given provisional credit
only until collection is final. . . . All transactions received
after our 'daily cut-off time' on a business day we are open, or
received on a day in which we are not open for business, will be
treated and recorded as if initiated on the next following business
day that we are open."
The disclosures tell accountholders: "if you make a deposit before
closing on a business day that we are open, we will consider that
day to be the day of your deposit.
However, if you make a deposit after closing, or on a day we are
not open, we will consider that the deposit was made on the next
business day we are open."
With regard to ATM transactions, the disclosures state that "if you
make a deposit at an ATM after 6:00 p.m. or on a day we are not
open, we will consider that the deposit was made on the next
business day that we are open."
Finally, the bank's schedule of fees advises customers that a $35
insufficient funds charge will be assessed for each returned
"item," a charge applicable to "overdrafts created by checks,
in-person withdrawals, ATM withdrawals, or by any other electronic
means."
Ruling on BankFive's motion to dismiss, Krupp concluded the
plaintiff had plausibly stated a claim for breach of contract.
"The Complaint identifies multiple dates on which plaintiff was
allegedly charged fees because BankFive made his deposits available
after it paid his withdrawals," Krupp wrote. "It also provides
screenshots of transactions posted on June 5, 2020, and June 19,
2020, which show that the challenged deposits were the last
transactions to post on those days. The [complaint] also alleges
that ‘each of the delayed deposits . . . were deposited one or
more days prior to the date they became available to [p]laintiff.'
Such allegations are sufficient to show a plausible entitlement to
relief on the Delayed Deposit Theory."
Krupp further rejected BankFive's argument that its fee schedule
unambiguously permitted it to charge additional fees each time a
merchant resubmitted a transaction for payment after the
transaction was initially declined for insufficient funds.
On that point, the judge found the term "item" in the fee schedule
to be sufficiently ambiguous to allow the plaintiff to proceed with
his claim based on multiple NSF charges.
"Neither the Fee Schedule nor any other Account Document defines
the word 'item' as used in the Fee Schedule," Krupp found. "A
reasonable interpretation of the term is that it refers to a single
transaction such that the re-presentment of a transaction for
payment does not constitute a new or different item."
The judge similarly found that the plaintiff stated plausible
claims for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair
dealing, as well as violations of Chapter 93A.
"[T]here is considerable ambiguity about whether BankFive's
practices were disclosed and authorized under the Account
Documents. To the extent BankFive argues that plaintiff’s 93A
claim should be dismissed because a simple breach of contract is
not sufficient to constitute a G.L.c. 93A violation, it bears
noting that a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing may establish conduct that is unfair and deceptive," the
judge said.
Ian D. Roffman The defendant bank is represented by Ian D. Roffman
of Nutter in Boston.
In an email, Roffman writes that his client believes its account
disclosures were "clear and accurate." According to Roffman,
despite standing by its disclosures, BankFive nonetheless
voluntarily stopped charging overdraft fees on representments
several years ago.
"BankFive could not challenge the accuracy of certain factual
allegations in its motion to dismiss, but it certainly intends to
do so at the appropriate stage of the litigation," Roffman adds.
Pereira's attorney, Michael S. Appel of Sugarman Rogers in Boston,
declines to comment.
Jamaica Plain banking litigator Kevin J. Handly sees the suit as
having merit.
"The [plaintiff in his complaint alleges] that the bank
intentionally delayed posting the deposits until the end of the
day," says Handly, director of the graduate banking law program at
Boston University. “If you accept that allegation of fact as
true, then you've got a good claim [for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and under 93A]. "
The customer agreements used by BankFive largely mirror those used
throughout the banking industry, Handly says, noting that there may
be potential for similar litigation against other banks.
"Banks generally use standardized documentation, and I think a
defect in that documentation is that oftentimes it does not include
a definition of the term 'item' that would make it clear that a
check or other charge to an account can be a multiple item if
re-presented by the merchant," he says. [GN]
GAOTU TECHEDU: Continues to Defend Zhang Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gaotu Techedu Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that the Company continues to defend itself
from the Zhang securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.
The Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in
a putative securities class action filed in federal court in
December 2022, captioned Zhang v. Gaotu Techedu Inc. et al., No.
1:22-cv-07966 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York). Plaintiffs purportedly brought the case on behalf of a class
of persons who purchased the Company's ADSs between March 5, 2021
and July 23, 2021, and alleged that the Company's public filings
contained misstatements and omissions in violation of the Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. As the case is
still in its preliminary stage, it cannot predict its outcome,
potential damages, or expenses that may be incurred.
GAOTUTECHEDU INC. develops educational software. The Company
offers
online K-12 large-class after-school tutoring as well as foreign
language, professional, and other courses. GaotuTechedu serves
students in China. [BN]
GEICO INDEMNITY: Bid for Class Certification in McCoy Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Murphy of PropertyCasualty360 reports that the U.S.
District Court in New Jersey granted plaintiff Diane McCoy class
certification in her claim brought against Geico which alleged
breach of contract after a 2018 collision rendered her vehicle a
total loss, and the insurer failed to pay title or transfer fees
for the vehicle.
According to the opinion, McCoy filed her complaint on May 6, 2020,
and alleged that she suffered a total loss of her insured vehicle
and made a covered claim for physical damage under the collision
and comprehensive coverages of her policy. That policy defines the
actual cash value with respect to collision and comprehensive
coverages as the "replacement cost of the auto or property less
depreciation or betterment." The complaint alleged that Geico does
not pay the agreed-on replacement costs because it fails to pay
costs such as transfer fees and registration transfer fees. [GN]
GEICO: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by March 1, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rieske v. Government
Employees Insurance Company Inc. (GEICO), Case No. 2:21-cv-04122
(E.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Anne Y. Shields entered an order that all
deadlines and issues set forth in the letter as to which the
parties agree are hereby adopted:
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by March 1, 2024
-- Expert discovery shall be completed by April 1, 2024.
The Court declines to enter a briefing schedule at this point with
respect to motions for class certification and decertification.
The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Government Employees Insurance Company is a private American auto
insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.[CC]
GENERAL PANTS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Pants Co
US-NY, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. General Pants Co US-NY, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02780 (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
General Pants Co US-NY, LLC -- https://www.generalpants.com/ --
sells a variety of clothing products and accessories. The Company
offers pants, shirts, jackets, gifts, leggings, eye wear, and other
items in a variety of different brands and styles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GEO SECURE: Continuance of Class Cert Hearing Sought
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE BRITNEY CASTILLO, an
individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v.
GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC; a Florida limited liability company; and
DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-00445-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.),
the Parties' ask the Court to enter an order granting a continuance
of approximately 120 days for the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.
On March 3, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification with a hearing date set for April 7, 2023.
On March 9, 2023, the Defendant's counsel substituted into the
case. On March 23, 2023, given the Defendant's counsel's recent
substitution into the case, the Parties met and conferred and
agreed to stipulate to modify the hearing date on the motion for
class certification to allow the Defendant sufficient time to
prepare and to file an Opposition.
The motion for preliminary approval in the Perez matter is
currently set to be heard on April 20, 2023. There is currently no
timeline for final approval of the class action settlement, but if
preliminary approval is granted, it is anticipated a final approval
hearing would be set at the April 20, 2023 hearing.
GEO's Secure Services division provides services on behalf of the
U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 11, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UQ1Dl2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
2330 Third Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 702-6760
Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
E-mail: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Damien P. Delaney, Esq.
Jason M. Yang, Esq.
Rukayat O. Salaam, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 688-9500
Facsimile: (213) 627-6342
E-mail: damien.delaney@akerman.com
jason.yang@akerman.com
rukayat.salaam@akerman.com
GRUBHUB INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Davitashvili Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRUBHUB INC., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion dated March 16, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
styled MARIAM DAVITASHVILI, ADAM BENSIMON, and MIA SAPIENZA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GRUBHUB INC. (a/d/b/a SEAMLESS), DOORDASH INC.,
POSTMATES INC., and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., in its own right and
as parent of wholly owned subsidiary UBER EATS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03000, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
The putative class action involves the contractual relationships
between restaurants and online platforms for restaurant meals. The
amended complaint alleges that three Defendants -- Grubhub, Uber
Technologies, Inc., and Postmates Inc. -- each unlawfully has fixed
prices for restaurant meals by entering into restrictive agreements
with restaurants that preclude those restaurants from charging
lower prices off-platform, i.e., in the "direct" markets for
restaurant meals and/or on other restaurant platforms.
The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants thus have caused them to pay
artificially high prices for restaurant meals. They seek damages
and injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and its
state analogues on behalf of themselves and three nationwide
classes of others similarly situated.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York entered an Order on March 30, 2022 denying the Defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On August 26, 2022, the Defendants filed motions to compel
arbitration of certain Named Plaintiffs' claims.
On March 16, 2023, Judge Kaplan signed a Memorandum Opinion denying
Defendants' motions to compel arbitration in their entirety. The
Order further states that Uber's motion to stay this action
pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 3 is denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned as Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc.,
Case No. 23-521, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on April 10, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants Grubhub Inc., DBA Seamless, et al., are
represented by:
Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
The New York Times Building
620 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 841-1097
- and -
David Jason Lender, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8153
Plaintiffs-Appellees Mariam Davitashvili, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented
by:
Devin Freedman, Esq.
FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP
1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1240
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 306-9211
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Holden Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark S. Holden and Richard Andisio, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GUARDIAN ANALYTICS, INC., ACTIMIZE
INC., and WEBSTER BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-02115-WJM-LDW
(D.N.J., April 14, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for
their failure to secure and safeguard their and at least 191,563
other individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII"),
including names, Social Security numbers, and financial account
numbers.
Between November 27, 2022 and January 26, 2023, unauthorized
individuals had access to Guardian's network systems and acquired
the PII of Plaintiffs and Class members (the "Data Breach"). The
Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class members to implement
and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and
disclosure. The Defendants breached that duty by, among other
things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices to protect their PII from unauthorized
access and disclosure.
As a result of the Defendants' inadequate security and breach of
their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and
Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This
action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. The
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
persons whose PII was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were required to provide their PII to Webster Bank
in connection with using banking services from Webster Bank.
Guardian is a company that provides "behavioral analytics and
machine learning solutions for preventing banking fraud and
anti-money laundering."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Pollock, Esq.
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
111 Broadway, Suite 1804
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 337-5361
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 621-2000
HERTZ CORPORATION: Sconce Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hertz
Corporation. The case is styled as Kyle Sconce, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0003738 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., April 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
The Hertz Corporation -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an American
car rental company based in Estero, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92318
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
HOME HEALTH: Fails to Pay Attendants' OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
FERUZA MIRZAMAKHMUDOVA, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICE OF NY INC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02764 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 13, 2023) seeks redress for
systematic underpayment of spread of hours and overtime wages,
failure in providing wage notices, failure in keeping accurate
employment records and failure in providing a non-discriminate
working environment.
The suit alleges that the Defendant fails to maintain and preserve
proper records required by law, fails to pay the Plaintiffs correct
overtime wages at one and one half times the basic minimum hourly
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week, fails to
pay the "spread of hours" premium required by law, and fails to
provide quality employment opportunity without discrimination, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New
York Human Rights Law, New York City Administrative Code and New
York Comp. Codes R. & Regs.
Ms. Feruza generally worked three 24-hour shifts per week. The
Defendant required her to be on the premises of the Defendant's
clients for 24 hours during any given 24-hour shift.
The Defendant systematically paid her a flat rate of $11.00 per
hour for a cap of 40 hours per week without ensuring that she was
paid for every hour that she worked. The Defendant has and
continues to have a practice and policy of assigning employees to
work extensive overtime hours but inputting far less hours worked
into their payroll system in order to systematically underpay their
workers, the lawsuit contends.
While employed by the Defendant, Ms. Feruza was prohibited from
wearing Hijab which is a traditional religion head covering worn by
Muslim women. She was also prohibited from praying inside the
premises. The Defendant engaged in unlawful discriminatory
practices against Ms. Feruza due to her religion, the lawsuit
added.
Ms. Feruza is a Muslim female immigrant from Uzbekistan. She worked
for the Defendant as a home attendant from July 27, 2017 to March,
2021 approximately 4 years.
Home Health is a provider of home health care for the elderly and
infirm in and around the City 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
E-mail: psim@simdepaola.com
HRM USA INC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HRM USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. HRM USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03103
(S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Heart Rate Monitors USA (HRM USA) --
https://www.heartratemonitorsusa.com/ -- is one of the leaders in
fitness and health technology.[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
HUA DA INC: Gannon Appeals ADA Suit Dismissal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephen Gannon filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 28, 2023 and Judgment
dated March 29, 2023, entered in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN GANNON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HUA DA INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-1650,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
This case, filed on February 28, 2022, is one of at least 26
lawsuits that Plaintiff Stephen Gannon, who uses a manually powered
wheelchair, filed between January 2022 and March 2022. As in those
cases, Gannon alleges that he was denied access to a public
accommodation -- in this case, a hybrid delicatessen and grocery
located at 130 9th Avenue in Manhattan, New York City that does
business as Chelsea Deli & Cafe -- in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act as well as state and local law.
On October 25, 2022, the Plaintiff filed first amended complaint.
On November 14, 2022 and November 30, 2022, the Defendant filed
motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing primarily
that Gannon lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief under the
ADA.
On March 28, 2023, Judge Jesse M. Furman signed a Memorandum
Opinion and Order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss without
prejudice to filing suit in state court. Because the Court
previously granted Gannon leave to amend and Gannon neither
suggests that he has additional facts that would cure the defects
discussed above nor requests leave to amend again, the Court
declines to sua sponte grant him another opportunity to amend, says
the order.
On March 29, 2023, the Clerk of Court entered judgment in
Defendants' favor consistent with the said Memorandum Opinion and
Order, and closed the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Gannon v. Hua Da Inc., Case No.
23-531, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on April 10, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Gannon, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Adam Ford, Esq.
FORD O'BRIEN LANDY LLP
275 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 858-0040
Defendants-Appellees Hua Da Inc., et al., are represented by:
Peter E. Sverd, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER SVERD, PLLC
225 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (646) 751-8743
- and -
Faris Hamtini, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FARIS S. HAMTINI, PC
3030 Northern Boulevard, Suite 401
Long Island City, NY 11101
Telephone: (718) 440-3396
IKON MOTORSPORTS: Fails to Pay Employees' OT Wages, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLENE AMERICA MURILLO and ALONDRA TACHIQUIN, as aggrieved
employees, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees under the
Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 v. IKON
MOTORSPORTS, INC., a California corporation; ADVANCE TUNING, LLC.,
a California limited liability company; SUITABLE STAFFING
SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV08228 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 13, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California state wage and hour laws.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to accurately track
and/or pay for all minutes actually worked; permitted employees to
work off the clock by requiring employees: to remain on-call, to
suffer under the Defendants' control due to long lines for clocking
in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift
tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and
continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to attend company
meetings off the clock, failing to include all forms of
remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay,
meal allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms of
remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where
overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for
the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; and
detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or
manipulation of time entries to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and
other Aggrieved Employees.
Plaintiffs Tachiquin and Murillo worked for the Defendants from
February 2022 through May 2022 and from April 2022 through June
2022, respectively.
Ikon offers autopart goods, services, and replacements.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Sarah H. Cohen, Esq.
Matthew J. Carraher, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
sarah@tomorrowlaw.com
matthew@tomorrowlaw.com
IMPERIAL SECURITY: Kennedy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Kennedy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Imperial Security and Consultants LLC, and John Myrtle, Case No.
1:23-cv-02790 (E.D.N.Y., April 14, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages, untimely paid wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and violations of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"), the NYLL's
Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA") and their supporting New York
State Department of Labor regulations.
The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants did not
state the correct gross wages, as defined by NYLL, for any employee
on any pay statement as required by NYLL or deductions from the
correct gross wages. The Plaintiff was not required to keep track
of his time, nor to his knowledge, did the Defendants utilize any
time tracking device, such as sign in sheets or punch cards, that
accurately reflected his actual hours worked. The Defendants did
not give any notice to the Plaintiff of his rate of pay, employer's
regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL.
The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at the rate of one and
one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of
forty per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a security guard at the Defendants'
security company.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control the security company
located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0048
Email: Jason@levinepstein.com
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Isip Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
--------------------------------------------------------
Armin Isip and Mathew George, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-21433-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2023), is brought
against ILS for its failure to secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI" (collectively, "Confidential Information") of more than 4.2
million individuals and for failing to provide timely, accurate,
and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and Class Members that their
Confidential Information had been compromised.
On March 14, 2023, ILS began notifying state attorneys general and
affected individuals that it had sustained a massive data breach in
which a hacker gained unauthorized access to its network between
June 30 and July 5, 2022 (the "Data Breach"). ILS admits that
during that period, "some information stored on the ILS network was
acquired by the unauthorized actor, and other information was
accessible and potentially viewed."
ILS admits the hacker accessed highly-sensitive Confidential
Information on ILS's network, including individuals' full name,
date of birth, Social Security number, medical record number,
clinical integrated network ("CIN") number, treatment information,
food delivery information, admission date, billing/claims
information, and health insurance information. ILS admits that the
Data Breach has compromised the Confidential Information of over
4.2 million individuals. ILS discovered the unauthorized access on
July 5, 2022, but failed to inform the public of the Data Breach
until more than eight months later.
The Data Breach occurred because ILS negligently failed to
implement reasonable security procedures and practices, failed to
disclose material facts surrounding its deficient data security
protocols, and failed to timely notify the victims of the Data
Breach.
As a result of ILS's failure to protect the sensitive information
it was entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiffs have already suffered
identity theft and fraud, and Plaintiffs and Class Members also now
face a significant risk of identity theft and fraud, financial
fraud, and other identity-related fraud now and into the indefinite
future, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were notified via letter dated March 14, 2023, that
they are a victim of the Data Breach.
ILS "provides a variety of managed services to several partner
health plans and their enrollees or referred individuals. ILS's
services include plan administration, nutrition support, and
comprehensive care management."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq,
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
Benjamin J. Stueve, Esq.
Brandi S. Spates, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 714-7100
Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
vahle@stuevesiegel.com
ben.stueve@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone & Facsimile: (918) 588-3400
Email: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com
INFINITY FASTENERS: $60K Class Settlement in Rendon Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC RENDON, individually on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, under the Private Attorney General Act
(PAGA), pursuant to Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq., Plaintiff v.
INFINITY FASTENERS, INC., a Kansas Corporation; and DOES 1-50;
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01538-ADA-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants the Plaintiff's unopposed
Motion for Approval of Settlement Pursuant to PAGA.
The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant and DOES 1-50,
alleging that they violated California's Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA"), Labor Code, Business & Professions Code, and the Fair
Employment and Housing Act. The parties reached a settlement, and
now before the Court is the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for
Approval of PAGA Settlement.
The Plaintiff initiated the action on June 14, 2020, in Fresno
County Superior Court. On April 10, 2020, he sent notice of his
claims to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
("LWDA").
The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on Sept. 17, 2020. In
the operative FAC, the Plaintiff alleged nine causes of action
(both individual claims and PAGA claims) for: (1) Retaliation for
complaints of unsafe working conditions pursuant to California
Labor Code Sections 6310(a),(c), 2699.5; (2) Retaliation for
complaints of illegal activity pursuant to California Labor Code
Sections 1102.5(b)(h), 2699.5; (3) Retaliation for complaints of
unpaid wages pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 98.6,
2699.5; (4) Withholding of wages pursuant to California Labor Code
Sections 222; 225.5, 2699.5; (5) Waiting Time penalties pursuant to
California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 2699.5; (6) Failure
to Reimburse for Travel and Other Expenses pursuant to California
Labor Code Sections 2802, 2699.5; (7) Accounting; (8) Unfair
Competition Law violations pursuant to California Business &
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.; and (9) PAGA Civil
Penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 2698 et seq.
More specifically, he alleged that the Defendant failed to provide
clear breakdowns of how commissions were calculated, failed to
reimburse him for work-related expenses, and retaliated against him
for complaints he made.
On Oct. 29, 2020, the matter was removed to the Court, and on Dec.
3, 2020, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The Court granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and
denied its Motion to Strike, dismissing the Plaintiff's fourth
cause of action for withholding of wages. On Jan. 10, 2023, the
parties participated in a court sponsored settlement conference and
reached a settlement on the Plaintiff's remaining individual and
PAGA claims. The Plaintiff thereafter filed the current Motion for
Approval of PAGA Settlement.
The proposed settlement agreement indicates that the Defendant will
pay a total settlement sum of $60,000 to settle the Plaintiff's
individual and PAGA claims. This includes a $3,000 PAGA settlement
sum and a $57,000 settlement of the Plaintiff's individual claims.
The PAGA settlement notes that the "PAGA portion of the settlement
encompasses two former employees of Employer, Eric Rendon and
Justin Rendon ('Covered Employees') in Case Nos. LWDA-CM-796597-20
and LWDA-782649-20." The Plaintiff's counsel further represents
that they did not discover any potentially aggrieved employees
beyond those two Covered Employees. From the $3,000 PAGA settlement
sum, the two Covered Employees will receive $500, Plaintiff's
counsel will receive $1,000, and the LWDA will receive $1,500.
In return for the PAGA settlement amount, the Plaintiff releases
the Defendant from any claims for civil penalties that could have
been assessed or collected by the Plaintiff or the LWDA based on
factual allegations of the First Amended Complaint. However, their
counsel represents that the settlement will not release the
Defendant from underlying individual claims for violations of the
California Labor Code that Covered Employees may have. The
settlement states that, "except as to the Eric Rendon who is
entering into an individual settlement agreement as to his claims,
the released claims do not include any underlying individual claims
or causes of action the Covered Employees may have, and relief they
may seek, against Released Parties with respect to violations of
the California Labor Code." No injunctive relief or other
non-monetary relief is included in the PAGA settlement.
Judge McAuliffe finds that the settlement terms meet the statutory
requirements set forth by PAGA. The statutory requirements of
Section 2699 regarding distribution of penalties and notice have
been met. Of the $3,000 gross PAGA settlement sum, $1,000 is
allotted to attorneys' fees, $1,500 (or 75% of net civil penalty
recovery) is allotted to the LWDA, and $500 (or 25% of net civil
penalty recovery) is allotted to the two Covered Employees.
Given the amounts allocated to LWDA and aggrieved employees, the
litigation and negotiation involved in achieving the settlement,
the potential risks of further litigation, and the fact that
aggrieved employees are not precluded from bringing actions against
Defendant for individual claims, Judge McAuliffe concludes that the
parties' PAGA settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and
adequate in view of PAGA's public policy goals.
Judge McAuliffe also finds that the attorneys' fees of $1,000
provided by the PAGA settlement are reasonable. The PAGA settlement
allocates $1,000 to attorneys' fees and costs. This represents
one-third of the $3,000 PAGA settlement amount. This requested
amount, however, is significantly less than the Plaintiff's
asserted lodestar of approximately $45,000. While the Plaintiff's
counsel Mr. Migliazzo did not attach billing or cost records to his
declaration, he states that this lodestar includes: $33,950 for his
approximately 97 hours of work billed at $350 per hour; $11,500 for
approximately 70 hours expended by Dusty Nunes as a law clerk and
attorney billed at $250 per hour for non-contingent clients; and
time expended by attorney Michael J.F. Smith billed at $400 per
hour for non-contingent clients. Judge McAuliffe finds those rates
to be reasonable hourly rates in this district.
Accordingly, Judge McAuliffe finds that the settlement terms meet
the statutory requirements and are fundamentally fair, reasonable,
and adequate in view of the PAGA's policy objectives. She grants
the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement.
The Plaintiff's counsel will receive $1,000 in attorneys' fees and
costs.
The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the PAGA
settlement agreement and any deadlines or procedures for
distribution therein.
Within 60 days from the date of the Order, the parties will file a
stipulation signed by all parties to dismiss the case pursuant to
Rule 41(A)(1)(A)(ii).
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yy28kj6m from Leagle.com.
JRCRUZ CORP: Court Certifies Class in Thomas Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LATISHA THOMAS and AIESHAI LONDON, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. JRCRUZ
CORP., Defendant. JRCRUZ CORP., Third-Party Plaintiff v. THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Third-Party Defendant, Index No. 511297/2020, Motion
Sequence Nos. 5 & 6 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Debra Silber of the New York
Supreme Court, Kings County:
a. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification;
b. grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint.
The Plaintiffs commenced the instant action by electronically
filing a summons and verified complaint in the Court on June 30,
2020. The named Plaintiffs allege that they are "former
construction flaggers" who, from December of 2018 to March of 2021,
worked for the Defendant on several public works projects on the
roadways of New York City.
The subject construction projects were pursuant to contracts
entered into between the Defendant and New York City municipal
departments, including but not limited to the New York City
Department of Transportation and the New York City Department of
Design and Construction. The main allegation is that construction
contractors, such as the Defendant, that perform work pursuant to
public works contracts, are required by the New York State Labor
Law to pay certain employees a minimum local prevailing wage rate,
including any applicable supplemental benefits and overtime for
hours worked beyond 40 hours per week, eight hours per day, for
hours worked on Saturdays and Sundays and hours worked during the
evening.
The Plaintiffs claim that their work qualified them to receive
"prevailing wages" under the Labor Law; however, the Defendant
failed to pay them accordingly. Moreover, they contend that the
Labor Law required the Defendant, upon employing them, to provide
them with formal wage notices that contained specified information,
such as the name of the employer, the regular pay rate, overtime
pay rate and the regular pay day. The Plaintiffs further claim that
the Defendant failed to provide these required wage notices.
Moreover, they allege that these practices constituted the
Defendant's pattern with respect to all employees.
The Plaintiffs assert breach of contract claims (and alternatively,
unjust enrichment claims) for the unpaid prevailing wages, as well
as claims for statutory damages which arise because of the
Defendant's failure to provide the requisite wage notices.
Additionally, given the Defendant's practices with respect to its
employees, they contend that these claims should be certified as
class action claims on behalf of the applicable current and former
employees of defendant from June 30, 2014, six years prior to the
date of commencement.
On Oct. 20, 2020, the Defendant electronically filed an answer to
the complaint which denied the allegations therein. As relevant to
the instant motions, it asserted, among other things, general
denials that the Plaintiffs performed work that qualified them for
prevailing wages and averring that the stated claims are not proper
for the class action mechanism. Discovery then commenced.
Pursuant to CPLR 901, a timely motion for class certification must
be made within 60 days after the last answer is due. On January 27,
2021, plaintiffs moved for an extension of time to move for
certification of the proposed class, arguing, in essence, that at
least some discovery was necessary before a motion for class
certification could reasonably be made. Defendant opposed the
motion, arguing, among other things, that plaintiffs needed no
discovery to timely move for class certification. By order dated
May 14, 2021, another justice of this court, noting that it has
"discretion to extend the deadline upon good cause shown, such as
plaintiff's need to conduct class certification discovery," found
that such good cause existed, and extended the deadline to "within
60 days after defendant's deposition is held."
On July 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs made the instant motion for an
order, among other things, certifying the proposed class. The
Defendant responded with the instant motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs argue that the matter is, in all respects, a wage
claim class action for which certification is both preferred and
routinely granted by courts of this State. For these reasons, they
conclude that their motion should be granted in its entirety.
In support of its motion for an order dismissing the Plaintiffs'
complaint, both their prevailing wage claims and their wage notice
claims, the Defendant concludes that the Plaintiffs' motion is
untimely and should not be considered, and that all of the class
action claims should be dismissed with prejudice. Alternatively, it
concludes that the Court must deny the Plaintiffs' motion and grant
its motion dismissing the complaint, or, in the alternative,
dismiss the Plaintiffs' third cause of action regarding wage
notices.
Judge Silber grants the Plaintiffs' motion insofar as it seeks
certification of the proposed class with respect to the
prevailing-wage claims. She says the Plaintiffs have demonstrated
four -- numerosity, commonality, typicality and superiority -- of
the five CPLR 901(a) requirements for class certification.
Judge Silber finds that the affidavits submitted by the Plaintiffs,
which describe the Defendant's pattern of failing to pay prevailing
wages with respect to "flagger" duties, and which list more than
200 of the Defendant's current and former employees who allegedly
performed "flagger" duties as putative class members, establish the
requisite numerosity, commonality and typicality. Moreover, a class
action is the superior vehicle for resolving wage disputes since
the damages allegedly suffered by an individual class member are
likely to be insignificant, and the costs of prosecuting individual
actions would result in the class members having no realistic day
in court.
Moreover, Judge Silber finds that Pelton Graham LLC can adequately
represent the class. She also rejects the Defendant's argument that
the instant motion for class certification was untimely. The record
reflects that the Plaintiffs electronically filed the instant
motion for class certification on July 26, 2022; accordingly, the
motion is timely. It is also noted that the action was commenced in
June 2020, at the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Lastly, Judge Silber finds that the proposed class action notice
essentially comports with CPLR 904; the Plaintiffs are directed to
provide proposed class members with notice of the class action in
accordance with the CPLR. The proposed notice at Document 114 will
be amended to remove the references to "wage notices," and will
provide for 60 days to opt out. Additionally, Judge Silber directs
that the Defendant, within 45 days of service of a copy of the
Order with notice of entry, will provide the Plaintiffs with the
names, telephone numbers, last known addresses and email addresses
of all proposed class members. However, Judge Silber declines to
order disclosure of Social Security numbers at this stage; absent a
showing that class notices were returned as undeliverable, such an
order compelling disclosure of the social security numbers would be
premature.
Accordingly, Judge Silber grants the branch of the Plaintiffs'
motion for certification of the proposed class, namely, all persons
employed by Defendant JRCruz Corp. from June 30, 2014 through the
date of entry of judgment in the case who worked as non-union
flaggers on public works projects in New York City and were not
paid prevailing wages, insofar as the Plaintiffs' claims are based
on the Defendant's failure to pay prevailing wages. She certifies
the proposed class.
Judge Silber denies the branch of the motion of Plaintiffs Latisha
Thomas and Aieshai London for certification of the proposed class,
namely, all persons employed by Defendant JRCruz Corp. from June
30, 2014 through the date of entry of judgment in the case who
worked as non-union flaggers on public works projects in New York
City, insofar as the Plaintiffs' claims, as set forth in their
third cause of action, are based on defendant's alleged failure to
provide wage notices, a violation of NY Labor Law 195, actionable
pursuant to Labor Law 198(1-b). The two named Plaintiffs may pursue
these claims solely as individual claims.
Pelton Graham LLC is appointed counsel for the class.
Judge Silber approves the proposed class notice as modified and
directs the Plaintiffs to provide notice to the class members in
accordance with the CPLR.
The Defendant shall, within 45 days of service of a copy of the
Order with notice of entry, provide the Plaintiffs with the names,
telephone numbers, last known addresses and email addresses (if
known) of all class members.
Judge Silber grants the Defendant's motion solely to the extent
that the Plaintiff's third cause of action, their wage notice class
claims pursuant to Labor Law Section 198(1-b), are dismissed
without prejudice to the proposed class members bringing
individual, and not class-based, wage notice claims. She otherwise
denies the Defendant's motion.
The Order constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Decision/Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ms4ubm from Leagle.com.
KELLY SERVICES: Kring Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Kring, individually and for others similarly situated v.
KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC Case No. 2:23-cv-10858-MFL-EAS (E.D.
Mich., April 14, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from Kelley Services Global, LLC (the Defendant),
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law (WPCL).
Like the Day Rate Workers, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than
40 hours in a week. But the Defendant never paid the Plaintiff and
the Day Rate Workers overtime. Instead, the Defendant paid the
Plaintiff and the Day Rate Workers a flat amount for each day
worked (a "day rate") without overtime compensation. The Defendant
never paid the Plaintiff or the Day Rate Workers on a "salary
basis."
The Defendant' uniform day rate pay scheme violates the FLSA, the
PMWA, and the WPCL by depriving the Plaintiff and the Day Rate
Workers of overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a
workweek. In addition to the Plaintiff or the Day Rate Workers' day
rates, The Defendant uniformly paid these employees per diems each
day they worked. But the Defendant never included these per diems
in calculating the Plaintiff or the Day Rate Workers' regular rates
of pay for overtime purposes. The Defendant per diem pay scheme
violates the FLSA, PMWA, and WPCL by failing to pay the Plaintiff
or the Day Rate Workers 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, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Start Up Engineer and
Construction Superintendent assigned to provide services to Kelley
Services' client, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products) in
Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas.
Kelly Services is an employment and staffing company with global
operations, including in Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
Phone: 248-542-6300
Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
LACTALIS HERITAGE: Faces Mosley Suit Over Managers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian T. Mosley, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees v. Lactalis Heritage Dairy Inc.; Kraft Heinz Foods
Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV08324
(Cal. Super., Apr. 14, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to pay
all wages (including minimum and overtime wages) to the Plaintiff
and other aggrieved employees in violation of California Labor Code
and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
The Defendant allegedly failed to pay premium wages to the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees who were denied proper meal
periods and proper rest periods, the lawsuit claims. As a result of
Defendant's intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this
burden, the Defendant fails to properly calculate and/or pay all
required compensation for work performed by the Aggrieved Employees
and violated the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated
thereunder, says the suit.
Beginning in December 2017, Kraft employed the Plaintiff in Los
Angeles, California as a "Customer Category Manager" first Oscar
Mayer team then later for the cheese product team.
Lactalis is a dairy company that specializes in producing and
distributing dairy products, including cheeses, yogurts, butter,
cream, and other milk products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aidin D. Ghavimi, Esq.
Ilana N. Fine, Esq.
STARPOINT, LC
15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite PH16
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (310) 424-9971
Facsimile: (424) 255-4035
E-mail: service@starpointlaw.com
LAKE GEORGE STEAMBOAT: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lake George Steamboat
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Lake George Steamboat
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03092 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lake George Steamboat Company -- https://lakegeorgesteamboat.com/
-- offers daily cruises on its three unique ships during summer
months.[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
LANNETT CO: Bid for Securities Fraud Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Woolley of Bloomberg Law reports that Generic-drug
manufacturer Lannett Co. Inc. failed to convince the Third Circuit
on April 18, 2023 to toss a lower court's order certifying a
securities-fraud class.
The University of Puerto Rico Retirement System brought its
proposed class action against Lannett alleging the plaintiff
purchased artificially inflated stock prices after the drugmaker
misrepresented a price-fixing investigation into the company.
Class certification was appropriate because "UPRRS properly
asserted a single, long-accepted damages theory (the out-of-pocket
loss theory) tied to a single theory of liability," Judge Jane R.
Roth of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded.
[GN]
LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Discloses Subscribers' Info to Facebook
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIM PETERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, SIDEARM SPORTS, LLC,
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN and UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN
d/b/a UNL DEPARTMENT OF ATHLETICS, Case No. 8:23-cv-00146 (D. Neb.,
Apr. 16, 2023) arises from the Defendants failure to disclose on
the Team Website that subscribers' personal identifying information
(PII) would be captured by the Facebook Pixel utilized by the
Defendants, and then transferred to Facebook thereby exposing the
subscribers' PII to any person of ordinary technical skill who
received that data, in violation of Video Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants purposefully implemented
and utilized the Pixel, which tracks user activity on the Team
Website and discloses that information to Facebook to gather
valuable marketing data. The Pixel cannot be placed on a Team
Website without steps taken directly by the Defendants or on behalf
of Defendants (e.g., by a website manager). The Pixel cannot be
placed on the Team Website by Facebook without the knowledge and
cooperation by Defendants, the Plaintiff contends.
The Defendants violated the VPPA the moment, and each time,
Plaintiff and class members requested, obtained, or watched a video
on the Team Website and had their PII shared, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to
immediately (i) remove the Pixel from the Team Website, or (ii)
add, and obtain, the appropriate consent from subscribers.
Mr. Peterson subscribed to Nebraska Cornhuskers' newsletters since
2016.
Learfield is a collegiate sports marketing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pamela A. Car, Esq.
William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C.
2120 S. 72nd Street, Suite 1125
Omaha, NE 68124
Telephone: (402) 391-8484
E-mail: pacar@cox.net
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney Maccarone, Esq.
Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
gishimoto@zlk.com
LOANCARE LLC: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loancare, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Yamita Anderson, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Loancare, LLC, Sierra Pacific Mortgage
Company, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2023-00337903-CU-PO-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other PI/PD/WD - Civil Unlimited."
LoanCare -- https://www.myloancare.com/ -- is a top national
subservicer, provides loan servicing solutions that assist the
lending industry achieve optimal asset performance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Thai Appeals Sanctions Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ANH TUYET THAI, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated March 15, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled ANH TUYET THAI, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES; WILLIAM VILLASENOR; DULCE SANCHEZ; and STATE AND/OR LOCAL
AGENTS LADA DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00583-WQH-NLS,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, San Diego.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Don Doan and Tommy Nguyen
were previously named Plaintiffs in the lawsuit but were dismissed
with prejudice on Aug. 18, 2016. The operative complaint at that
time was the Second Amended Complaint, and the Plaintiffs alleged
in that complaint that they had been the subject of a campaign of
intimidation by agents and employees of the SSA after they filed
affidavits in another class action against the SSA captioned Diep
Nguyen, Anh Thai, et al. v. SSA, 13-2036 (S.D. Cal. 2003). Doan and
Nguyen were dismissed with prejudice because they did not file
affidavits in the prior action.
The Plaintiffs then filed a Third Amended Complaint. In that
complaint, Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez were named for the
first time as "armed agents" who were investigators with the Los
Angeles District Attorney Investigators Unit and members of the Los
Angeles Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit. Doan and Nguyen
were not named as Plaintiffs in the complaint. The complaint was
again dismissed. The Court also denied a motion for reconsideration
on the dismissal, and entered judgment in favor of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. They appealed the dismissal of their claims against
Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez and the appellate court reversed,
finding that a plausible claim could exist against them for
entering Plaintiff Anh Thai's home without her consent. In
addition, Doan and Nguyen appealed their dismissal from the Second
Amended Complaint and the appellate court also reversed in part,
finding that the complaint plausibly alleged that state and/or
local law enforcement agents of the SSA's CDI unit carrying guns
and police badges entered their homes without their consent but
their other claims were properly dismissed because they did not
submit affidavits in the prior lawsuit.
The Defendants then requested the entry of a protective order and
for an order authorizing the release of the SSA files pertaining to
Doan, and Nguyen. On Sept. 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Nita L.
Stormes granted the Defendants' motion and issued an order
authorizing the SSA to release any SSA investigative files
pertaining to Doan and Nguyen. The Magistrate Judge also entered a
protective order in the case. She made modifications to the
proposed protective order. Magistrate Judge Stormes further denied
requests for sanctions and fees declined to impose monetary
sanction on either party.
On September 8, 2021, Magistrate Judge Stormes granted Defendants'
Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute No. 2.
On October 14, 2021, District Judge William Q. Hayes denied
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the motion for
extension of time to file motion for class certification; as well
as denied Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint.
On October 29, 2021, Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment and supplemental motion for partial summary judgment were
denied through an Order entered by District Judge Hayes.
On April 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal following the
April 5, 2022 Order signed by District Judge Hayes denying
Plaintiffs' motion for relief from the Magistrate Judge's Order;
denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration; and denying
Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendants' answer, motion for default
judgment, and motion for reconsideration.
On August 3, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to enforce
sanctions against Plaintiffs' Counsel pursuant to September 8, 2021
Order.
On August 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs file a cross motion to strike
Defendant's August 3, 2022 motion to enforce sanctions against
Plaintiffs' Counsel pursuant to September 8, 2021 Order.
On March 15, 2023, Magistrate Judge Stormes entered an Order (1)
granting the motion to enforce sanctions; and (2) denying the cross
motion to strike the motion to enforce sanctions.
The appellate case is captioned as Anh Thai, et al. v. County of
Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 23-55326, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 10, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Don Doan, Tommy Nguyen and Anh Tuyet Thai
Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 17, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by May 10, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on June 8, 2023;
-- Appellants Don Doan, Tommy Nguyen and Anh Tuyet Thai opening
brief is due on July 17, 2023;
-- Appellees County of Los Angeles, Dulce Sanchez and William
Villasenor answering brief is due on August 17, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ANH TUYET THAI, et al., are represented by:
Alexandra Tran Manbeck, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA T. MANBECK
4531 University Avenue
San Diego, CA 92105
Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., are represented
by:
Tomas A. Guterres, Esq.
COLLINS + COLLINS, LLP
790 E Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 243-1100
- and -
Megan Lieber, Esq.
COLLINS AND COLLINS LLP
2175 N California Boulevard, Suite 835
Walnut City, CA 94596
Telephone: (510) 844-5100
- and -
Christie Bodnar Swiss, Esq.
COLLINS AND COLLINS, LLP
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 207
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Telephone: (760) 274-2110
LUME DEODORANT: Johnson Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------
Oneika Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LUME DEODORANT, LLC, d/b/a LUME, Case No. 707837/2023
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., April 14, 2023), is brought seeking to
redress the false, misleading, and deceptive advertising and
packaging claims that Lume has made in connection with the sale of
its purportedly "odor "blocking" and "controlling" natural
deodorant marketed as being clinically proven to "control odor for
72 hours."
Lume aggressively markets its "natural" stick deodorants as an
incredible "whole body" panacea that is specially formulated to
prevent and eliminate odors emanating from "pits," "privates,"
"underboobs," "belly buttons," "butt cracks," and "more." The face
of Lume deodorant is Dr. Shannon Klingman, an obstetrician
gynecologist, with no discernable credentials in microbiology,
bacteriology, or the study of human olfactory receptors. Dr.
Klingman dubiously claims that she personally developed Lume's
secret odor taming formula after years of treating women
complaining of embarrassing vaginal odors--only to later claim that
the odor eliminating properties of Lume worked just as well
everywhere else on the human body.
Lume's false claim to fame is rooted in the manner in which it
purportedly functions that is, Lume claims to work by "completely
preventing" odors from forming in the first place, rather than
simply masking bad smells like some other standard deodorants on
the market.
Shamelessly exploiting the latest "beauty health" trends, Lume
claims that its odor preventing deodorant products are naturally
"powered by mandelic acid," an alpha hydroxy acid derived from
almonds that has long been used as a skin exfoliant in acne scrubs
and face lotions. Notably, the exfoliant manufacturers do not make
the claims of neutralizing bacterial metabolism as does Defendant.
What Dr. Klingman failed to consider, is that aside from being
generally caused by a chemical reaction when bacteria living on the
skin interact with sweat excreted by eccrine and apocrine glands
(contained in hair follicles), malodorous scents can also be caused
by various underlying medical conditions. These include diabetes,
gout, menopause, overactive thyroid, hyperhidrosis (excessive
sweating), liver disease, kidney disease, and a variety of other
infectious ailments. A continual flaw throughout the marketing by
Dr. Klingman is that human body odor is homogenous in origin,
composition, and chemical interaction. In addition, the consumption
of certain vegetables such as onions, garlic, cabbage, broccoli, or
cauliflower, as well as substances such as monosodium glutamate,
caffeine, and alcohol, can all result in less than pleasant bodily
odors. In other words, there are a myriad factors, genetic and
external, that cause body odor.
Despite Lume's attempts at the homogenization of all human odor as
simply emanating from generic "bacteria," in reality there are many
different organisms, at many different locations within the human
body that create odor. As a result of the human body's natural
variance in microbiota, effective products for odor control are
naturally limited to traditional deodorants and antiperspirants,
with little leeway to depart from well-established formulas that
are known to be effective.
Given the crowded market, deodorant manufacturers like Lume have
found themselves scrambling to break away from their competitors by
eschewing aluminum and other chemicals (that is, compounds that
actually work to curb bodily odors) in favor of "natural,"
alternative formulas with an appeal to a growing, health conscious
generation of consumers. Unlike many of its competitors in the
"natural" deodorant market, however, Lume has unscrupulously
crossed the line from health fad and stepped firmly into the realm
of science fiction by falsely claiming that its deodorant products
have been rigorously tested and found to be "clinically proven" to
"completely prevent" bacterial reactions on the surface of the
skin.
Contrary to Lume's extravagant and misleading claims, it is
absolutely false that mandelic acid, or any of the other
constituent ingredients in Lume's deodorant products, is clinically
proven to prevent reactions between bacterial microorganisms and
human sweat so as to entirely disrupt the process through which
bodily odors are produced for a lengthy period of 72 hours. By this
action, the Plaintiff seeks to redress Lume's unfair and deceptive
marketing campaign built upon the misleading claims that it makes
and to obtain the financial recompense to which the Plaintiff and
her fellow class members are entitled, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Lume's Natural Solid Stick Deodorant
(Lavender Sage).
The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells Lume deodorant,
through Lumedeodorant.com and Amazon.com, as well as
brick-and-mortal retail stores like Walmart and Target.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Denlea, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
Stan Sharovskiy, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
White Plains, NY 10604
Phone: (914) 331-0100
Fax:(914)331-0105
Email: idenlea@denleacarton.com
icarton@denleacarton.com
ssharovskiy@denleacarton.com
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Houston Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brian Houston filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated March 15, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled Brian
Houston, Plaintiff v. County of Maricopa, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00875-SPL-MTM, in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona, Phoenix.
On May 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this suit seeking declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as punitive damages, for
injuries allegedly arising from the publication of his mugshot and
other information on the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office website.
The Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested by the Phoenix Police
Department on January 27, 2022, and charged with assault. He was
booked into the Maricopa County Jail, and his booking photograph
("mugshot") was taken. The Plaintiff's mugshot, as well as his
name, birthdate, and "Crime Type," were then published on the
"Mugshot Lookup" page of the MCSO website for approximately three
days. The Plaintiff further alleges that "the charges against
[Plaintiff] were not pursued . . . and his case was dismissed."
Nevertheless, "at least one" third party website "scraped"
Plaintiff's mugshot and other information and published it on its
own website, causing "permanent[] damage" to Plaintiff's "business
and personal reputation" and "plac[ing Plaintiff] at risk of
identity theft, fraud and extortion," says the suit.
On July 13, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On August 4, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim/motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
On March 15, 2023, Judge Steven P. Logan signed an Order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiff's
motion to certify class was denied as moot. A Clerk's Judgment was
also entered asserting that Plaintiff take nothing, and the
complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Brian Houston v. Maricopa,
County of, et al., Case No. 23-15524, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 10, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Brian Houston Mediation Questionnaire was due on
April 17, 2023;
-- Appellant Brian Houston opening brief is due on June 6,
2023;
-- Appellees Maricopa, County of, Penzone and Paul Penzone
answering brief is due o July 6, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BRIAN HOUSTON, a married man; and other persons
similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel Linn Kloberdanz, Esq.
BERENS, KOZUB, KLOBERDANZ & BLONSTEIN, PLC
7047 E Greenway Parkway, Suite 140
Scottsdale, AZ 85254-8109
Telephone: (480) 624-2777
Defendants-Appellees MARICOPA, COUNTY OF, Arizona, et al., are
represented by:
Sarah Lynn Barnes, Esq.
Danielle Nicole Chronister, Esq.
BROENING OBERG WOODS & WILSON, PC
2800 N Central Avenue, Suite 1600
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1580
Telephone: (602) 271-7700
MAZDA MOTOR: Sonneveldt Appeals Summary Judgment, Decert. Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Terry Sonneveldt, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated February 23, 2023 and Judgment dated
March 4, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled Terry Sonneveldt, et
al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 1, 2022, the
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action involving the 2007-2016
model years of the Mazda CX-9 vehicle and the 2009-2013 model years
of the Mazda6 vehicle. According to the complaint, those vehicles
incorporate the Mazda Cyclone Engine, which contains "a defect in
design, manufacturing, materials and/or workmanship that causes the
water pump to suddenly and prematurely fail well-before the end of
the useful life of the engine."
The Plaintiffs' defect theory relies in large part on the opinions
of their engineering expert, Dr. Christopher White. White opines
that the water pumps in the Class Vehicles are defective because a
key component part of those pumps' mechanical seal, which prevents
coolant from flowing into the drive shaft side of the pump and into
the engine's oil pan, is defective.
Specifically, White contends that the water pumps' elastomer
bellows is defectively designed because it is made of hydrogenated
acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) and is in constant,
unshielded contact with high temperature coolant. Because the HNBR
bellows is constantly exposed to high temperature coolant, it
degrades and loses elasticity or cracks.
On March 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Defendants opposed on April 29, 2022. The
Defendants also filed motions to exclude the testimony of Steven
Gaskin and Colin Weir and the report and testimony of Christopher
White.
On Oct. 21, 2022, the Court denied the Defendants' motions to
exclude expert testimony and granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court certified eight
Classes including California, Song-Beverly, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia but it denied the
certification of proposed Louisiana and North Carolina Classes.
The Defendants sought a review of this order on November 5, 2022.
On February 23, 2023, the Judge Josephine L. Staton entered Order
(1) GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Exclude The Merits Report and
Testimony of Dr. Christopher White; (2) GRANTING Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment; (3) DECERTIFYING Classes; and (4) DENYING AS
MOOT Otter Pending Motions.
On March 4, 2023, Judge Station ruled that Plaintiffs shall take
nothing, and the action is dismissed on the merits, judgment is
entered in favor of MNAO and MC on all claims pending before the
Court by all Plaintiffs remaining before the Court, and Defendants
MNAO and MC shall be entitled to recover costs.
The new appellate case is captioned as Terry Sonneveldt, et al. v.
Mazda Motor of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55325, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
April 10, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Jacqueline S. Aslan, Lawrence Bohana, Monika
Bohana, Lewis Delvecchui, David Dennis, Tim Halwas, Brian Hume,
Christopher Lacasse, Jean Levasseur, Erin Matheny, Shannon Proven,
Esther Wright Schneider, Terry Sonneveldt and Jon Sowards Mediation
Questionnaire was due on April 17, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by May 10, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on June 8, 2023;
-- Appellants Jacqueline S. Aslan, Lawrence Bohana, Monika
Bohana, Lewis Delvecchui, David Dennis, Tim Halwas, Brian Hume,
Christopher Lacasse, Jean Levasseur, Erin Matheny, Shannon Proven,
Esther Wright Schneider, Terry Sonneveldt and Jon Sowards opening
brief is due on July 17, 2023;
-- Appellees Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda Motor of America,
Inc. answering brief is due on August 17, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TERRY SONNEVELDT, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Tyler Graden, Esq.
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
- and -
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON
8648 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
- and -
Jeffrey Alan Koncius, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
- and -
Andrew Love, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
One Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
950 W University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
- and -
Robert Michael Rothman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Defendants-Appellees MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Mazda North
American Operations, et al., are represented by:
Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Esq.
Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
2049 Century Park, E Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 324-3412
MEMPHIS, TN: Class Action Suit Over Delays in Rape Kits Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Senjanovic of Tennessee Lookout reports Debby Dalhoff says
she's always been a happy, outgoing person around friends and
family.
"What they don't know is when I sit on my back porch at night, what
goes through my mind," said the 68-year-old retired FedEx manager.
"It's constant. It never ends. That inner demon that you can't get
rid of until we can get some closure."
Dalhoff is one small step closer to closure -- maybe -- with last
month's ruling by a Shelby County Circuit Court judge that the
lawsuit Janet Doe v. City of Memphis, over the decades-long
mishandling of thousands of rape investigations, could proceed as a
class action. This case began winding its way through the courts in
2014, not long after the Memphis Police Department revealed a
backlog of more than 12,000 forensic rape exams, or rape kits.
Dalhoff is one of dozens who signed on to that lawsuit, and has
been hoping for years that it would get a class-action
certification. She calls the recent ruling a milestone, but only a
"breather."
She says she won't celebrate yet, with all the work that still lies
ahead. Attorneys have to track down as many survivors as they can
to join the class action; that is, those who are still alive,
because some of the mishandled cases date back nearly half a
century.
"I've thought about volunteering my time from a clerical
standpoint, see if there's anything I could do to help [ attorneys]
build a spreadsheet, and contacting these people," said Dalhoff,
over the phone from her home in Memphis.
She takes a deep breath. "I shouldn't even have to be doing all
this."
Dalhoff is tired. She's been seeking closure for 38 years, and for
nearly a decade now has been doing the investigative legwork that
police never did. When she was 29, Dalhoff and her roommate were
blindfolded, gagged, hogtied, raped and tortured for hours, by a
man who then washed off traces of himself on them and even vacuumed
the house, taking the vacuum cleaner bag with him.
"Think about this, in 1985 DNA wasn't that popular, but obviously
this person was someone who knew something about a cleanup, DNA.
Because of that I was told in the beginning of my investigation
that they were looking for someone possibly in law enforcement,
fireman, paramedic, policeman. So they always had that in the back
of their mind."
Years went by, though, without any new information. When she heard
about the massive backlog in 2014, she started calling the police
again, obtained her case files and had her case reopened. In 2015,
an MPD officer told Dalhoff her evidence was tested, but no DNA was
found.
"Well, that's a bold-faced lie," said Dalhoff, "because [former
Shelby County District Attorney] Amy Weirich told me that my kit
had never been found, had never been tested. In fact, I was able to
then obtain the documents that showed where every piece of my
evidence, not my sexual assault kit, but [other] evidence that
could have had DNA on it…was all destroyed."
Dalhoff's rape took place before DNA testing became a widespread
practice, and before the Memphis Police Department gained access to
an FBI database of DNA records called CODIS, where samples can be
matched. That explains some of the backlog, until about 20 years
ago, but not the disorganized storage of thousands of kits across
the city. Or the destruction of countless others, in part because
of storage overcrowding, but also in the erroneous belief that the
statute of limitations on the cases had passed.
Dalhoff saw documentation that everything from her bed linens to
the bindings used in the attack were dumped in a Memphis landfill
in the 1990s.
"I had so much high hopes when I found out about the backlog, to
then find out [my kit's] at the bottom of a dump. How much lower
can it be?" said Dalhoff. "They let perpetrators run free that
could've been in jail. They've destroyed so many women."
Thousands of survivors never saw justice, and an untold number of
rapists would continue to attack others. Based on the M.O. of
Dalhoff's assault, authorities told her they believed the same man
-- a former neighbor and firefighter who has since died -- was
responsible for raping at least four other women. And he grew
increasingly vicious, even running a needle and thread through one
victim's nipple, to yank on it.
"One of the most heinous crimes"
What's striking about a case like Dalhoff's is that it's not a
he-said/she-said version of events reflective of most sexual
assaults, which are committed by someone the victim knows and which
police and legislators nationwide have been slow to even recognize
as a crime.
Still, Dalhoff's case languished, uninvestigated, for decades.
It’s that kind of negligence that attorney Gary Smith, who is
representing the class-action survivors, said helped them establish
that while sexual assault is “one of the most heinous crimes that
there is, [it] did not have a priority within the sexual crimes
unit” of the Memphis Police Department.
Smith calls the recent ruling "a huge victory, but it doesn't
portend a quick end to the case by any means. Unless the city wants
to see this thing come to an end." So far, though, he said there's
been no talk of a settlement from the city.
Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland declined to share his thoughts on the
ruling, or the possibility of a settlement before the case goes to
trial. A spokeswoman for the mayor told the Tennessee Lookout, "We
can't comment on litigation."
How a system failure left a rapist free to attack again
Smith also represents Alicia Franklin, whose lawsuit against the
city of Memphis was dismissed the same day that the class-action
was certified, by a different judge. Franklin, who is Black, was
raped at gunpoint, in 2021, by Cleotha Henderson, who in Sept. 2023
would kidnap, rape and kill Eliza Fletcher, a white kindergarten
teacher whose case received national attention.
The DNA results from Franklin's rape kit were reported after
Fletcher went missing; indeed, Henderson was charged with
Franklin's rape after he was already in custody over Fletcher's
murder. Both women's rape kits were submitted by MPD to the
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation for processing. According to a
TBI statement, Franklin's was not expedited, nor was there any
suspect information attached to it, even though she knew
Henderson's name. The rape happened on what was meant to be a
dinner date; the two met through a dating app.
State Sen. London Lamar says Fletcher's case "put the idea of rape
kits back into the public eye and made it a pressing issue," which
is good. However, she added, it's no secret that some rape kits get
preferential treatment within an already flawed system.
"When black girls go missing and get kidnapped and raped, are we
stopping the whole police force to go look for them? No," said
Lamar. "Are we the public marching and doing candlelight vigils for
them? No. So we also as a society, as a legislative body, have got
to realize that there are still lives that are more valuable than
others in the way that we handle people's cases and our criminal
justice system."
The Memphis Democrat has a bill (SB0014/HB0024) working its way
through the General Assembly -- it passed unanimously in the state
Senate, but still has to clear the House -- that would require the
TBI to process all kits, once they've been submitted by law
enforcement, within 30 days. According to the TBI, rape kit
processing currently varies from 30 to 56 weeks, depending on the
city.
If Lamar's legislation, co-sponsored with Rep. Bob Freeman
(D-Nashville) passes, it could help level the playing field, close
the racial disparity gap and prioritize rape investigations
overall.
Yet Lamar knows that neither race nor the clock are the biggest
obstacles in Tennessee.
Processing rape kits takes much less time than know-how and people
power. Training scientists to process a sexual assault kit takes at
least 18 months, according to the TBI. Keeping them in Tennessee
takes more competitive salaries than the state has been offering.
The TBI has not hidden its need for more money, to hire dozens more
scientists, but the agency has not received the budget bump it
requested from Gov. Bill Lee's administration. However, since
March, the TBI has secured $1,850,000 in grant funding, to
outsource 858 kits to out-of-state labs. So far, they've sent 550
to Florida, and agency spokesman Josh Devine says they plan to
outsource the remaining 308 in early July.
Deborah Clubb, who is part of the Memphis Sexual Assault Kit Task
Force created by former Mayor A.C. Wharton, finds the never-ending
struggle to process rape kits disheartening.
"I have worked these years with police leadership who really wanted
to make amends, so it's been very hard for me to see the new
backlog," said Clubb, a veteran reporter and longtime advocate for
survivors of sexual and domestic violence, who also heads the
Memphis Area's Women's Council.
"Whether it's the investigating, or the testing of kids or the
prosecuting, these sex crimes are just going to keep on keeping on
and they're going to be older and older," said Clubb. "And people
who are hurt are going to be less and less willing to get into that
treadmill system and put themselves through the agony of having to
think about it."
According to the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), in
the US someone is sexually assaulted every minute, with nearly half
a million victims age 12 and up every year.
A second assault by the city
Dalhoff knows all too well the psychological and physical toll of
sexual assault, though she says what followed was even worse. It's
not uncommon for survivors to call the physical assault less
traumatic than others' reaction to it, or lack thereof, especially
from the criminal justice system.
"I never felt sorry for myself or anything like that," said
Dalhoff. "If anything, that initial rape made me a better person.
Because it made me appreciate how precious life is. What has eaten
me alive is what the city of Memphis has done to me. As I say it, I
feel like I've been raped twice."
Once by the perpetrator, she says. And once "viciously, by the city
of Memphis."
These days, she takes long walks in nature, to clear her head of
"reality" and recharge for the continued fight. Dalhoff says she
wants the class action to be resolved, and a formal recognition by
the city of Memphis of all harm that was done, while her
91-year-old mother is still alive.
"She has walked through every step of this with me," said Dalhoff,
the only time she tears up in the hour-long conversation. "I want
closure before my mom leaves me. I want justice before my mom
leaves me, because she deserves it more than I do." [GN]
MONCIER SERVICES: Medcalf Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Medcalf, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. MONCIER SERVICES, LLC DBA SPEEDY TREE SERVICES AND
JASON MONCIER, Case No. 4:23-cv-00325 (E.D. Tex., April 14, 2023),
is brought to recover overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff and the Potential Class Members are those persons who
are current and former non-exempt employees--Day Rate Workers--of
Speedy Tree Services who worked there within the last three years.
The Plaintiff and the Potential Class Members were (and are)
misclassified as independent contractors and paid on a day rate
system.
Specifically, Speedy Tree Services paid its Day Rate Workers a flat
amount for each day worked without the proper overtime premium for
all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The decision by
Speedy Tree Services not to pay proper overtime compensation to its
Day Rate Workers was neither reasonable nor in good faith.
Speedy Tree Services knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate its Day Rate Workers overtime for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Day Rate Workers did not (and
currently do not) perform work that meets the definition of exempt
work under the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Speedy Tree Services,
Speedy Tree Services claims to be a tree care service with over 25
years of experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC
5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
Tyler, TX 75703
Phone/Facsimile: 903-596-7100
Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com
NATURAL BABY: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Natural Baby
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. The Natural Baby
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03096 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Natural Baby Company -- https://www.thenaturalbabyco.com/ -- is
a one-stop-shop for natural parenting products.[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
NEW YORK, NY: Denies Special Education Services, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arielle Katz of Mobilization for Justice reports that on April 17,
2023, Mobilization for Justice and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of New York City
students with disabilities and their families, aiming to remedy the
New York City Department of Education's ("NYCDOE's") systemic
failure to provide special education evaluations to students with
disabilities in a timely manner. The NYCDOE's extensive delays have
deprived the Plaintiffs and the proposed class of their right to a
free and appropriate public education by denying them the special
education services to which they are entitled.
The lawsuit, filed against the NYCDOE and NYCDOE Chancellor David
C. Banks, alleges that students with disabilities in NYC face
unacceptably long delays in obtaining necessary special education
evaluations, exacerbating their underlying disabilities and
hindering their educational progress. The suit alleges that
Defendants have delayed providing special education evaluations
directly to students, have delayed responding to requests for
independent educational evaluations ("IEEs"), and have failed to
pay independent evaluators who provide IEEs for their services in a
timely manner, with delays sometimes exceeding six months.
Families have fought for these fundamental evaluations, but
progress has been impeded at every step by undue delays from the
NYCDOE. These delays have forced families of students with
disabilities to file due process complaints to obtain their
evaluations. Even after promising to provide or pay for these
evaluations in exchange for families agreeing to settle their due
process claims, the NYCDOE’s systemic delays often cause students
to wait an excessive amount of time between first requesting their
evaluation and finally receiving it.
Critically, the Defendants' excessive delays in paying independent
evaluators who provide IEEs for their services has severely limited
the pool of providers willing to contract with the City of New York
to deliver special education services. This has a
disproportionately harmful impact on low-income students, primarily
of color, whose families cannot afford to pay for IEEs
independently.
"From my experience as a housing attorney representing low-income
tenants, I know the law as written is often not how the law is
applied in practice. The NYCDOE has systematically failed students
with disabilities needing a special education evaluation through
unlawful delays and not paying independent evaluators in a timely
manner. I am proud to stand with parents and students across New
York City fighting as well as Mobilization for Justice to ensure
that DOE provides students with disabilities with the services they
are entitled to by law," said Shekar Krishnan, NYC Council Member
for District 25.
Althea Stevens, NYC Council Member for District 16, noted, "The
lack of prioritization to ensure that our students with
disabilities have necessary education evaluations is a poor
reflection of Department of Education. The constant delays and
unpaid providers will increase the educational gap, which will be
counterproductive in the City's mission to create equitable
accessibility to education for our students."
Andrew Gerst, a staff attorney at Mobilization for Justice, stated,
"Thousands of low-income families of color across New York City
depend on the NYCDOE to ensure that their children are properly
evaluated for special education services in a timely manner. When
this system breaks down because of rampant delays, students with
disabilities are the ones who suffer."
Michael J. Osnato, a Partner at Simpson Thacher explained that,
"Every student has a right to a free and appropriate public
education under federal and New York State law. The NYCDOE's
failure to provide timely special education evaluations deprives
hundreds of special education students in New York City of their
right to obtain a quality education, causing significant harm that
is multiplied by the duration of the NYCDOE's delays."
Mobilization for Justice (www.mobilizationforjustice.org) is a
civil nonprofit legal services organization with offices in
Manhattan and the Bronx whose mission is to achieve justice for
all. MFJ prioritizes the needs of people who are low-income,
disenfranchised, or have disabilities as they struggle to overcome
the effects of social injustice and systemic racism. MFJ provides
the highest-quality free, direct civil legal assistance, conducts
community education and builds partnerships, engages in policy
advocacy, and brings impact litigation, with a focus on four key
areas: Housing, Economic Justice, Disability and Aging Rights, and
Children's Rights. MFJ also promotes diversity, equity, and
inclusion in the workplace, and understands the need to eliminate
all racial disparities to achieve justice for all.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (www.simpsonthacher.com) is one of
the world's leading international law firms. The Firm was
established in 1884 and has more than 1,000 lawyers. Headquartered
in New York with offices in Beijing, Brussels, Hong Kong, Houston,
London, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Sao Paulo, Tokyo and Washington,
D.C., the Firm provides coordinated legal advice and transactional
capability to clients around the globe.
Media Contact:
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP: Arielle Katz,
arielle.katz@stblaw.com [GN]
NO PARKING TODAY: Ross Appeals Breach of Contract Claim Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff GRAHAM ROSS filed an appeal from the Court's Decision and
Order dated March 17, 2023, entered in the lawsuit styled GRAHAM
ROSS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NO PARKING TODAY, INC., and CONSOLIDATED
EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 151700/2022,
in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Appellate
Division.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are a class of persons
who worked as construction flaggers for the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs, allege that Consolidated Edison, contracted with No
Parking Today for it to provide construction flaggers for
Consolidated Edison construction projects. The contracts between
Defendants required No Parking Today to pay the flaggers it
provided to Consolidated Edison the prevailing, wages and benefits
set by the New York City Comptroller. The Plaintiffs also claim
Consolidated Edison received New York City Department of
Transportation permits to perform Consolidated Edison's work
pursuant to New York City and that the permits required Plaintiffs
to be paid prevailing wages and benefits as set by the Comptroller
pursuant to New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs complain that they
were not paid the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental
benefits for their flagging work and allege a single claim against
each Defendant.
Consolidated Edison moved to dismiss the claim against Consolidated
Edison based on Plaintiffs' lack of standing to challenge
Consolidated Edison's performance of its obligations pursuant to
the permits or New York City Administrative Code. Consolidated
Edison originally moved to dismiss the entire complaint, but
withdrew the portion of the motion aimed at dismissing the claim
against No Parking Today on the record August 11, 2022. In their
opposition, Plaintiffs clarified that their claim against
Consolidated Edison is not under New York City Administrative Code
or New York Labor Law, but is a breach of contract claim by third
party beneficiaries of Consolidated Edison's agreement to pay
prevailing wages that emanates from the DOT permits.
On March 17, 2023, the Court granted the motion by Defendant
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., to dismiss
Plaintiffs' second cause of action, the sole claim against
Consolidated Edison, for breach of contract.
The appellate case is captioned as GRAHAM ROSS v. CONSOLIDATED
EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al., Case No. 2023-01756, in
the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial
Department, filed on April 10, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner Graham Ross, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Alanna Rose Sakovits, Esq.
40 Broad St Fl 7
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
NUTANIX INC: Gorsline Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Gorsline, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NUTANIX, INC., RAJIV RAMASWAMI, DUSTON
WILLIAMS, and RUKMINI SIVARAMAN, Case No. 3:23-cv-01827 (N.D. Cal.,
April 14, 2023), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Nutanix securities between September 21, 2021
and March 6, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
In operating its cloud platform, Nutanix often utilizes software
supplied by third party providers. Indeed, the Company has stated
that one if its "principal competitive factors" is "product
interoperability with third-party applications, infrastructure
software, infrastructure systems and platforms and public clouds."
Accordingly, Nutanix will pay software vendors a reduced cost to
provide the Company with "evaluation software," which Nutanix will
use only for internal evaluation purposes in order to determine
whether it will ultimately purchase the software for business use.
If the Company elects to purchase the software, the vendor will
charge Nutanix the full cost to implement the product in standard
business usage, as opposed to merely a reduced evaluation cost.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the
Company maintained deficient internal controls relating to its use
of licensed software and expense management; as a result of these
deficiencies, the Company improperly used third-party evaluation
software for business purposes over a multi-year period;
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;
and as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
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."
That same day, Nutanix hosted an earnings call with investors and
analysts to discuss the Company's fiscal Q2 2023 results (the "Q2
2023 Earnings Call"). During the Q&A portion of the Q2 2023
Earnings Call, when asked to clarify why using evaluation software
for interoperability testing, validation, and customer proofs of
concept would incur additional expenses, Nutanix's Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") Defendant Rajiv Ramaswami explained that the
Company would be required to pay the cost of using the software
beyond the scope of its intended evaluation usage. On this news,
Nutanix's stock price fell $2.27 per share, or 7.89%, to close at
$26.50 per share on March 7, 2023.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Nutanix securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
OLO INC: Bid for Dismissal of Shareholder Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Baker of Acrofan reports that on April 10, 2023, the court
denied the defendant's motion to dismiss a shareholder class action
lawsuit pending against Olo and certain of its officers.
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Olo Inc. ("Olo" or the "Company") (NYSE: OLO) against certain of
its officers and directors.
If you have continuously owned Olo shares before August 11, 2021,
you can click or copy and paste the link below in a browser to join
this action:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/olo-class-action
On April 10, 2023, the court denied the defendant's motion to
dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit pending against Olo and
certain of its officers. According to a federal securities lawsuit,
the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
Subway was ending its contract with Olo; and (2) Olo's key business
metric - active locations - could not continue to grow as
Defendants touted due to the loss of Subway's business.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit https://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Contacts
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, Lead Securities Analyst
Telephone: (619) 814-4471
Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
PIGRI LLC: Fails to Pay Bartenders' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Friedner, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Pigri LLC, and
Tommaso Mazzoni, Case No. 1:23-cv-02767 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 13, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor
Law and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Ms. Friedner contends that she was not paid any wages from December
2021 to February 2022. Instead, she was compensated exclusively in
gratuities, from customers. The Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of unlawfully appropriating the Plaintiff's, all other
similarly situated individuals', tipped wages, says the Plaintiff.
Ms. Friedner was also required to work in excess of 40 hours per
week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half
times her regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants'
conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly
situated employee, the suit asserts.
Ms. Friedner was employed as a bartender at Defendants' bar and
restaurant known as "Milk & Roses" from December 2021 to February
2022.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
PLANNED BUILDING: Lochnicki Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Lochnicki and Chequwan Potter on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Planned Building Services, Inc.,
Planned Security Services, Inc., and Planned Lifestyle Services,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02822 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2023), is brought
to remedy untimely wage payments as a result of the Defendants'
violations of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"), the New York
Code of Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR"), the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act, the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), the
New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").
The Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of all Planned
employees who were required to wear a uniform, responsible for its
maintenance, and were paid an hourly rate at or within $0.50 of the
minimum wage. And a further subclass for all employees, who like
the Plaintiffs were entitled to spread of hours pay and did not
receive it.
The Plaintiff Cynthis Lochnicki also brings this to recover for her
individual claims against Defendants for sexual harassment, hostile
work environment, wrongful termination, and retaliation under the
NYSHRL and NYCHRL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
Planned Companies provides industry leading janitorial,
maintenance, concierge/front desk and security services to a wide
array of clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 718-669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
PRO-HEALTH LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Brovsky-Eaker of Law Week Colorado reports that nonprofit law
firm Towards Justice announced April 18 that last week a group of
former employees of northeastern Colorado produce processing plant
Pro-Health filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the
company in the U.S. District Court of the District of Colorado for
failing to provide advance notice of mass layoffs in violation of
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
The named plaintiffs, who represent a class of more than 50 other
similarly situated workers, alleged Pro-Health fired them without
good cause and without notice, in order to replace them with H-2A
visa guestworkers, according to a press release.
The WARN Act protects workers by requiring qualifying employers to
provide notice 60 days in advance of mass layoffs and covered plant
closings. The complaint alleged the plaintiffs in the case worked
up to 90 hours per week sorting and processing potatoes.
According to the class action complaint, throughout the early part
of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, workers at Pro-Health became
increasingly concerned about their working conditions. Pro-Health
decreased the length of their rest breaks from 15 to 10 minutes for
every four hours of work. Pro-Health told the plaintiffs and other
Pro-Health workers they could only use the bathroom during these
breaks, the complaint alleged, but at various points during the
plaintiffs' employment, Pro-Health provided only one men's bathroom
for more than 40 men and dangerous and unsanitary women's bathrooms
without functioning doors.
Towards Justice noted many of the workers in the proposed class in
this lawsuit worked for Pro-Health for decades before being fired
from their jobs. The complaint alleged Pro-Health made various
efforts to obtain H-2A visa workers to replace its existing
workforce. When the company learned it had been granted such visas,
the plaintiffs alleged Pro-Health moved swiftly to replace much of
its workforce, including the plaintiffs.
"Pro-Health was built by and has succeeded because of immigrant
labor. Many of us worked there for 10, 15, or 25 years and have
sacrificed so much for this company, even throughout the pandemic.
There was no real explanation and no gratitude for all of the hard
work we did for their benefit. We just want to be treated fairly
and feel like we received some justice for what we went through,"
said named plaintiff Atilano Rodriguez in a press release.
"Pro-Health routinely required workers to put in 14 to 16 hour days
of grueling labor, all while limiting their access to bathrooms and
rest breaks. The physical and mental toll this took on these
workers over the years is immense, and instead of being rewarded
for their efforts, these workers were unfairly fired. With this
lawsuit, we want to let Pro-Health know that these workers are not
disposable and that its practices must change," said Towards
Justice attorney Natasha Viteri in a press release.
The workers are represented in this case by Towards Justice, a
nonprofit legal organization based in Denver, Colorado, and Raisner
Roupinian LLP, based in New York City. [GN]
PRO-HEALTH LLC: Fails to Give 60-Day Layoff Notice, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action claims Pro-Health unlawfully failed to provide at least 60
days' notice before terminating more than 50 immigrant workers at
its Wray, Colorado potato processing plant in March 2021.
According to the 10-page suit, the Texas-based produce processor
violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act when it fired a significant portion of its workforce
around March 22, 2021 without proper notice or good cause. The
complaint alleges that the "mass layoff" was part of Pro-Health's
plan to replace its immigrant employees with non-immigrant
guestworkers on H-2A visas.
"H-2A workers are more easily exploitable than other workers
because their visas tie them to their employer, limiting their
ability to seek better jobs," the case contests. "Additionally,
upon information and belief, it was cheaper for ProHealth to employ
guestworkers at the Facility than to retain its workforce,
including Plaintiffs, who had been working at the Facility for many
years, in some cases for more than a decade."
Per the filing, the company began terminating much of its existing
workforce shortly after it was approved to hire H-2A guest
workers.
Earlier that month, Pro-Health instructed employees to provide
proof of authorization to work in the United States as part of an
apparent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE)
audit, the complaint says. However, the case claims that ICE did
not audit the facility in March 2021, and the agency had not asked
Pro-Health to provide the immigration status of its employees at
the Colorado facility.
Rather, Pro-Health fabricated the March 2021 audit as pretext to
terminate over 50 workers without 60 days' notice, the lawsuit
alleges. The case further charges that Pro-Health failed to pay
terminated employees 60 days of wages and benefits in lieu of
notice, pursuant to the WARN Act.
As a company that employs more than 100 employees who clock at
least 4,000 hours per week, exclusive of overtime, within the
United States, Pro-Health was required to comply with the WARN Act,
the filing contends. The company's layoff was also subject to
federal notice requirements given that it let go more than 33
percent of its workforce and at least 50 full-time employees, the
complaint relays.
Pro-Health workers had become increasingly concerned about their
working conditions in the months leading up to the mass layoff, the
suit notes, claiming that the company had reduced workers' rest
breaks from 15 minutes to 10 minutes for every four hours of work.
In addition, Pro-Health provided only one men's bathroom for over
40 men and "dangerous and unsanitary" women's bathrooms without
functioning doors, the complaint contends.
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone who worked at Pro-Health's Wray,
Colorado facility and was terminated without cause within 30 days
of March 22, 2021, or was terminated without cause as the
"reasonably foreseeable consequence" of the mass layoff ordered by
the company on or about March 22, 2021. [GN]
REALPAGE INC: Armas Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lena Armas and Andrea Blum, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC., GREYSTAR
REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, CH REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, LINCOLN
PROPERTY CO., FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., MID-AMERICA APARTMENT
COMMUNITIES, INC., AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL,
ESSEX MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., CAMDEN
PROPERTY TRUST, ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC., THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC, SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., B/T WASHINGTON, LLC
d/b/a BLANTON TURNER, INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC., CUSHMAN &
WAKEFIELD, INC., BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, and UDR, INC.,
Defendants; Gabriel Navarro, Interested Party, Case No.
2:22-cv-01726 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on April 13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00333 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics,
property management software, and services to efficiently manage
rental properties and real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER PA.
1990 N California Blvd., Ste. 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Email: bscott@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ben A. Sherwood, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Phone: (212) 351-2671
Email: bsherwood@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (LA/CA)
333 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: (213) 229-7430
Fax: (213) 229-6430
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael J. Perry, Esq.
Stephen Weissman, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC)
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036-5303
Phone: (202) 887-3558
Email: mjperry@gibsondunn.com
sweissman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Stephen C. Whittaker, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (IRVINE)
3161 Michelson Dr., Ste. 1200
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: (949) 451-4337
Email: cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Darin M. Sands, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP (PORTLAND)
1425 Sw 20th Ave., Ste. 201
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 734-2480
Email: dsands@bradleybernsteinllp.com
- and -
Heidi B. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP
113 Cherry St.
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 337-6551
Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com
- and -
J. Douglas Baldridge, Esq.
VENABLE, LLP
600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 344-4703
Fax: (202) 344-8300
Email: jbaldridge@venable.com
Gregory J. Casas, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (AUSTIN OFFICE)
300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 320-7238
Email: casasg@gtlaw.com
- and -
Mary Rebecca Knack, Esq.
Jessica B. Jensen, Esq.
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC
901 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 3500
Seattle, WA 98164-2008
Phone: (206) 447-7000
Fax: (206) 447-0215
Email: rknack@omwlaw.com
jjensen@omwlaw.com
- and –
Rebecca S. Ashbaugh, Esq.
ASHBAUGH BEAL LLP
701 Fifth Ave
4400 Columbia Tower
Seattle, WA 98104-7012
Phone: (206) 386-5900
Email: bashbaugh@ashbaughbeal.com
- and –
Alyse F. Stach, Esq.
Carl W. Hittinger, Esq.
Tyson Y. Herrold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (PHILADELPHIA)
1735 Market St, Ste 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 564-5768
Email: astach@bakerlaw.com
chittinger@bakerlaw.com
therrold@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Curt Roy Hineline, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (SEA)
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 332-1380
Email: chineline@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Leo D. Caseria, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DC)
2099 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 100
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 747-1925
Email: lcaseria@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Tiffany L. Lee, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3304
Email: Tiffanylee@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Belinda S. Lee, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS (SF)
505 Montgomery St., Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 391-0600
Email: belinda.lee@lw.com
- and -
Paul R. Taylor, Esq.
BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 622-2000
Fax: (206) 622-2522
Email: ptaylor@byrneskeller.com
- and -
Laurie Novion, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP (KANSAS CITY OFFICE)
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
Email: lnovion@shb.com
- and -
Lynn H. Murray, Esq.
Maveric Ray Searle, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (IL)
111 S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 704-7700
Fax: (312) 558-1195
Email: lhmurray@shb.com
msearle@shb.com
- and -
Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (SF)
555 Mission St., Ste, 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 544-1900
Email: rsandrock@shb.com
- and -
Hunter K. Ahern, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (WA)
701 5th Ave Ste 6800
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 344-7600
Email: hahern@shb.com
- and -
Benjamin I. VandenBerghe, Esq.
Kaya Lurie, Esq.
MONTGOMERY PURDUE PLLC
701 5th Ave.
5500 Columbia Center
Seattle, WA 98104-7096
Phone: (206) 682-7090
Fax: (206) 625-9534
Email: klurie@montgomerypurdue.com
- and -
Jacque Elizabeth St Romain, Esq.
Jason J. Hoeft, Esq.
Jose Dino Vasquez, Esq.
Joshua R.M. Rosenberg, Esq.
Nathan Paine, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 224-8089
Email: jstromain@karrtuttle.com
jhoeft@karrtuttle.com
dvasquez@karrtuttle.com
jrosenberg@karrtuttle.com
npaine@karrtuttle.com
- and -
Matthew T. Adamson, Esq.
JAMESON PEPPLE CANTU PLLC
801 Second Ave., Ste. 700
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 292-1994
Fax: (206) 292-1995
Email: madamson@jpclaw.com
- and -
Karl Neumann
COZEN O'CONNOR (SEA)
999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 340-1000
Email: kneumann@cozen.com
- and -
David D. Cross, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Jaeckel, Esq.
Robert W. Manoso, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
2100 L St NW, Ste 900
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 887-1500
Fax: (202) 887-0763
Email: dcross@mofo.com
jjaeckel@mofo.com
rmanoso@mofo.com
- and -
Selby P. Brown, Esq.
Diana S. Breaux, Esq.
SUMMIT LAW GROUP
315 5th Ave S, Ste 1000
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 676-7000
Email: selbyb@summitlaw.com
- and -
Sonja Swanbeck, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP (DC)
2100 L St Nw Ste 900
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 887-1500
Fax: (202) 887-0763
Email: sswanbeck@mofo.com
dianab@summitlaw.com
The Interested Party is represented by:
Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com
REALPAGE INC: Boelens Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Laura Boelens, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC; TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY
COMPANY; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC.; and SECURITY
PROPERTIES INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01802 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April
13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00338 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics,
property management software, and services to efficiently manage
rental properties and real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian P. Levis, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Fax: (914) 997-0035
Email: clevis@lowey.com
- and -
David R. Scott, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT LLC
108 Norwich Avenue
P O Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Phone: (860) 537-3818
- and -
G. Dustin Foster, Esq.
Michael Srodoski, Esq.
Patrick McGahan, Esq.
SCOTT + SCOTT, LLP (CT OFFICE)
156 S Main Street
P O Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Phone: (860) 537-5537
Fax: (860) 537-4432
Email: gfoster@scott-scott.com
msrodoski@scott-scott.com
pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
- and -
Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
Phone: (612) 349-8500
Fax: (612) 339-4181
Email: gkozen@robinskaplan.com
ahurt@robinskaplan.com
sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
tundlin@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Peter Demato, Esq.
Radhika Gupta, Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Fax: (914) 997-0035
Email: pdemato@lowey.com
rgupta@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
- and -
Samuel Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ben A. Sherwood, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Phone: (212) 351-2671
Email: bsherwood@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael J. Perry, Esq.
Stephen Weissman, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC)
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036-5303
Phone: (202) 887-3558
Email: mjperry@gibsondunn.com
sweissman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Heidi B. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP
113 Cherry St.
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 337-6551
Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com
- and -
Gregory J. Casas, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (AUSTIN OFFICE)
300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 320-7238
Email: casasg@gtlaw.com
- and -
Mary Rebecca Knack, Esq.
Jessica B. Jensen, Esq.
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC
901 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 3500
Seattle, WA 98164-2008
Phone: (206) 447-7000
Fax: (206) 447-0215
Email: rknack@omwlaw.com
jjensen@omwlaw.com
- and -
Maren Roxanne Norton, Esq.
STOEL RIVES (WA)
600 University St., Ste. 3600
Seattle, WA 98101-3197
Phone: (206) 624-0900
Email: maren.norton@stoel.com
- and –
Alyse F. Stach, Esq.
Carl W. Hittinger, Esq.
Tyson Y. Herrold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (PHILADELPHIA)
1735 Market St, Ste 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 564-5768
Email: astach@bakerlaw.com
chittinger@bakerlaw.com
therrold@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Curt Roy Hineline, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (SEA)
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 332-1380
Email: chineline@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Leo D. Caseria, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DC)
2099 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 100
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 747-1925
Email: lcaseria@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Tiffany L. Lee, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3304
Email: Tiffanylee@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Benjamin I. VandenBerghe, Esq.
Kaya Lurie, Esq.
MONTGOMERY PURDUE PLLC
701 5th Ave.
5500 Columbia Center
Seattle, WA 98104-7096
Phone: (206) 682-7090
Fax: (206) 625-9534
Email: klurie@montgomerypurdue.com
- and -
Belinda S. Lee, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS (SF)
505 Montgomery St., Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 391-0600
Email: belinda.lee@lw.com
- and -
Paul R. Taylor, Esq.
BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 622-2000
Fax: (206) 622-2522
Email: ptaylor@byrneskeller.com
- and -
Jacque Elizabeth St Romain, Esq.
Jason J. Hoeft, Esq.
Jose Dino Vasquez, Esq.
Joshua R.M. Rosenberg, Esq.
Nathan Paine, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 224-8089
Email: jstromain@karrtuttle.com
jhoeft@karrtuttle.com
dvasquez@karrtuttle.com
jrosenberg@karrtuttle.com
npaine@karrtuttle.com
REALPAGE INC: Cherry Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Meghan Cherry, Kimen Trochalakis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.;
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY, LLC;
LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL,
LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE
COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC.; and
SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01618 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on April 13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00332 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics,
property management software, and services to efficiently manage
rental properties and real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Hannah K. Song, Esq.
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (CA)
715 Hearst Ave., Ste. 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Fax: (510) 725-3001
Email: hannahso@hbsslaw.com
riop@hbsslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ben A. Sherwood, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Phone: (212) 351-2671
Email: bsherwood@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (LA/CA)
333 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: (213) 229-7430
Fax: (213) 229-6430
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael J. Perry, Esq.
Stephen Weissman, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC)
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036-5303
Phone: (202) 887-3558
Email: mjperry@gibsondunn.com
sweissman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Stephen C. Whittaker, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (IRVINE)
3161 Michelson Dr., Ste. 1200
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: (949) 451-4337
Email: cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Darin M. Sands, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP (PORTLAND)
1425 Sw 20th Ave., Ste. 201
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 734-2480
Email: dsands@bradleybernsteinllp.com
- and -
Heidi B. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP
113 Cherry St.
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 337-6551
Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com
- and -
Gregory J. Casas, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (AUSTIN OFFICE)
300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 320-7238
Email: casasg@gtlaw.com
- and -
Mary Rebecca Knack, Esq.
Jessica B. Jensen, Esq.
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC
901 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 3500
Seattle, WA 98164-2008
Phone: (206) 447-7000
Fax: (206) 447-0215
Email: rknack@omwlaw.com
jjensen@omwlaw.com
- and –
Alyse F. Stach, Esq.
Carl W. Hittinger, Esq.
Tyson Y. Herrold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (PHILADELPHIA)
1735 Market St, Ste 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 564-5768
Email: astach@bakerlaw.com
chittinger@bakerlaw.com
therrold@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Curt Roy Hineline, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (SEA)
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 332-1380
Email: chineline@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Leo D. Caseria, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DC)
2099 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 100
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 747-1925
Email: lcaseria@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Tiffany L. Lee, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3304
Email: Tiffanylee@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Benjamin I. VandenBerghe, Esq.
Kaya Lurie, Esq.
MONTGOMERY PURDUE PLLC
701 5th Ave.
5500 Columbia Center
Seattle, WA 98104-7096
Phone: (206) 682-7090
Fax: (206) 625-9534
Email: klurie@montgomerypurdue.com
- and -
Belinda S. Lee, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS (SF)
505 Montgomery St., Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 391-0600
Email: belinda.lee@lw.com
- and -
Paul R. Taylor, Esq.
BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 622-2000
Fax: (206) 622-2522
Email: ptaylor@byrneskeller.com
- and -
Jacque Elizabeth St Romain, Esq.
Jason J. Hoeft, Esq.
Jose Dino Vasquez, Esq.
Joshua R.M. Rosenberg, Esq.
Nathan Paine, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 224-8089
Email: jstromain@karrtuttle.com
jhoeft@karrtuttle.com
dvasquez@karrtuttle.com
jrosenberg@karrtuttle.com
npaine@karrtuttle.com
The Interested Party is represented by:
Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com
REALPAGE INC: Godfrey Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michelle K. Godfrey, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL
ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY
COMPANY; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC.; and SECURITY
PROPERTIES INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01759 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April
13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00344 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics,
property management software, and services to efficiently manage
rental properties and real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Hannah K. Song, Esq.
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (CA)
715 Hearst Ave., Ste. 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Fax: (510) 725-3001
Email: hannahso@hbsslaw.com
riop@hbsslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Darin M. Sands, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP (PORTLAND)
1425 Sw 20th Ave., Ste. 201
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 734-2480
Email: dsands@bradleybernsteinllp.com
- and -
Ben A. Sherwood, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Phone: (212) 351-2671
Email: bsherwood@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Stephen Weissman, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC)
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036-5303
Phone: (202) 887-3558
Email: sweissman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Heidi B. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP
113 Cherry St.
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 337-6551
Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com
- and -
Gregory J. Casas, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (AUSTIN OFFICE)
300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 320-7238
Email: casasg@gtlaw.com
- and -
Mary Rebecca Knack, Esq.
Jessica B. Jensen, Esq.
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC
901 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 3500
Seattle, WA 98164-2008
Phone: (206) 447-7000
Fax: (206) 447-0215
Email: rknack@omwlaw.com
jjensen@omwlaw.com
- and –
Rebecca S. Ashbaugh, Esq.
ASHBAUGH BEAL LLP
701 Fifth Ave
4400 Columbia Tower
Seattle, WA 98104-7012
Phone: (206) 386-5900
Email: bashbaugh@ashbaughbeal.com
- and -
Leo D. Caseria, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DC)
2099 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 100
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 747-1925
Email: lcaseria@sheppardmullin.com
- and –
Tiffany L. Lee, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3304
Email: Tiffanylee@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Benjamin I. VandenBerghe, Esq.
Kaya Lurie, Esq.
MONTGOMERY PURDUE PLLC
701 5th Ave.
5500 Columbia Center
Seattle, WA 98104-7096
Phone: (206) 682-7090
Fax: (206) 625-9534
Email: klurie@montgomerypurdue.com
- and -
Jacque Elizabeth St Romain, Esq.
Jason J. Hoeft, Esq.
Jose Dino Vasquez, Esq.
Joshua R.M. Rosenberg, Esq.
Nathan Paine, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 224-8089
Email: jstromain@karrtuttle.com
jhoeft@karrtuttle.com
dvasquez@karrtuttle.com
jrosenberg@karrtuttle.com
npaine@karrtuttle.com
The Interested Party is represented by:
Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com
REALPAGE INC: Morgan Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lauren Ashley Morgan; Erik Barnes; Sherry Bason;
Lois Winn; Georges Emmanuel Njong Diboki; Julia Sims; and Sophia
Woodland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs; Zachary Corradino, Samantha Reyes, Patrick
Parker, Jeremy Enders, Mary Bertlshofer, Priscilla Parker, Barry
Amar-Hoover, Intervenor Plaintiffs v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL
ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD,
INC.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; RPM LIVING, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC; MID AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN
PROPERTIES, LLC; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT
COMPANY; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC;
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST,
INC.; ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; UDR, INC.; CONAM
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; CWS APARTMENT HOMES,
LLC; PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.; SARES REGIS GROUP
OPERATING, INC.; MISSION ROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; and MORGAN GROUP,
INC., Defendants; Gabriel Navarro, Laura Boelens, Interested
Parties; Case No. 2:22-cv-01712 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 13,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00330 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics,
property management software, and services to efficiently manage
rental properties and real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
David T. Rudolph, Esq.
Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP (SAN
FRANCISCO)
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: (415) 956-1000
Fax: (415) 956-1008
Email: bglackin@lchb.com
drudolph@lchb.com
dharvey@lchb.com
- and -
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC (DC)
2001 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 559-9740
Email: dwalker@bm.net
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. (PHILADELPHIA OFFICE)
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: ecramer@bm.net
mwallin@bm.net
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP (SF)
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 633-1908
Fax: (415) 633-4980
Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com
- and -
Jason Hartley, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W Broadway, Ste. 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 400-5822
Email: hartley@hartleyllp.com
- and -
Katie R. Beran, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP (PA)
325 Chestnut St., Ste. 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 985-3270
Fax: (215) 985-3271
Email: kberan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC (PA)
1818 Market St., Ste. 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: mwallin@bm.net
- and -
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Fax: (510) 725-3001
Email: riop@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP (DC)
888 16th St., Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Fax: (202) 540-7201
Email: sbojedla@hausfeld.com
- and -
Dan Drachler, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP (WA)
1904 Third Ave., Ste. 1030
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 895-5005
Fax: (206) 895-3131
Email: ddrachler@lchb.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ben A. Sherwood, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Phone: (212) 351-2671
Email: bsherwood@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (LA/CA)
333 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: (213) 229-7430
Fax: (213) 229-6430
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael J. Perry, Esq.
Stephen Weissman, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC)
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036-5303
Phone: (202) 887-3558
Email: mjperry@gibsondunn.com
sweissman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Stephen C. Whittaker, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (IRVINE)
3161 Michelson Dr., Ste. 1200
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: (949) 451-4337
Email: cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Darin M. Sands, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP (PORTLAND)
1425 Sw 20th Ave., Ste. 201
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 734-2480
Email: dsands@bradleybernsteinllp.com
- and -
Heidi B. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP
113 Cherry St.
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 337-6551
Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com
- and -
Gregory J. Casas, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (AUSTIN OFFICE)
300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 320-7238
Email: casasg@gtlaw.com
- and -
Mary Rebecca Knack, Esq.
Jessica B. Jensen, Esq.
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC
901 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 3500
Seattle, WA 98164-2008
Phone: (206) 447-7000
Fax: (206) 447-0215
Email: rknack@omwlaw.com
jjensen@omwlaw.com
- and -
Ian Simmons, Esq.
O'MELVENY AND MYERS, LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-4001
Phone: (202) 383-5300
Email: isimmons@omm.com
- and -
Stephen McIntyre, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP (LA OFFICE)
400 S Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
Phone: (213) 430-6000
Email: smcintyre@omm.com
- and -
Emily J. Harris, Esq.
CORR CRONIN LLP
1015 Second Ave., 10th Fl.
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 625-8600
Email: eharris@corrcronin.com
- and -
Rebecca S. Ashbaugh, Esq.
ASHBAUGH BEAL LLP
701 Fifth Ave.
4400 Columbia Tower
Seattle, WA 98104-7012
Phone: (206) 386-5900
Email: bashbaugh@ashbaughbeal.com
- and -
Belinda S. Lee, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS (SF)
505 Montgomery St., Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 391-0600
Email: belinda.lee@lw.com
- and -
Paul R. Taylor, Esq.
BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 622-2000
Fax: (206) 622-2522
Email: ptaylor@byrneskeller.com
- and –
Christopher Daniel Kercher, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP (NY)
51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (212) 849-7263
Email: christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP (WA)
1109 First Ave, Ste 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 905-7000
Email: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Alyse F. Stach, Esq.
Carl W. Hittinger, Esq.
Tyson Y. Herrold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (PHILADELPHIA)
1735 Market St, Ste 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 564-5768
Email: astach@bakerlaw.com
chittinger@bakerlaw.com
therrold@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Curt Roy Hineline, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (SEA)
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 332-1380
Email: chineline@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Leo D. Caseria, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DC)
2099 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 100
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 747-1925
Email: lcaseria@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Tiffany L. Lee, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3304
Email: Tiffanylee@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Ferdose al-Taie, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP (DALLAS)
2001 Ross Ave, Ste 3600
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 720-4308
Fax: (214) 981-9339
Email: ferdose.al-taie@akerman.com
- and -
Ryan C. Krone, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP (HOUSTON)
1300 Post Oak Blvd Ste 2300
houston, TX 77056
Phone: (713) 623-0887
Fax: (713) 960-1527
Email: ryan.krone@akerman.com
- and -
Eric I. Goldberg, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP (DC)
750 Ninth St NW Ste 750
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 824-1761
Email: eric.goldberg@akerman.com
- and -
Laurie Novion, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP (KANSAS CITY OFFICE)
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
Email: lnovion@shb.com
- and -
Lynn H. Murray, Esq.
Maveric Ray Searle, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (IL)
111 S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 704-7700
Fax: (312) 558-1195
Email: lhmurray@shb.com
msearle@shb.com
- and -
Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (SF)
555 Mission St., Ste, 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 544-1900
Email: rsandrock@shb.com
- and -
Hunter K. Ahern, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (WA)
701 5th Ave Ste 6800
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 344-7600
Email: hahern@shb.com
- and -
David D. Cross, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Jaeckel, Esq.
Robert W. Manoso, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
2100 L St NW, Ste 900
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 887-1500
Fax: (202) 887-0763
Email: dcross@mofo.com
jjaeckel@mofo.com
rmanoso@mofo.com
- and -
Selby P. Brown, Esq.
Diana S. Breaux, Esq.
SUMMIT LAW GROUP
315 5th Ave S, Ste 1000
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 676-7000
Email: selbyb@summitlaw.com
dianab@summitlaw.com
- and -
Sonja Swanbeck, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP (DC)
2100 L St Nw Ste 900
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 887-1500
Fax: (202) 887-0763
Email: sswanbeck@mofo.com
- and -
Anna Tutundjian, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN (LA-90013)
555 W 5th St., Ste. 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010
Phone: (213) 896-6650
Email: atutundjian@sidley.com
- and -
Benjamin R. Nagin, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (NY)
787 Seventh Ave
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 839-5300
Fax: (212) 839-5599
Email: bnagin@sidley.com
- and -
Chad S. Hummel, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1999 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 17th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 595-9505
Fax: (310) 595-9501
Email: chummel@sidley.com
- and -
Robin Wechkin, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
8426 316th Pl. SE.
Issaquah, WA 98027
Phone: (415) 772-1200
Email: rwechkin@sidley.com
- and -
Rachel Tallon Reynolds, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP (SEATTLE)
1111 Third Ave., Ste, 2700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 436-2020
Fax: (206) 436-2030
Email: Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Benjamin I. VandenBerghe, Esq.
Kaya Lurie, Esq.
MONTGOMERY PURDUE PLLC
701 5th Ave.
5500 Columbia Center
Seattle, WA 98104-7096
Phone: (206) 682-7090
Fax: (206) 625-9534
Email: klurie@montgomerypurdue.com
- and -
Jacque Elizabeth St Romain, Esq.
Jason J. Hoeft, Esq.
Jose Dino Vasquez, Esq.
Joshua R.M. Rosenberg, Esq.
Nathan Paine, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 224-8089
Email: jstromain@karrtuttle.com
jhoeft@karrtuttle.com
dvasquez@karrtuttle.com
jrosenberg@karrtuttle.com
npaine@karrtuttle.com
- and -
Ann Helen MacDonald, Esq.
Barry Hyman, Esq.
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP (IL)
233 South Wacker Ste. 7100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 258-5548
Email: ann.macdonald@afslaw.com
barry.hyman@afslaw.com
- and -
Suzanne L. Wahl, Esq.
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP (MI)
350 S Main St., Ste. 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: (734) 222-1517
Fax: (734) 222-1501
Email: suzanne.wahl@afslaw.com
- and -
Valerie A. Walker, Esq.
Bradford J. Axel, Esq.
STOKES LAWRENCE PS (SEATTLE)
1420 Fifth Avenue, Ste 3000
Seattle, WA 98101-2393
Phone: (206) 892-2132
Email: valerie.walker@stokeslaw.com
bradford.axel@stokeslaw.com
- and -
Heather T. Rankie, Esq.
Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
ZELLE LLP (OAKLAND)
555 12th St., Ste. 1230
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (415) 693-0700
Fax: (415) 693-0770
Email: hrankie@zellelaw.com
jzahid@zellelaw.com
- and -
Michael W. Droke, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY (WA)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100
Seattle, WA 98104-7043
Phone: (206) 903-8800
Fax: 903-8820
Email: droke.michael@dorsey.com
- and -
MaryAnn T. Almeida, Esq.
Fred B. Burnside, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
920 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Phone: (206) 757-8187
Fax: (206) 757-7700
Email: maryannalmeida@dwt.com
fredburnside@dwt.com
- and -
Carl C. Butzer, Esq.
JACKSON WALKER, LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (214) 953-6000
Email: cbutzer@jw.com
- and -
David T. Moran, Esq.
JACKSON WALKER, LLP
2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 953-6051
Fax: (214) 661-6677
Email: dmoran@jw.com
- and -
Joseph A. Fischer, III, Esq.
Joel R. Glover, Esq.
JACKSON WALKER LLP (HOUSTON)
1401 Mckinney St., Ste. 1900
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: (713) 752-4530
Fax: (713) 308-4130
Email: tfischer@jw.com
jglover@jw.com
- and -
Kevin C. Baumgardner, Esq.
Blake Edward Marks-Dias, Esq.
CORR CRONIN LLP
1015 Second Ave, 10th Fl
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 625-8600
Email: kbaumgardner@corrcronin.com
bmarksdias@corrcronin.com
The Intervenor Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
RECKITT BENCKISER: Settlement Approval in Williams Suit Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, CAROLL ANGLADE, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, HOWARD CLARK, THOMAS
MATTHEWS, MARTIZA ANGELES, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. RECKITT
BENCKISER LLC, RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Defendants-Appellees, THEODORE
H. FRANK, Interested Party-Appellant, Case No. 22-11232 (11th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacates
the district court order approving a class-action settlement and
remands for proceedings consistent with its Opinion.
The matter is an appeal from a district court order approving a
class-action settlement that purports to provide injunctive relief
and up to $8 million in monetary relief to a class of individuals
who purchased one or more "brain performance supplements"
manufactured and sold by Defendants Reckitt Benckiser LLC and RB
Health (US) LLC (together, "RB") under the brand name "Neuriva."
Five Plaintiffs (together, the "Named Plaintiffs") who had
previously purchased Neuriva brought the putative class action,
alleging that RB used false and misleading statements to give
consumers the impression that Neuriva and its "active ingredients"
had been clinically tested and proven to improve brain function, in
violation of Florida, California, and New York consumer protection
laws. The parties promptly agreed to a global settlement that
sought to resolve the claims of all Plaintiffs and absent Class
members, before any formal discovery or motion practice had been
completed.
RB manufactures and sells a line of three "brain performance
supplements" under the brand name Neuriva: Neuriva Original,
Neuriva Plus, and Neuriva De-Stress (together, the "Neuriva
Products"). RB advertises that the Neuriva Products have been
clinically and scientifically proven to enhance the brain health
and performance of all adults in specific ways. It also advertises
that the Neuriva Products each contain several "active ingredients"
that have themselves been clinically proven to improve brain
physiology and function.
In 2020, three sets of Plaintiffs filed three separate putative
class action complaints against RB in the Eastern District of
California, the Southern District of New York, and the Southern
District of Florida -- all later consolidated into a single
class-action complaint in the Southern District of Florida. The
consolidated class action alleges that RB's advertising for the
Neuriva Products employed false and misleading statements in
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Fla. Stat. Section 501.201 et seq., the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq., the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section
1750 et seq., the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq., and the New York General Business
Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349. It also alleges unjust
enrichment on the same theory.
The Settlement Agreement covered a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) class
of "all persons who purchased for personal consumption and not for
resale, one or more of the Neuriva Products between the dates of
Jan. 1, 2019 and the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
by the Court." Class members who could provide proof of purchase
would be able to recover up to $32.50 per claim, with a maximum of
two claims, for a total potential recovery of $65. Without proof of
purchase, Class members could only recover $5 per claim, with a
maximum of four claims, for a total potential recovery of $20. The
Settlement capped total recovery for the Class at $8 million. If
the submitted claims exceeded that amount, RB could either reduce
the amount paid on each claim pro rata, or terminate the Settlement
entirely.
The Settlement also provided injunctive relief to the Class in the
form of required changes to Neuriva's labeling and marketing for a
period of two years, starting six months after the Settlement
became final. The Settlement enjoined RB from using the terms
"Clinically Proven," "Science Proved," "Clinically Tested and
Shown," "clinical studies have shown," or similar "shown" claims on
Neuriva's labeling. But RB could still market Neuriva's ingredients
as "Clinically Tested" and "clinically tested to help support brain
health."
The Settlement Agreement also entitled six law firms representing
the Plaintiffs to seek $2.9 million in attorneys' fees. RB agreed
not to oppose the Plaintiffs' fee request (often referred to as a
"clear sailing" provision) and the parties agreed that, if the
Court awarded less than $2.9 million in fees, the remainder would
revert to RB, rather than to the Class (a "kicker" provision). RB
also agreed that it would support the Plaintiffs' efforts to prove
the value of the proposed injunctive relief to the court to win
approval of the Settlement and their fee request.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the class members released
all claims relating to misleading labeling and marketing of the
Neuriva Products.
On April 23, 2021, the district court granted preliminary approval
of the Settlement by entering a stipulated order that had been
attached to an unopposed motion filed by the Plaintiffs. The order
"preliminarily certified" a nationwide settlement class of "all
persons who purchased for personal consumption and not for resale,
one or more of the Neuriva Products (Neuriva Original, Neuriva
Plus, or Neuriva De-Stress), from Defendants or an authorized
reseller, in the United States, between the dates of Jan. 1, 2019
and the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement by the
Court."
The preliminary approval order also appointed a third party, the
Angeion Group, to act as the "Settlement Administrator," approved
the parties' suggested plan of notifying the class members of the
Settlement by placing advertisements on websites and social media
apps, set a final fairness hearing for Aug. 17, 2021, and set a
deadline of July 27 for Class members to object to the terms of the
Settlement or opt out.
One Class member, Frank, timely objected to the terms of the
Settlement. Frank is the director of litigation at the Hamilton
Lincoln Law Institute and a frequent objector to class-action
settlements around the country. He explained (in an accompanying
declaration) that he was a member of the Class because he had
purchased a 30-count package of Neuriva Original from Amazon on
Feb. 2, 2021 for personal use for $21.95.
In his objection, Frank argued that the Settlement's purported $8
million benefit was "illusory" because the claims process was
structured so that the class members were certain to receive only a
fraction of that amount, and that the Settlement's injunctive
relief was not targeted at Class members like him, who had
purchased Neuriva Products in the past, and was worthless in any
event. He contended that the Settlement must be disapproved based
on Congress' 2018 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.
The magistrate judge held the final fairness hearing and, on Dec.
15, 2021, issued a Report & Recommendation ("R&R") recommending
that the district court approves the proposed Settlement and awards
the requested $2.9 million in attorneys' fees. At the time of the
fairness hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel estimated that the total
amount in claims submitted by the class members would be between
$1,049,797.50 and $1,181,225 -- or approximately 3x less than the
amount requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and
costs. Ultimately, the class members would submit 59,877 claims
worth a total of $1,109,182.50. The R&R never formally certified
the Class that had previously been "preliminarily" certified.
Frank objected to the R&R on Dec. 29, 2021. On March 17, 2022, the
district court overruled Frank's objection and, in a short order,
adopted the R&R in full without additional analysis. Frank's timely
appeal followed.
The Eleventh Circuit states that the settling parties do not
contend that the district court erred in approving the Settlement;
rather, the appeal comes to the Court because one unnamed Class
member, an attorney and frequent class-action objector, Frank,
objected in district court and subsequently appealed the district
court's approval order. In essence, Frank argues that the parties
inflated the perceived value of the Settlement by touting that RB
would pay up to $8 million to Neuriva purchasers -- knowing all the
while that few Class members would complete the process of
submitting claims to receive payment -- and imposing changes to
RB's marketing that would not benefit past purchasers of Neuriva
and that were meaningless in any event. This, Frank contends,
allowed the Plaintiffs' counsel to secure a disproportionately
large fee award (some $2.9 million) while decreasing the overall
payout required of RB.
Whatever the merits of Frank's claims, the Eleventh Circuit opines
that they will have to wait for another day because, after thorough
review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, it
concludes that the Named Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their
claims for injunctive relief. Under longstanding Supreme Court
precedent, plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief must establish that
they are likely to suffer an injury that is "actual or imminent,"
not "conjectural or hypothetical." But, the Eleventh Circuit finds
that none of the Named Plaintiffs allege that they plan to purchase
any of the Neuriva Products again in the future -- to the contrary,
the operative complaint gives every indication that they will not
again purchase any of the Neuriva Products because they are
"worthless." The district court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to
award injunctive relief to the Named Plaintiffs or absent Class
members, and its approval of the Settlement Agreement (which was
based in real part on the award of injunctive relief) was an abuse
of discretion.
Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit vacates the Settlement approval
by the district court and remands the case for further proceedings
consistent with its Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3fsveba2 from Leagle.com.
RELIANCE VITAMIN: Costa Consumer Suit May Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Candace Cheung of Courthouse News Service reports a federal judge
in California on April 18, 2023 advanced a class action against a
protein powder manufacturer claiming that the company deliberately
misleads consumers about the amount of product in their
containers.
According to a suit first filed in August 2022, Reliance Vitamin,
producer of the PlantFusion brand of vegan protein supplements,
unlawfully relies on the marketing practice of "slack-fill" to
trick customers into purchasing their jars of supplements. The
plaintiffs say that upon opening, the opaque PlantFusion jars are
filled only halfway, with a deceptive and unnecessarily large empty
slack-fill space.
After initially dismissing the case this year, U.S. District Judge
William H. Orrick III found the first amended complaint
sufficiently showed that the vitamin company may have violated
reasonable consumer standards and misrepresented their product to
consumers.
The claims, brought by California resident Taylor Costa on behalf
of herself and others, include violations of unfair competition,
false advertising and warranty laws, as well as fraudulent
misrepresentations. Reliance Vitamin motioned to dismiss the
claims, saying that the slack-fill in their containers were
functional as part of manufacturing and logistical conditions.
Although Reliance, represented by Steptoe & Johnson, also claimed
that the PlantFusion containers provide information on its labeling
to make clear how many servings were in the jars, Orrick decided
that the size of the containers and the use of slack-fill may be
intentionally deceptive.
"Combined with her allegations that the labels on the Reliance
containers were not sufficient to dispel the deception, given they
do not provide a clear statement of yield that a reasonable
consumer would understand, Costa shows reasonable consumers are
likely to be misled by Reliance's container size and use of slack
fill," he wrote.
Costa, represented by attorney Zachary Chrzan, claims it is
impossible for PlantFusion consumers to truly quantify the amount
of protein powder they will be receiving in the jar, given the
nebulous concept of what constitutes a serving size of protein
powder.
Although the jars are labeled with a panel indicating how many
grams are in a serving size scoop and the amount of scoops per
container, Costa contends that all the information is given
separately and in fine print, requiring consumers to carefully
inspect the container and manually calculate how many drinks the
jar could produce. Even if Reliance provides an approximation of
how many servings can be made, Costa says, may not necessarily
adhere to the recommended serving size given their individual
needs, so the size of the container becomes the primary method of
determining the amount of product.
Orrick agreed it's unreasonable to expect consumers to do all this
at purchase time and that it is more likely that consumers would
use the size of the jar to approximate how much protein power was
being purchased.
The judge also ruled that the size of the containers may lead to
unfair competition with other protein powders that used clear
containers or otherwise visually indicated how much powder is in
the jars.
"Reliance's use of slack-fill was intentional and intended to
'harm' -- that is, to cause consumers to buy the product or spend
more than they otherwise would have on the product -- because it
shows that there were viable, non-misleading alternatives that
Reliance could have used; that Reliance knew of the viable,
non-misleading alternatives; and that Reliance chose a container
with more slack fill knowing its competitors had less slack fill
and so knowing it would have a competitive advantage," Orrick
wrote. [GN]
RITE AID: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Monmouth Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
County of Monmouth, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Orders dated March 31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
COUNTY OF MONMOUTH and DIANE SCAVELLO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RITE AID
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-20-cv-02024, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff County of Monmouth, a third-party
payor, and Plaintiff Diane Scavello, an individual consumer, bring
this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated against the Defendants to recover for the harm caused by
Rite Aid's unfair and deceptive price scheme to artificially
inflate the "usual and customary" prices reported and used to
charge Plaintiffs and members of the Class for purchases of
prescription drugs at Rite Aid pharmacies.
On July 24, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration of Plaintiff Scavello's claims.
On August 14, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
On March 31, 2023, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered Orders
denying both of Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and motion
to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as County of Monmouth, et al. v.
Rite Aid Corp, et al., Case No. 23-1655, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 10, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants RITE AID CORP, et al., are represented by:
Michael J. Ableson, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 309-6113
- and -
Joseph Bias, Esq.
J. Warren Rissier, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
- and -
Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
Natalie M. Georges, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
Plaintiffs-Appellees COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, et al., are represented
by:
George C. Aguilar, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
- and -
Carey Alexander, Esq.
Ethan S. Binder, Esq.
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT
230 Park Avenue
The Helmsley Building, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 519-0512
- and -
Erin G. Comite, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
- and -
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
- and -
David C. Magagna, Jr., Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
- and -
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
655 W Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
SALVATORE PRESCOTT: Gonzalez Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Francisco Gonzalez and others, Plaintiffs v. Andrew C.
Porter, and others, Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-20356-Civ-Scola
(S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida grants the motion to dismiss
filed by Attorney Defendants Andrew C. Porter and Salvatore
Prescott Porter & Porter, PLLC.
The Plaintiffs, Francisco Gonzalez and Eric Villanueva, brought the
purported class action lawsuit in state court seeking to recoup
their investments in a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme, a multi-entity
investment group known as EmpiresX. Previously, the Florida state
court had entered defaults against Defendants Goncalves and Emerson
Sousa Pires, two of the scheme's principals, and separately had
approved a settlement agreement with Mr. Joshua Nicholas, the
scheme's third principal. While the Defendants Goncalves and Pires
have allegedly fled the country (to Brazil and Dubai), Mr. Nicholas
has been sentenced to years in federal prison for his involvement
in the Ponzi scheme. The Plaintiffs now sue the Attorney Defendants
in addition to Defendants Goncalves and Pires for what the
Plaintiffs allege is the Attorney Defendants' role in facilitating
the cover-up of the Ponzi scheme.
The Plaintiffs' allegations against the Attorney Defendants are
relatively simple. Defendant Porter and his firm, Salvatore
Prescott Porter & Porter, PLLC, were retained to represent Mr.
Nicholas in response to a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange
Commission seeking information about the cryptocurrency investments
making up the Ponzi scheme. After the Attorney Defendants were
retained, they (through Mr. Porter) advised Mr. Nicholas -- their
client -- that it was in his best interests to exercise his Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to the SEC's
subpoena. This advice, the Plaintiff assert, constituted efforts by
the Attorney Defendants to actively and intentionally prevent Mr.
Nicholas from revealing information about Defendants Goncalves and
Pires' whereabouts to the authorities.
Based on Mr. Porter's legal advice to his client, the Plaintiffs
bring three counts against the Attorney Defendants: a claim for
aiding and abetting conversion (Count I), a claim for aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty (Count II), and a count for
civil conspiracy (Count III). They also assert Count III, the civil
conspiracy claim, against Defendants Goncalves and Pires.
The Attorney Defendants move to dismiss all three counts against
them based on the litigation privilege, which they assert is an
absolute bar to the case against them, and based on the Plaintiffs'
failure to sufficiently state claims upon which relief may be
granted both because their claims are implausible and because their
claims are not sufficiently supported by factual pleadings. In
response, the Plaintiffs argue that the litigation privilege does
not apply to the allegations in the complaint and that the
complaint sufficiently pleads its claims for relief.
Separately, the Court has previously instructed the Plaintiffs on
its procedures for obtaining a default judgment against Defendants
Goncalves and Pires, against whom Clerk's defaults have been
entered. The Plaintiffs, however, have never submitted either a
motion or notice, as required.
Judge Scola finds that the Plaintiffs' claims against the Attorney
Defendants are barred by Florida's litigation privilege. Further,
he finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to meet the
plausibility standard established in Twombly and Iqbal. Finally, he
observes that the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the
requirements of the Court's order on default judgment procedure
with regards to Defendants Gonzalez and Villanueva.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Scola grants the Attorney
Defendants' motion to dismiss. He dismisses the Plaintiff's claims
against the Attorney Defendants with prejudice. Further, he
dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Goncalves and
Pires, albeit without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the
case. All pending motions, if any, are denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yp36m5vk from Leagle.com.
SEACOR MARINE: Luno Seeks OT Pay for Operators Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE LUNO, individually and for others similarly situated v.
SEACOR MARINE PAYROLL MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01393 (S.D.
Tex., Apr. 13, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from SEACOR under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for SEACOR as a crane operator. Like the Day
Rate Workers, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in
a week. But SEACOR allegedly never paid the Plaintiff and the Day
Rate Workers overtime. Instead, SEACOR paid the Plaintiff and the
Day Rate Workers a flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate")
without overtime compensation. SEACOR never paid the Plaintiff or
the Day Rate Workers on a "salary basis." Although the Plaintiff
and the Day Rate Workers regularly worked 84+ hours/workweek,
SEACOR never paid them overtime wages, the Plaintiff claims.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Day Rate Workers are entitled to
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, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for SEACOR as a Crane Operator from
approximately March 2022 until March 2023.
SEACOR offers transport support services for offshore energy
facilities worldwide, including crew transportation, platform
supply, offshore accommodation, maintenance support, anchor
handling and mooring capabilities, and liftboats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
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
SHARBERT ENTERPRISES: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sharbert Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Sharbert Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03094 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sharbert Enterprises is located in Belgrade, Montana primarily
operates in the gift shop business/industry.[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
SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Dresner Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENJAMIN DRESNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS,
INC., LAURA K. SHAWVER, JONATHAN PIAZZA, RUSS HAWKINSON, PETER
THOMPSON, VICKIE L. CAPPS, ROBERT HERSHBERG, SAQIB ISLAM, ANDREW
POWELL, JONATHAN ROOT, THILO SCHROEDER, and SCOTT PLATSHON,
Defendants, Case No. C21-1499 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J.
Peachman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint and dismisses the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice.
Silverback is a biopharmaceutical company that developed SBT6050,
an Antibody-Drug Conjugate. Antibody-drug conjugates consist of a
payload (a small molecule drug), and an antibody that is engineered
against a specific antigen. SBT6050 is a TLR8 agonist
linker-payload conjugated to a HER2-directed monoclonal antibody
that targets tumors, such as breast, gastric, and non-small cell
lung cancers.
Before drugs candidates like SBT6050 can be sold commercially, it
must first undergo three phases of clinical trials. Phase 1 trials
test the drug's safety, dose tolerance, and other properties.
Silverback's "Phase 1/1b Trial" was designed to evaluate SBT6050's
safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics ("PK"), pharmacodynamics
("PD"), and anti-tumor activity for the treatment of advanced or
metastatic HER2-expressing solid tumors in patients for whom all
available therapies associated with clinical benefit had failed.
Silverback designed the trial to proceed through four parts with
data from each cohort informing the dose escalation for the
proceeding cohorts. Silverback began its Phase 1/1b Trial in July
2020.
Silverback's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") took place on Dec. 3,
2020, five months after it commenced the Phase 1/1b Trial.
Silverback filed a registration statement and a prospectus with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with its IPO.
Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Silverback conducted the IPO,
issuing 11.5 million shares of common stock priced at $21 per
share. Through the Offering Documents, Silverback disclosed that
six patients were enrolled in the first, lowest-dose cohort of Part
1 -- monotherapy at 0.3 mg/kg every two weeks. It further disclosed
that changes in the PD markers consistent with the potential
mechanism of action have been observed in the first dose cohort. It
also discussed its second drug candidate, SBT6290, which expands on
the potential of a TLR8 agonist as a payload and utilizes the same
mechanism as SBT6050 to activate immune cells for localized tumor
treatment.
The Plaintiffs allege the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and misled investors in violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, they allege that though the
Offering Documents discuss changes in the PD markers and SBT6290,
Silverback and the individual Securities Act Defendants failed to
disclose that patients treated thus far in the Phase 1/1B Trial
only exhibited limited anti-tumor activity despite the observed
changes and that if SBT6050 failed then Silverback would have to
discontinue clinical programs for both SBT6050 and SBT6290.
On March 29, 2021, Silverback filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K
with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating
results for the 2020 year. The Plaintiffs allege that (i) patients
treated with SBT6050 as a monotherapy in the first dose cohort only
exhibited limited anti-tumor activity; (ii) SBT6050 used in
conjunction with pembro did not have a manageable safety profile;
and (iii) the documents failed to reveal that is SBT6050 trial
failed, Silverback would have to discontinue the clinical programs
for both SBT6050 and SBT6290.
Silverback later filed 10-Qs in May and August 2021. It announced
in May that SBT6050 continued to advance through monotherapy and
pembro combination dose escalation arms, and that changes in the PD
markers in the first dose cohort had been observed. In August, it
reiterated it had observed changes in the PD markers in the first
monotherapy dose cohort. The Plaintiffs allege these statements
misled investors because patients only exhibited limited anti-tumor
activity.
On Nov. 10, 2021, Silverback filed its 10-Q for the third quarter
2021 and informed investors that three patients treated with higher
doses of SBT6050 in combination therapy experienced serious
dose-limiting toxicities, including one patient death. The
Plaintiffs allege these statements misled investors because trial
data demonstrated limited tumor activity, that SBT6050 used in
conjunction with prembro did not have a manageable safety profile,
and finally, that Silverback failed to reveal that if SBT6050 were
to be discontinued then so would SBT6290.
On March 31, 2022, Silverback filed its 10-K for fiscal year 2021.
It announced it had discontinued the SBT6050 trial after a review
of the entire of body of data revealed limited monotherapy
anti-tumor activity and cytokine-related adverse events that
limited the dose in combination with pembro.
The Plaintiffs bring the class action alleging negligence and
securities fraud based on the premise that Silverback and the
individually named Defendants knew or should have known SBT6050 was
not safe or effective as an anti-tumor drug and failed to disclose
SBT6290's success was tied to SBT6050's success. They formulated
their claims as actions under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933; sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and SEC Rule 10b-5. Their Securities Act claims
pertain only to the Offering Documents, which they allege were
prepared negligently. Their Exchange Act claims encompasses all
filings, press releases, and statements made during the entire
class period from March 29, 2021, to March 31, 2022.
The Defendants once again ask the Court to incorporate and take
judicial notice of several documents. The Plaintiffs do not oppose
the request.
The Defendants ask the Court to incorporate by reference Exhibits
A-S attached to the Declaration of Koji Fukumura. (Dkt. No. 48.)
Exhibits A-S are all Silverback's SEC filings and statements, on
which the Plaintiffs' allegations are based. The Court previously
incorporated these by reference and will do so again as these are
referred to extensively in the SAC. Judge Peachman grants the
Defendants request as to Exhibits A-S.
The Defendants then ask the Court to take judicial notice of
Exhibits T-Y which are analyst reports published during the Class
Period. Judge Peachman grants the Defendants' request as to these
Exhibits.
Lastly, Exhibits W and X are government resources. Exhibit W is a
guidance document detailing good clinical practices for trials such
as Silverbacks and Exhibit X is the National Cancer Institute's
definition of an "open-label study." Exhibit Y is a publication by
PharmaSUG, entitled Implementation of Data Cut off in Analysis of
Clinical Trials. While the parties' understanding of what an
open-label study is in dispute, Judge Peachman takes judicial
notice of these documents for the purpose of understanding what is
generally understood by "open-label" and best clinical practices.
She grants the Defendants' request as to these Exhibits.
Judge Peachman turns to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. First,
the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' section 11 claim
arguing that it is subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b)'s heightened pleading standard and that the Plaintiffs have
failed to meet that standard.
Judge Peachman agrees. She finds that the Plaintiffs' SAC alleges
the same misleading statements and omissions for both the section
11 claim and the section 10(b) claim. And the Plaintiffs suggest
the same evidence would be used as well for both claims. Because
the Plaintiffs' claims allege the same factual allegations and
evidence for both claims, the Plaintiffs' section 11 claim is
grounded in fraud and must meet the heightened pleading
requirements of Rule 9(b).
Judge Peachman finds that because the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that the omission that SBT6050's failure dooms SBT6290
is material and necessary to make the documents not misleading,
their claim as to this statement fails. She grants Silverback's
Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' section 11 claims.
Second, the Defendants move to dismiss the Section 10(b) and SEC
Rule 10b-5 claims. Section 10(b) and 10b-5 claims are subject to
heightened pleading standards under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") and Rule 9(b). The Court
previously dismissed the Plaintiffs section 10(b) claims for
failure to meet these standards.
Judge Peachman holds that the Plaintiffs' SAC fails to cure the
deficiencies. Among other things, she says (i) the Plaintiffs fail
to show that Silverback's statements regarding SBT6290 are false
and misleading because there is nothing to suggest that Silverback
and the Exchange Act Defendants knew they would have to cease
development of SBT6290 if SBT6050 failed; (ii) the Plaintiffs do
not identify any false or misleading statements made in the
Abstract or during the ESMO presentation; and (iii) the Plaintiff
point to nothing false or even misleading about Silverback's
statement discussing SBT6290.
For all the reasons she articulated, Judge Peachman finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to meet the pleading requirements for
falsity under Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA. She grants the Defendants'
Motion as to the Plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim.
Judge Peachman also finds that the Plaintiffs also fail to advance
sufficient allegations of scienter. Overall, she says the inference
of scienter is weak and certainly falls well below the required
strong inference needed to survive a motion to dismiss. She finds
the Plaintiffs failure to adequately plead scienter as an
additional ground to dismiss the claim.
Lastly, the Defendants move to dismiss the Section 15 and Section
20(a) claims. These claims both require underlying primary
violations of the securities laws. Because the Plaintiffs have
failed to adequately plead a violation of the federal securities
laws, their section 15 and section 20(a) claims are also
dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Peachman concludes that the
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint fails to allege with
particularity that Silverback and the individually named Defendants
made materially misleading statements and omissions in the Offering
Documents and during the class period in violation of section 11 of
the Securities Act and section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
Because the Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint without prejudice and the Second Amended
Complaint fails for the same reasons, she dismisses the Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. The Clerk is ordered to
provide copies of the Order to all counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2pv9vx4x from Leagle.com.
SITREP SECURITY: Sarnowski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sitrep Security
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Sarnowski, and others
similarly situated v. Sitrep Security Solutions, Inc., Case No.
BCV-23-101143 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
SITREP Security Solutions -- https://www.sitrepsecurityllc.com/ --
offers Security Services to clients across Bakersfield, Santa
Barbara, Ventura, and the surrounding areas.[BN]
SMOOTHSTACK INC: O'Brien Seeks OT Wages for Recruits Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN O'BRIEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SMOOTHSTACK, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00491 (E.D. Va.,
Apr. 13, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, for minimum wages, overtime wages,
unlawful kickbacks on wages, and violation of the FLSA's
requirement that employers pay their workers wages "free and
clear."
The suit seeks to invalidate the unconscionable and unenforceable
liquidated damages provision that Smoothstack requires its
employees - all low-wage tech workers - to sign. The Plaintiff also
seeks compensatory and punitive damages under the FLSA, against
Smoothstack for its unlawful retaliatory discharge of the Plaintiff
following his protected action of complaining about Smoothstack's
unlawful wage scheme.
At the start of employment, Smoothstack requires Recruits to
undergo an "intensive" training program lasting six months covering
programming and other information technology (IT) skills. Although
Smoothstack claims to offer pay and full benefits during the
Training Program on its website, it does not, in fact, pay its
Recruits any compensation for the first three weeks of the Training
Program. Still, Recruits work very demanding hours, up to and
beyond 80 hours in a workweek. For the remaining five months of the
Training Program, Recruits continue to work very demanding hours,
up to and beyond 80 hours in a week. However, Smoothstack only pays
Recruits for a maximum of 40 hours per week, even if they actually
work many more hours. Once a Recruit completes the Training Program
and becomes a Consultant, they are available to take assignments
with Smoothstack's clients in any of a variety of roles, such as
software engineer, cybersecurity analyst, development operations
engineer, or the like, the suit says.
Once on assignment with a Smoothstack client, Consultants earn
approximately $26.00 to $31.00 per hour. When waiting for
assignments, Consultants earn minimum wage and are not allowed to
quit Smoothstack per the terms of the "Training Repayment Agreement
Provision (TRAP) described below:
The TRAP: Smoothstack's Training Repayment Agreement
Provision Obligates Consultants to Pay Smoothstack Tens
of Thousands of Dollars if They Resign Before Completing
4,000 Hours of Client Work.
The Plaintiff was hired as a Recruit on April 13, 2020. From April
2020 to October 2020, the Plaintiff participated in Smoothstack's
Training Program. The Plaintiff executed the Training Agreement on
April 30, 2020, and executed the Employment Agreement on October
20, 2020. At the time Smoothstack provided the Plaintiff with the
Employment Agreement, Smoothstack was paying him the minimum wage
for 40 hours of work per week even if he worked in excess of 40,
and had been doing so for months, since April 2020.
Smoothstack is an employee-staffing agency based in McLean,
Virginia, that recruits aspiring IT professionals at the beginning
of their career with promises to help them launch their careers
with paid training and work assignments with one of their clients,
a Fortune 500 firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Molly Elkin, Esq.
Rachel Lerner, Esq.
MCGILLIVARY, STEELE, & ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
rbl@mselaborlaw.com
- and -
Rachel W. Dempsey, Esq.
David Seligman, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: rachel@towardsjustice.org
david@towardsjustice.org
- and -
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
Hannah Cole-Chu, Esq.
Courtney J. Hinkle, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8837
E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
hcolechu@outtengolden.com
chinkle@outtengolden.com
- and -
Persis Yu, Esq.
Khandice Lofton, Esq.
STUDENT BORROWER PROTECTION CENTER
1025 Connecticut Ave NW, No. 717
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 670-3871
E-mail: persis@protectborrowers.org
khandice@protectborrowers.org
SPEAR WILDERMAN: Raniell Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spear Wilderman, P.C.
The case is styled as Jerome Raniell, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Spear Wilderman, P.C., Case No.
2:23-cv-01442 (E.D. Pa., April 14, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other Contract.
Spear Wilderman, P.C. -- https://spearwilderman.com/ -- are a
union-side labor law firm, offering a full range of legal services
to our clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Morrison Files Suit in E.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spinnaker Insurance
Company. The case is styled as James Morrison, Dallas Morrison,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Spinnaker Insurance Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00324-ALM (E.D. Tex.,
April 14, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Spinnaker Insurance Company -- https://spinnakerins.com/ --
operates as a property and casualty insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shaun Wesley Hodge, Esq.
HODGE LAW FIRM PLLC
1301 Market Street
Galveston, TX 77550
Phone: (409) 762-5000
Fax: (409) 763-2300
Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com
STALLEX SKIN CARE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stallex Skin Care,
Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Stallex Skin Care, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-03085 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Stallex Skin Care, Inc. offers skin care products, namely, lotion,
cleanser, soap, moisturizer, non-medicated lip balm, eye cream, sun
screen and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
STERIGENICS US: A. Freeman Can't Intervene in Vallejo Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXANDER VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STERIGENICS U.S., LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01788-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denies nonparty Anthony Freeman's
motion to intervene and for leave to file an Opposition to the
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, or in
the alternative, a Motion to Deny Preliminary Approval.
The Court finds the matters suitable for decision on the papers and
without oral argument, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1.
Accordingly, it vacates the hearing currently set for April 27,
2023, at 2:00 p.m.
Freeman, the named plaintiff in a separate class action lawsuit
against the Defendant, seeks to intervene in the instant action and
moves for leave to file an Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, or in the alternative, a
Motion to Deny Preliminary Approval. The motion arose in the
context of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and
PAGA Settlement in the instant case.
In the instant case, Plaintiff Vallejo ("Plaintiff") alleges
violations of wage abuse under California's Labor Codes and
Business and Professions Code. His original Complaint alleged
causes of action for: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid meal period
premiums, (3) unpaid rest period premiums, (4) unpaid minimum
wages, (5) final wages not timely paid, (6) failure to provide
accurate wage statements, (7) failure to reimburse expenses, and
(8) violation of California Business and Professions Code Section
17200, et seq.
On June 29, 2021, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's sixth claim
for failure to provide accurate wage statements without leave to
amend, as the claim was time-barred. The Plaintiff thereafter filed
a Second Amended Complaint, to which the Defendant filed a motion
to dismiss. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss.
The Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), alleging
claims for: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid meal period premiums,
(3) unpaid rest period premiums, (4) unpaid minimum wages, (5)
final wages not timely paid, (6) failure to reimburse expenses, and
(7) violation of California Business and Professions Code Section
17200, et seq. The TAC defined the Class as "all current and former
non-exempt employees of any of the Defendants within the State of
California at any time commencing four (4) years preceding the
filing of Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice of
the certified class action is provided to the class."
On Nov. 4, 2022, after over 31 months of litigation and two rounds
of mediation with the Honorable Magistrate Judge Allison H.
Goddard, the parties accepted a mediator's proposal issued by the
Magistrate Judge on Oct. 28, 2022. The accepted proposal and
settlement agreement specifically contemplated that the Plaintiff
would file a Fourth Amended Complaint ("4AC"), adding back the
previously dismissed claim for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and include a claim under the California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") for penalties, that Defendant would
not object to Plaintiff's standing to assert these claims, and that
the settlement was contingent on the release of such claims. As
part of the proposed settlement, $25,000 is allocated to the PAGA
claims from the proposed settlement total of $875,000. Thereafter,
on Dec. 20, 2022, the Plaintiff submitted his letter to the
California Labor & Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA").
On Jan. 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of class action and PAGA settlement, to which the
Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition.
On Sept. 15, 2022, Freeman submitted a notice to the LWDA, at which
time there were no other LWDA notices filed against the Defendant.
The following day, he filed his class action complaint in the San
Bernardino Superior Court, alleging claims for: (1) unpaid minimum
wages, (2) unpaid overtime wages, (3) unpaid meal period premiums,
(4) unpaid rest period premiums, (5) unpaid vested vacation, (6)
final wages not timely paid, (7) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and (8) unfair and unlawful competition.
In January 2023, Freeman amended his complaint to add PAGA causes
of action after the PAGA's 65-day exhaustion period had elapsed.
Thereafter, on Feb. 7, 2023, the Defendant's counsel first informed
Freeman's counsel of the pending settlement in the instant case.
Upon learning of the settlement, Freeman limited his action to
allege only Wage Statement Claims and PAGA Claims, dismissing all
other claims without prejudice.
First, Freeman asks the Court to take judicial notice of five
exhibits in support of his motion to intervene: (1) the original
Complaint filed in Freeman v. Sterigenics, U.S., LLC, et al., case
no. CIVSB2220535, in the San Bernardino Superior Court, on Sept.
16, 2022; (2) the First Amended Complaint filed in the Freeman
Action on Jan. 12, 2023; (3) Freeman's notice to the LWDA,
submitted on Sept. 15, 2022; (4) the Order granting the Request for
Dismissal of Causes of Action Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 in
the Freeman Action, signed Feb. 21, 2023; and (5) a copy of the
search results for PAGA notices filed against Sterigenics as of
Feb. 23, 2023. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant oppose
judicial notice of these documents.
Regarding Freeman's first four requests, a "court may take judicial
notice of court records in another case." United States v. Howard,
381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004). However, "[w]hile the
authenticity and existence of a particular order, motion, pleading
or judicial proceeding, which is a matter of public record, is
judicially noticeable, veracity and validity of its contents . . .
are not." United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F.Supp.2d 964,
974 (E.D. Cal. 2004). Accordingly, the Court grants Freeman's
request for judicial notice for the stated purpose that these
documents exist.
As to Freeman's request for judicial notice of the PAGA notices,
Judge Battaglia says judicial notice is appropriate because they
are part of the public record. As to Freeman's request for judicial
notice of the PAGA notices, he says judicial notice is appropriate
because they are part of the public record. He, therefore, grants
the requests.
Freeman then seeks to intervene in this matter pursuant to Rule
24(a), or alternatively, Rule 24(b). He asserts intervention under
either provision is appropriate because the Plaintiff lacks
standing to pursue his Wage Statement claim arising under
California Labor Code Section 226 and claims under PAGA, and that
the parties included these two last-minute claims to "deprive the
proposed Plaintiff in Intervention, the putative class members, the
State of California and Aggrieved Employees from further pursuing
those two claims in exchange for pennies on the dollar. He further
asserts these two claims were added to subsume those same claims
alleged in the Freeman matter.
Judge Battaglia states that there are four requirements for
intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(a): (1) timeliness; (2) an interest relating to property or
transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) disposition of
the action may impair or impede the movant's ability to protect the
interest; and (4) the movant's interest is not adequately
represented by existing parties.
Judge Battaglia finds that (1) Freeman has satisfied the timeliness
prong, as the notice of intervention was filed just weeks after the
Vallejo Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement was filed;
(2) Freeman does not have a protectable interest and thus may not
intervene as of right; (3) because Freeman cannot show that his
interests will be impaired absent intervention, he may not
intervene under Rule 24(a); and (4) the Plaintiff does not lack
standing and is not time-barred in bringing the claims. Based on
the foregoing, Freeman's motion to intervene as of right is
denied.
Freeman alternatively seeks permissive intervention pursuant to
Rule 24(b), contending the three prongs for such intervention are
clearly met. Plaintiff and Defendant oppose intervention. (See
generally Doc. Nos. 82, 84.) In Defendant's opposition, it contends
intervention will only unduly delay the instant case and unfairly
prejudice the existing parties. (Doc. No. 82 at 18-19.)
Judge Battaglia agrees. He finds permissive intervention is not
warranted because Freeman's interests are already adequately
represented through the class action settlement process. In
addition, he finds that allowing permissive intervention would not
significantly add to the full development of the underlying factual
issues in the case nor the equitable adjudication of the legal
questions involved but, instead, would significantly delay the
proceedings and prejudice the rights of the original parties here.
Therefore, he declines to allow permissive intervention pursuant to
Rule 24(b).
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2tze3d52 from Leagle.com.
TENSUNITS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TensUnits, Inc. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Tensunits, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03098
(S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TensUnits, Inc. -- https://tensunits.com/ -- offers higher quality
TENS machines, EMS, TENS/EMS combos, and portable home ultrasound
devices.[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
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Jackson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dewayne Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TMX Finance, LLC; and TMX Finance Corporate Services,
Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00099-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., Apr. 13, 2023)
seeks to redress the Defendants' unlawful, willful and wanton
failure to reasonably protect the sensitive personal identifiable
information (PII) of the Plaintiff and Class Members, in violation
of the Defendants' legal obligations.
On March 30, 2023, the Defendant issued a notice letter disclosing
to its customers that it had experienced a cyberattack compromising
the PII of approximately 4,822,580 individuals who have used the
Defendants' services in the past. The PII compromised from the Data
Breach includes 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 Breach Notice informed
recipients of the Defendants' services that "the earliest known
breach of TMX's systems started in early December 2022," says the
suit.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has spent time and
effort dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which
includes time spent responding to and verifying the legitimacy of
the Breach Notice, self-monitoring his accounts, and the future
time spent worrying about potential breaches of his PII, the suit
asserts.
Plaintiff Jackson obtained loans or other services from the
Defendants or their affiliates prior to the Data Breach and
received Defendants' Breach Notice on March 30, 2023.
TMX Finance operates several consumer credit and lending
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Franklin Harris, Esq.
FRANKLIN LAW, LLC
2250 E. Victory Dr., Suite 102
Savannah, GA 31404
Telephone: (912) 335-3305
Facsimile: (912) 335-3305
E-mail: rebecca@franklinlawllc.com
- and -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
Facsimile: (404) 205-8395
E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
TMX FINANCE: Mahone Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Desaray Mahone, Leon
Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc.; TMX Finance LLC doing
business as: TitleMax doing business as: TitleBucks doing business
as: InstaLoan; Case No. 4:23-cv-00102-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 14,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Default.
TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. --
https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amy C. Daugherty, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM
200 13th St.
Columbus, GA 31901
Phone: (706) 322-6226
Email: adaugherty@thefinleyfirm.com
TMX FINANCE: Millner Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Ebony Millner, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMX Finance
Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00098-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.,
April 13, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. --
https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
P.O. Box 10164
Savannah, GA 31412
Phone: (912) 447-8400
Fax: (912) 629-6347
Email: twithers@gwllawfirm.com
TMX FINANCE: Mitchell Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMX Finance, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Lakendra Mitchell, Evelyn Francis, Shawn
White, Muranda Wright, Francis Ann Washington, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMX Finance LLC, TMX
Finance Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00100-RSB-CLR
(S.D. Ga., April 13, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. --
https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Franklin Harris, Esq.
FRANKLIN LAW, LLC
2250 E. Victory Dr., Suite 102
Savannah, GA 31404
Phone: (912) 335-3305
Email: rebecca@franklinlawllc.com
TRANS UNION: White Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kristy White, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Trans Union LLC, Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. CIVSB2225479 was removed from the Superior Court of
California San Bernardino County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 14, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00652-FMO-SHK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Transunion -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- offers total credit
protection all in one place from credit score, credit report and
credit alert.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
21031 Ventura Boulevard Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ritka Singh, Esq.
QUILLING SELANDER LOWNDS WINSLETT AND MOSER, P.C
6900 North Dallas Parkway Suite 800
Plano, TX 75024
Phone: (214) 560-5442
Fax: (214) 871-2111
Email: rsingh@qslwm.com
TRANSPORTATION ONE: Kuljanin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Kuljanin, on behalf of herself and a class of all those
similarly situated v. TRANSPORTATION ONE LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02362 (N.D. Ill., April 14, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL").
The Defendant employs scores of sales employees like the Plaintiff,
whose primary job duty is to carry out this function by repeatedly
booking loads of freight with carriers and customers, throughout
each day. The Defendant uniformly classifies these employees as
"exempt" and pays them all the same way--a base salary plus
commissions, with no additional pay for overtime. It requires them
to work at least ten-and-a-half-hour shifts, five days per week,
and thus they regularly work overtime. The employees' primary job
duty, booking loads of freight with customers and carriers, amounts
to direct, individual sales and is "nonexempt" work, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Carrier Sales
Representative in November 2020.
Transportation One is a provider of transportation and logistics
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
Martin S. Stainthorp, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: mbolanos@fishlawfirm.com
pcowlin@fishlawfirm.com
mstainthorp@fishlawfirm.com
UNILEVER UNITED: Court Rejects Mislabeling Claims in False Ads Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Brittain of Reuters reports that Unilever's (ULVR.L) "I Can't
Believe It's Not Butter!" spray is governed by different U.S. Food
and Drug Administration regulations than butter and similar
products, a U.S. appeals court ruled April 18, 2023, defeating a
long-running false advertising class action.
A split 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims that Unilever
based its zero-fat, zero-calorie advertising for the spray on
artificially low serving sizes.
The plaintiffs' attorney Uri Idstrom of the Eureka Law Firm said
they "continue to believe that the FDA did not authorize Unilever
to deceptively label its product" and are reviewing their options.
Representatives for Unilever and Upfield, the Unilever spinoff that
now sells "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" products, did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.
The consumer plaintiffs sued Unilever in 2013. They claimed the FDA
mischaracterized Unilever's product as a "spray" instead of butter,
margarine, oil or shortening, which have larger serving sizes under
FDA regulations.
The group said the listed serving sizes were too low to reflect how
people actually use the spray, and that they would have paid less
or not bought it at all if they had known its true fat and calorie
content.
The 9th Circuit on April 18, 2023 upheld a Northern California
federal court's 2021 decision to dismiss the lawsuit.
The court said the FDA properly classified the product as a spray,
and that if the plaintiffs "believe that Butter! Spray should have
a higher customary usage reference amount, the proper forum in
which to air that grievance is the FDA (or Congress), not the
courts."
U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero said in a dissent that it was
"ludicrous" that a "bottle of flavored oil containing 1,160
calories and 124 grams of fat can be transformed into zero calories
and zero grams of fat by the simple act of replacing the bottle cap
with a pump device."
The case is Pardini v. Unilever United States Inc, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit, No. 21-16806. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Appeals Court Ruling in Long Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled AMELIA
LONG, KAREN DEVIN, RICHARD HARDY II, TABITHA MARCUM, and KAREN
SANSOM individually, and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY; PENNY COX in her official
capacity as Treasurer, University of Kentucky; COMMONWEALTH OF
KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; and ALLISON BALL, in her official
capacity as Kentucky State Treasurer, Case No. 3:20-cv-00032-GFVT,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
(Frankfort).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from
the Kentucky Circuit Court, Franklin County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort) on May 5,
2020.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their
constitutional right to due process by referring their medical debt
incurred at the University of Kentucky hospital to the Kentucky
Department of Revenue for collection.
The appellate case is captioned as COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. AMELIA LONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARY SITUATED, ET AL., Case No. 2023-CA-0411,
in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, filed on April 10, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
is represented by:
Raymond Campbell Connell, Esq.
Frank Leslie Dempsey, Esq.
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
501 High Street
Frankfort, KY 40602-5222
Plaintiffs-Appellees AMELIA LONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A
CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al., are represented by:
E. Douglas Richards, Esq.
Chevy Chase Plaza
836 Euclid Avenue, Suite 321
Lexington, KY 40502
E-mail: Edrichards714@gmail.com
VAPORE TECHNOLOGY: Tiscareno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vapore Technology,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Felipe Tiscareno, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. Vapore Technology, Inc., Ravello Properties, LLC,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0003872 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., April 14, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Vapor Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.vapor-tech.net/ -- is a
manufacturer of specialty environmental chemicals & equipment
located near Houston, Texas.[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
WESTCARE CALIFORNIA: NatalierRahe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westcare California,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as NatalierRahe, an individual, on
behalf herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Westcare California, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0003758 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
WestCare -- https://www.westcare.com/page/where-we-serve_CA --is a
national nonprofit offering a broad spectrum of behavioral health
and human services in 19 States, four U.S. territories, and three
countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
WILCO LIFE: West's Bid to Compel Production of Docs Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHERRI WEST, Plaintiff v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02961-RLM-MKK (S.D. Ind.),
Magistrate Judge M. Kendra Lump of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, grants in part
and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.
From 1994 to May 2018, West had a universal life insurance plan
with Wilco. In July 2011, Wilco raised the cost of insurance
("COI") rate. West continued paying her premiums until 2018, when
the monthly COI increased beyond her policy's accumulation value
and her policy lapsed.
After losing her policy, West filed the lawsuit, a putative class
action, in which she alleges her policy lapsed as part of Wilco's
"shock lapse strategy." As alleged, this "strategy" entailed Wilco
significantly increasing COI rates, in defiance of policyholders'
reasonable expectations, with the goal of causing a high number of
policy surrenders and lapses. With fewer policies on the books,
Wilco could increase its profits and recover past losses. This,
West alleged, constituted a breach of contract.
Following the Court's order on Wilco's motion to dismiss, West's
sole claim is that Wilco breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. More specifically, she alleges that each
application of the allegedly improper COI rate was a separate
breach. She has plausibly alleged breaches between June 2, 2015
(the start of the limitations period) to May 2018 (the date of her
policy lapse).
In the Motion now before the Court, West seeks to compel Wilco to
produce 3 categories of information, which she says are responsive
to 14 of her document requests (Nos. 1, 2, 25, 43, 46, 51, 56, 57,
59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70) and 7 of her interrogatories (Nos. 18-23,
25).
The three categories are: 1) post-repricing documents related to
Wilco's 2011 increase of COI rates and expense charges and its
financial condition; 2) Wilco's 2010 Regulatory Settlement
Agreement and related documents; and 3) documents produced and/or
sought in lawsuits involving a different policy block (the
LifeTrend litigation). Broadly speaking, West contends the
information she seeks in these categories goes towards establishing
her claim, demonstrating damages, refuting Wilco's affirmative
defenses, and facilitating class certification. Wilco objects to
these requests because, among other things, they are neither
relevant to the parties' claims and defenses nor proportional to
the needs of the case.
After "meet and confers" failed to resolve the disputes, West
turned to the Court. And after two discovery conferences, the Court
permitted West to move to compel the production of and
responsiveness to these matters. That Motion is now before the
Court.
The heart of the present dispute is relevancy: the parties take
opposite positions regarding the relevancy of post-repricing
information. West argues that her requests seek information needed
to prove Wilco engaged in a shock-lapse strategy. In response,
Wilco says the requested information is neither relevant nor
proportional because any post-2011 information has no bearing on
whether the increase was reasonable based on the information
available to Wilco when it implemented the 2011 COI rate increase.
The threshold question for the Court is whether West has
demonstrated that the requested information is relevant to any
party's claim or defense. Based on Wilco's response to West's
motion to compel, a few points bear noting before proceeding
further. First, a discovery dispute only requires the Court to
determine, as a threshold matter, if the requesting party met its
burden of showing that the information sought is relevant to any
party's claim or defense. Second, the question of relevance turns
on the claims and defenses put forth in the parties' pleadings.
Judge Lump finds West has carried her burden of demonstrating that
discovery regarding post-repricing documents is relevant to the
claims and defenses in the case. And Wilco has failed to show that
this material is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm
occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in
favor of broad disclosure. She concludes post-repricing information
is within the scope of discovery.
Having addressed Wilco's overarching objection that post-repricing
documents are not relevant, Judge Lump then turns to West's
specific requests. Broadly speaking, West's post-repricing requests
pertain to the post-2011 performance and profitability of the
policies and Wilco's post-2011 financial status.
West first asks the Court to compel the production of certain
policy block data and asserts that Wilco's responses to Requests
for Production Nos. 51 and 56 were inadequate.
Judge Lump holds that West has made an adequate showing at this
stage that information known to Wilco and the factors going into
its decision to increase COI rates (or maintain rates at the higher
level) is relevant to her claim. So too is information pertaining
to the disparity between expected or anticipated gains and actual
gains. As such, she is entitled to the information she seeks in
Requests No. 51 and 60. The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted
with respect to the Plaintiff's First Request for Production Nos.
51 and 60. Wilco will produce all documents responsive to those
requests (including an updated spreadsheet, if responsive) within
28 days of the Order.
West also seeks full answers to Interrogatories 18, 19, and 25. She
contends that the answers to these interrogatories, in combination
with the spreadsheet referenced (Exhibit 6), will demonstrate
Wilco's shock-lapse strategy and inform the issue of damages. In
general, Interrogatories 18 and 19 seek information about the
number of CUL and CIUL2 policies that have been surrendered or have
lapsed (terminated) due to inadequate funding since the Monthly COI
Rate Increase and the face value of the surrendered or terminated
CUL policies. Interrogatory 25 seeks state-by-state data about
in-force, lapsed, and surrendered policies.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Lump finds these
interrogatories relevant to West's claims and will likely assist
her with not only proving her case, but also determining any
potential damages and establishing the class. Because these
requests are relevant to West's claims and proportional to her case
and because Wilco has not articulated any objection, Wilco will
fully answer Interrogatories 18, 19, and 25 within 28 days of the
Order.
In her discussion of the general category of post-repricing
documents, West also asks the Court to compel responses to
Interrogatories 20, 21, 22, and 23. In general, Interrogatories 20,
21, 22, and 23 seek information regarding the impact of the COI
rate and expense charge increases on monthly deductions. These
requests are relevant to West's claims and will likely assist her
in not only proving her case, but also determining the class and
any potential damages. Wilco has not articulated any objection.
Wilco will fully answer Interrogatories 20, 21, 22, and 23 within
28 days of the Order.
Additionally, it appears -- and West maintains -- that Wilco has
not verified its responses to the Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories, which include Interrogatories Nos. 18, 19, and 20
to 23. Rule 33(b) requires that answers to interrogatories be
verified and signed by the person answering the interrogatory, not
only by the party's attorney. As such, when responding to the
Order, Wilco must provide proper verification for all its answers
to the foregoing interrogatories.
In addition to specific policy block data, West also requests
information pertaining to testing of and predictions about the
policies' performance as well as data about the policies' impact on
Wilco's profits. Under this broad umbrella, West requests the Court
to compel responses to Request Nos. 25, 43, 46, 56, 57, 59, and
61.
Once again, with some exceptions, Judge Lump says the parties fail
to tie their arguments closely to specific requests, exaggerating
the difficulty of the task before the Court. She grants the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to the Plaintiff's First
Request for Production Nos. 25, 43, 46, 56, 57, 59, and 61. Wilco
will produce all documents responsive to those requests within 28
days of the Order.
In addition to requesting the Court to compel responses to various
discovery requests, West also states that Wilco should agree to an
ESI protocol and produce relevant indexes outlining files contained
in Wilco's voluminous ESI and hard-copy sources and used by Wilco's
counsel for discovery purposes. An ESI Supplement to the Case
Management Plan was issued on April 6, 2022. To the extent West
seeks to amend that protocol or requests the Court's assistance
with enforcing its terms, West must file a separate motion.
Moreover, any argument on this point must be sufficiently
developed, which it was not. This portion of her Motion to Compel
is denied.
The second category of documents sought by West pertains to the
2010 Regulatory Settlement Agreement ("RSA" or "2010 RSA").
Specifically, West asks the Court to order Wilco to respond to
Request Nos. 1 (The Regulatory Settlement Agreement described in
WILCO_000001) and 2 (All proceeding transcripts (including
exhibits), deposition transcripts (including exhibits), and expert
reports in any regulatory proceeding relating to the Regulatory
Settlement Agreement described in Wilco_000001).
Judge Lump orders Wilco to produce, within 28 days of the date of
her Order, discovery responsive to West's First Request for
Production No. 1. She sustains Wilco's objection to West's First
Request for Production No. 2. She says Wilco's relevancy and
proportionality arguments are well taken.
The third and final category of documents sought by West consists
of documents produced and/or sought in other litigation.
Specifically, she asks the Court to order Wilco to respond to
Request Nos. 66, 67, and 70 (the 2014 Stock Purchase Agreement).
She argues that these highly focused categories of documents and
communication bear directly on her allegations of Wilco's
profiteering and self-dealing.
Judge Lump grants in part with respect to the Plaintiff's First
Request for Production Nos. 66 and 67. She sustains Wilco's
objection to West's First Request for Production No. 70 because
West fails to explain the precise relevance of these documents.
Finally, West specifically asks the Court to compel production of
the Milliman Appraisal. In doing so, however, she fails to
explicitly articulate under which specific Request she is seeking
the document. Because all Wilco's objections to the production of
the 2013 Milliman Appraisal are overruled, Wilco will produce said
document if it is responsive to any of the discovery requests to
which Wilco is obligated to respond (as a result of the Order or
any other existing discovery obligation) within 28 days of the
Order.
Accordingly, Judge Lump grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. More specifically, she grants the
Plaintiff's Motion as follows:
a. Wilco will produce all documents responsive to Request Nos.
51 and 60 (including an updated spreadsheet, if responsive) within
28 days of the Order.
b. Wilco's objections to Request Nos. 1, 25, 43, 46, 56, 57,
59, and 61 are overruled. Wilco will produce all documents
responsive to Request Nos. 1, 25, 43, 46, 56, 57, 59, and 61 within
28 days of the Order.
c. Wilco will fully answer Interrogatory Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, and 25 within 28 days of the Order.
d. Wilco will produce all documents responsive to Request Nos.
66 and 67, as narrowed herein, within 28 days of the Order.
e, Wilco's objections to the production of the 2013 Milliman
Appraisal are overruled. Wilco will produce the 2013 Milliman
Appraisal, if it is responsive to any of the discovery requests to
which Wilco is obligated to respond, within 28 days of the Order.
The foregoing Ordered responses must be complete, unequivocal, and
in strict adherence to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Lump denies the Plaintiff's motion as follows:
a. To the extent that West seeks to amend the ESI protocol or
requests the Court's assistance with enforcing its terms, that
request is denied.
b. Wilco's objections to Request Nos. 2 and 70 are sustained
and no response is required at this time.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2a6256ct from Leagle.com.
WL GENERAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Lopez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TATIANA LOPEZ, and other similarly situated individuals v. WL
GENERAL SERVICES, CORP. a Florida corporation and, LUCIMARA
HELGERT, an individual, Case No. 9:23-cv-80656 (S.D. Fla., Apr. 14,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 201 et
seq., and specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. section
207. 29 U.S.C. section 207 (a)(1).
While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked an average
of 52 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not
less than one-and-one-half times the regular rate at which she was
employed. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff on average
approximately $12 per hour. However, the Defendants did not
properly compensate the Plaintiff for hours that the Plaintiff
worked in excess of 40 per week, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated
from the date of hire and/or from three years back from the date of
the filing of this Complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a cleaning employee from June 1, 2022
to May 5, 2023.
WL General is a janitorial and cleaning company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: julisse@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
WORN & WOUND LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worn & Wound, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Worn & Wound, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03100 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Worn & Wound -- https://wornandwound.com/ -- is the leading source
for news on value-driven watches - the most beautifully-designed
and well-crafted timepieces, regardless of price point.[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
YS CONSTRUCTION: Perez-Quinteros Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON PEREZ-QUINTEROS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. YS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, a/k/a YS
DEMOLITION, LLC, YISROEL SHECHET, Individually, and DAVID
GELBHAUER, individually, Case No. 3:23-cv-02117 (D.N.J., April 14,
2023) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a
collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated -- who suffered damages as a result of
Defendants' violations of the FLSA pursuant to the collective
action provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Beginning in or
about 2019, Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to
regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing
overtime compensation as required by applicable federal and New
Jersey state, says the suit.
The Plaintiff has initiated this action on behalf of himself and
similarly situated individuals to recover the overtime compensation
that Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals were deprived of,
as well as liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the applicable federal and New Jersey state law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a construction and
demolition laborer, performing, amongst other duties, demolition,
cleaning, and concrete duties in furtherance of the Defendants'
business, from in or about February, 2017, through in or about
February, 2023.
YS specializes in general building construction work to residential
and industrial buildings.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
Andrew Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
YUM! BRANDS INC: Stinson Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yum! Brands, Inc. The
case is styled as Christie Stinson, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. Yum! Brands, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00183-DJH (W.D. Ky., April 14, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort Negligence.
Yum! Brands, Inc. -- https://www.yum.com/ -- formerly Tricon Global
Restaurants, Inc., is an American fast food corporation listed on
the Fortune 1000.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander F. Edmondson, Esq.
EDMONDSON & ASSOCIATES
28 W. Fifth Street
Covington, KY 41011
Phone: (859) 491-5551
Fax: (859) 491-0187
Email: aedmondson@edmondsonlaw.com
- and -
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
ZENSAH COMPANY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zensah Company. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Zensah Company., Case No. 1:23-cv-03119
(S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zensah -- https://www.zensah.com/ -- is an online store that
provides sports apparel, sports medicine and accessories for
athletes.[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
[*] 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 ***