/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230508.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 8, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 92
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Etheridge Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Gotway Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Henry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hoffman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: McGinley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
57 ANN STREET: Galpern Sues Over Negligence in Construction
90 DEGREE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
ABBVIE INC: Averts Union Insurance Antitrust Class Action
ABBVIE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Humira Drug Unfair Pricing
ADDSHOPPERS INC: McClung et al. Sue Over Illicit Marketing Program
ADIDAS AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Kanye West Partnership Fallout
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Urrutia Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
ALBERTSONS COS: Agrees to Settle Stewart Class Suit for $107-M
AMAZON.COM INC: Brittain Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
AMAZON.COM INC: Clark Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Order Certifying Class in Berry Suit Reversed
APPLE INC: Puleo Files Suit in N.D. California
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Flynn Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
BAKERSFIELD BEHAVIORAL: Crouch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BALL STATE: SC Hears Oral Arguments in COVID-19 Class Action Suit
BIOVENTUS INC: Consolidated Complaint Must be Filed by June 12
BLACK & DECKER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 23
BLUE CROSS: Cantu Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Info
BOW PLUMBING: Expert Disclosures on Class Status Extended
BRIDGE PROPERTY: Cal. Ct. App. Affirms Bernuy Suit as Time-Barred
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS: Luviano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Lowry Sues Over Securities Act Violation
CELGENE CORP: Securities Class Suits Briefing Set for July
CEREBRAL INC: Suit Filed in C.D. California
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: 2 Classes Certified in Conner FLSA-NCWHA Suit
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Court Certifies Conner Overtime Class Suit
COLONIAL PENN: Seeks to File Documents Under Seal in Kelley Suit
CORE CASHLESS: McGowan Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
DELTONA, FL: Stone Island Homeowners Sue Over Floodwaters
DREAMSPACE ENTERPRISES: Augustin Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
FCA US: Neu Files Suit in C.D. California
FIRST ENERGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ohio
FIRST REPUBLIC BANK: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statements
FIRST REPUBLIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 23
FIRST SOLAR INC: Continues to Defend Pontiac Securities Class Suit
FLAGSHIP ENTERPRISES: King Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: May 8 Extension for Class Cert Bid Response Sought
FORD MOTOR: Faces McCabe Suit Over Ford 10R80 Transmissions
FORD MOTOR: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fuel Economy Suit
FULFILLMENT LAB: TWF Amended Bid to Withdraw as Counsel OK'd
GACHINA LANDSCAPE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
GEICO INDEMNITY: McMillian Suit Removed to C.D. New Jersey
GLOCK INC: Oct. 12 Filing Extension of Class Cert Bid Sought
HOME BOX OFFICE: Tehrani Suit Removed to C.D. California
HOMEAGLOW INC: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Misclassification
HOMEGOODS INC: Faces Edlebeck Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations
IIK TRANSPORT: Illinois Court Certifies Class in Prokhorov Suit
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Crockett Files Suit in S.D. Florida
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Holcombe Files Suit in S.D. Florida
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Ramirez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Toledo Sues Over Data Breach
INDIAN HILL EXEMPTED: R.L.K. Files ADA Suit in S.D. Ohio
INTELSAT SA: Lead Plaintiff's Last-Minute Motions Dismissed
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES: FLSA Collective Action Certified
JAMES COOK: Students File Class Action Over "Useless" Course Degree
JEAN COUTU: Must Face Opioid Class Action, B.C. Supreme Court Rules
JGL RESTAURANT: Court Upheld $1.2M Verdict Over Unjust Enrichment
JOSEPH R. BIDEN: Kennedy Sues Over Censorship Campaign
JP MORGAN: EIS Bid to Compel Arbitration OK'd in Capps Class Suit
KAISER FOUNDATION: Schmitt Bid to File 5th Amended Complaint Nixed
KENNETH JOEKEL: Villarino Sues Over Failure to Provide Water
KINGFISHER MEDIA: Aviles Sues Over False Promotion and Marketing
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
LANIER INC: Leave to Amend Class Complaint Sought in Allen
LG DISPLAY: Still Not Served Hatzlacha Complaint
LINCOLN BENEFIT: Seeks to Rescind Class Certification in Farley
LOREAL USA: Gilburd Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LOUISIANA REGIONAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
LOYALTY VENTURES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 26
MADISON SQUARE: Gross Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suits
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Information-Related Class Suits
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Public Nuisance Class Suits
MISS KITTYS: Jones Sues Over Misclassification of Dancers
MNS LTD: Court Approves $12-M Settlement in Kona-Led Class Suit
MONUMENT INC: Malinowski Sues Over Data Privacy Law Violations
MOSAIC BAYBROOK: Class Certification Order in Cessor Suit Reversed
MOSAIC BAYBROOK: Partial Summary Judgment in Simien's Favor Upheld
MY WAY TRADING: Residents Sue Over Fire in Recycling Facility
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Ct. Partly OK's Sweeney Bid to Compel Discovery
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
NORTH CAROLINA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to June 9
PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Bifurcate Class Discovery Denied in DelaRosa
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Millan Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
PRECISION FRANCHISING: Shavin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
QUEBEC: Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac Residents Sue Over Flooding
RECKITT BENCKISER: Consumers Appeal Review of Settlement Decision
RM ACQUISITION: Bid to Dismiss Velez Class Suit Granted in Part
SEAGEN INC: Continues to Defend PADCEV Class Suit in C.D. Cal.
SELECT ENERGY: McManaway Seeks Proper OT Pay Under FLSA
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
SHORE FUNDING: Class Discovery Must be Completed by June 30
SILICON VALLEY BANK: Investors Sue Over Misleading SEC Statements
SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Bank Fees Granted
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
STATE FARM: Nichols Bid for Leave to Amend Class Complaint OK'd
STATE FARM: Standing Order Entered in Malone Class Action
SVB FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
T-MOBILE US: Continues to Defend Dale Antitrust Class Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over RAV4 Adaptive Headlights Tossed
TRUSTPILOT INC: May Face Class Suit From SMEs Over Fake Reviews
TSCHETTER SULZER: Class Cert Discovery Must be Completed by Aug. 29
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitration Exemption in Drivers' Suit Discussed
UNITED STATES: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Nwaorie Claims v. CBP
VDT INC: Lazo Sues Over Misclassification of Truck Drivers
VISA INC: Remand of Interchange Fees Case to CA State Court Sought
YS BIOPHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ZYMERGEN INC: June 22 Filing of Class Cert Opposition Sought
[*] Knox News Investigates Into Leftover Money From Class Actions
*********
3M COMPANY: Etheridge Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Etheridge, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01291-RMG
(D.S.C., March 31, 2023), is brought for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Gotway Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
John Gotway, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01294-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Henry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Henry, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01296-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Hoffman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
James Hoffman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01297-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: McGinley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
William McGinley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01298-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
57 ANN STREET: Galpern Sues Over Negligence in Construction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Galpern and Boguslaw Zapolnik, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 57 ANN STREET REALTY ASSOCIATES,
INC., ALAN HENICK, JEFFREY HENICK LITTLE MAN PARKING LLC, and
ENTERPRISE ANN PARKING LLC, Case No. 153726/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
New York Cty., April 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendants
as a result of their negligence in the construction, maintenance,
and inspection of a parking garage that catastrophically collapsed
on April 18, 2023 at approximately 4:15 PM, located at 57 Ann
Street, New York, NY 10038.
This unfortunate event led to the destruction of Plaintiffs' motor
vehicles and personal belongings contained within. The Plaintiffs
assert that the Defendants breached their duty of care to ensure
the safety of the parking garage structure, resulting in its tragic
collapse and destruction, causing Plaintiffs substantial and
ongoing financial losses and inconvenience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Migir Ilganayev, Esq.
ILGANAYEV LAW FIRM, PLLC
139 Fulton Street, Suite 801
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (646) 396-8050
Email: ilganayevlaw@gmail.com
90 DEGREE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder, writing for The HIPAA Journal, reports that a lawsuit
has been filed against 90 Degree Benefits over a breach of the
protected health information of 181,543 individuals. Unauthorized
system activity was detected on or around December 10, 2022, and
the forensic investigation determined its systems had been accessed
by unauthorized individuals between December 5, 2022, and December
10, 2022. During that time, the attackers had access to parts of
its network that contained patients' and health plan members'
names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health
information, and payment information. Affected individuals were
notified about the breach by mail on or around April 7, 2023.
The lawsuit alleges 90 Degree Benefits knew or should have been
aware that it was a target for hackers, given the extent to which
the healthcare industry has been targeted in recent years,
especially considering 90 Degree Benefits experienced a similar
data breach in February 2022. The February data breach should have
made it clear that its data security measures were not sufficient
and needed to be improved, yet despite that earlier breach, data
security was still inadequate.
The lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs have incurred out-of-pocket
expenses and have had to spend time protecting against misuse of
their data, and that they are at imminent risk of identity theft
and fraud, with that risk continuing for years to come. As a
result, the plaintiffs and class members will likely have to
continue investing time and money to protect themselves from fraud
for the rest of their lives.
The lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of implied contract, and
violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
Wisconsin Confidentiality of Health Records Law. The lawsuit seeks
class action certification, a jury trial, damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket expenses, and injunctive relief, including encryption
of data, changes to data retention practices, the implementation of
a comprehensive information security program, regular third-party
security audits/penetration tests, and for the court to prohibit 90
Degree Benefits from storing protected health information in
cloud-based databases.
The lawsuit names 90 Degree Benefits Inc. and 90 Degree Benefits,
LLC as the defendants and the plaintiffs as Steven Greek and Jon
Boyajian. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs and class are
represented by attorneys from the law firms Ademi LLP, Murphy Law
Firm, and Federman & Sherwood. [GN]
ABBVIE INC: Averts Union Insurance Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
John Woolley, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a group
mostly comprised of union health insurance plans can't proceed as a
class in an antitrust lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies
AbbVie Inc., Abbot Laboratories, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd., and others, the Third Circuit ruled on April 26.
AbbVie convinced the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to
affirm a lower court's decision to deny certification in a suit
alleging the company paid to delay the generic version of their
cholesterol treatment drug Niaspan. AbbVie is accused of violating
state antitrust and consumer protection laws by slowing the launch
of a generic competitor. [GN]
ABBVIE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Humira Drug Unfair Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------
Business Wire of WSILTV.com reports that a nationwide class of
consumers sued AbbVie, alleging the pharmaceutical company engaged
in a fraudulent scheme to inflate the cost of the highest-grossing
drug in the world, Humira, by 470% over the last two decades,
according to attorneys at Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne Cecchi
Brody Agnello.
The lawsuit was filed April 25, 2023, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, and accuses AbbVie of
engaging in a scheme to artificially inflate the cost of Humira to
levels far out of step with manufacturing costs and in violation of
consumer protection laws.
The suit alleges that AbbVie repeatedly raised the publicly listed
price paid by consumers, while offering pharmacy benefit managers
(PBMs) lower, undisclosed net prices for Humira. PBMs distribute
drugs to pharmacies, and then pocket a portion of the difference
between publicly listed prices and the private net price they pay
for a drug. The larger that spread between prices, the more PBMs
profit, and the lawsuit alleges that AbbVie exploited this covert
arrangement to charge consumers outrageously high prices for
Humira.
If you bought Humira either at full price or with co-insurance
since 2013, find out your rights.
"A Poster Child for Excessive and Anticompetitive Drug Pricing"
Humira is approved to treat various autoimmune conditions,
including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing
spondylitis, Crohn's disease and plaque psoriasis. It is the
largest selling prescription drug in the world, according to the
complaint.
The lawsuit cites a U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform
investigation into Humira, which found that AbbVie charges
approximately $77,000 for a year's supply of Humira and has
increased prices 27 times since the drug's introduction, with total
price increases amounting to a 470% hike since 2003.
The lawsuit states that in 2020 alone, Humira generated $16 billion
in U.S. net revenue for AbbVie, and the House investigation also
found that senior executive bonuses at AbbVie were directly tied to
Humira's net revenue, allowing them to profit personally from the
price hikes. Over the last five years, executives at AbbVie made
over $340 million.
AbbVie did not initially cooperate with the House investigation
into Humira, and only provided requested documents to the Committee
under threat of subpoena, according to the complaint. The lawsuit
states, "…the industry's excessive prices and anticompetitive
practices are not justified by the need for innovation and have
been used to enrich company executives and shareholders; the
pricing of Humira is a poster child for this problem."
How AbbVie Games the System
According to the lawsuit, AbbVie was able to make record-breaking
profits from Humira by exploiting the U.S. healthcare system. The
pharmaceutical company has reduced the price of Humira
internationally, the complaint states, even as prices have spiraled
out of control in the U.S., where the government cannot negotiate
directly with drug companies to lower prices.
The complaint alleges that AbbVie deliberately widened a secret gap
between the list price of Humira—the price that patients and
their insurance companies pay for a drug—and the undisclosed net
price, which is paid by the PBMs. PBMs retain a percentage of the
list price plus some rebates. In exchange, PBMs confer Humira with
formulary status, a designation which makes insurance companies
more likely to pay full price for a drug.
The wider the difference between these two figures, the more the
PBMs profit, and this arrangement in no way benefits drug
purchasers, or reflects the real cost of manufacturing the
prescription. Rather than paying for the medication at competitive
net rates that are offered to PBMs, consumers are left to pay the
artificially inflated rates, according to the lawsuit.
A named plaintiff in the suit, Edward Camargo, started taking
Humira at age 19 to treat his psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. By
age 26, he was no longer covered by his father's insurance, and his
new insurance refused to pay for Humira due to its high cost.
Faced with the prohibitively high price of Humira, Camargo had to
quit taking the drug, and he experienced tremendous pain as a
result, the lawsuit says. He developed dry scaley skin that cracked
and bled. Camargo is now on a different prescription which helps
alleviate some symptoms but says he would prefer to take Humira if
he could afford it, according to the complaint.
"It is unfortunate that executives at AbbVie are profiting hand
over fist while people all over the country can't afford the
medication they need to live happy and healthy lives." Said
Berman.
The lawsuit brings 38 counts against the pharmaceutical company,
including violation of the Illinois and other state consumer
protection laws.
Learn more about the case against AbbVie for allegedly illegally
inflating the price of Humira.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those
harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in
1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,"
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.
About Carella Byne
Carella Byrne is one of the leading law firms in the New Jersey -
New York metropolitan area, serving a diverse clientele ranging
from small businesses to Fortune 500 corporations. Carella Byrne
has led - or been part of the leadership team - in many of the
nation's most complex and important consumer class actions
effecting consumer rights. More about the law firm and its
successes can be found at www.carellabyrne.com.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230426005263/en/
CONTACT:
Ash Klann
pr@hbsslaw.com
206-268-9363[GN]
ADDSHOPPERS INC: McClung et al. Sue Over Illicit Marketing Program
------------------------------------------------------------------
OATHER MCCLUNG, ABBY LINEBERRY, TERRY MICHAEL COOK and GREG
DESSART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADDSHOPPERS, INC., PRESIDIO BRANDS, INC.,
PEET'S COFFEE, INC., and JOHN DOE COMPANIES, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01996 (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the California's statutory consumer
protection laws, and common laws intended to protect individuals'
privacy rights.
According to the complaint, AddShoppers runs a marketing enterprise
that illicitly tracks persons across the Internet, collects their
personal information without consent, and then uses that
information to send direct solicitations--all unbeknownst to the
individual. AddShoppers calls its marketing "SafeOpt." It markets
SafeOpt as a service consumers can voluntarily opt into to receive
verified offers from SafeOpt's brand partners. But the reality is
very few individuals voluntarily opt into this program. Instead,
they are unwittingly captured in it when they create an account and
make a purchase on a website that--unbeknownst to them--is part of
the AddShoppers' Data Co-Op, says the suit.
AddShoppers, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 15806 Brookway Dr. Suite 200, Huntersville,
North Carolina. AddShoppers does business throughout California and
the entire United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Berger, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9713
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Kasey Youngentob, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
youngentob@stuevesiegel.com
ADIDAS AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Kanye West Partnership Fallout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kreps, writing for RollingStone, reports that Adidas
shareholders have filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the
clothing company failed to minimize the fallout over their
since-terminated partnership with Kanye West, which resulted in a
sharp decline in Adidas' stock.
The lawsuit, filed in an Oregon district court on April 27 and
obtained by Rolling Stone, claims that Adidas was aware as far back
as 2018 that West's controversial comments could impact the stock
price, yet remained tied to the rapper up until his string of
antisemitic rants made the partnership untenable and left Adidas
with $1.2 billion worth of unsold shoes.
The class action lawsuit presents a lengthy list of controversial
statements by West even before he went "DEATH CON," and where they
say Adidas failed to act to mitigate the potential damage to their
brand. For example, when West said in a May 2018 interview that
slavery "sounds like a choice," then-CEO Kasper Rorsted (who
stepped down earlier this year) stood by the rapper, noting that
while West made "comments we don't support… [Kanye] has been and
is a very important part of our strategy and has been a fantastic
creator."
In the aftermath of that controversy, the lawsuit alleges that
Adidas "ignored the risks of oversupply of Yeezy branded shoes in
the event that the Partnership were to suddenly end, and in
particular, if demand for the shoes were to fall due to any
controversy surrounding West." (The class action lawsuit covers
anyone who bought Adidas stock between May 3, 2018 -- when West
made his slavery remarks -- until 2023.)
Adidas' annual reports for the next three years -- 2019, 2020 and
2021, years that encompassed both West's MAGA hat-wearing days and
his failed run for president -- similarly addressed the risk of
remaining in business with West. The situation reached a point of
no return in October 2022 when West began his (public) antisemitic
tirades, forcing Adidas to sever ties.
However, as the lawsuit notes and as subsequent reporting has
proven, Adidas was at least "internally" aware of West's history of
antisemitic statements prior to his rants on social media,
far-right talk shows, and in front of paparazzi cameras.
In Nov. 2022, in the aftermath of the West breakup, Adidas' stocks
dropped. While they eventually rebounded, the stocks dropped again
in Feb. 2023 when the company announced to shareholders that
"failure to sell the stock of Yeezy's (valued at $1.29 billion)
would accordingly lower Company revenue" by that same amount, and
if the company didn't "repurpose" the inventory, they expected "an
operating loss of 700 million euros in 2023."
The lawsuit claims that senior officers and directors at Adidas
"acted with reckless disregard for the truth" and that Adidas'
market price was "artificially inflated" by obscuring the risks
associated with the Yeezy partnership. "As a result of the wrongful
conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff and other members of the Class
have suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial," the
lawsuit adds.
Lawyers for the class action lawsuit did not respond to Rolling
Stone's request for comment at press time. Adidas said of the
lawsuit in a statement to the BBC, "We outright reject these
unfounded claims." West himself is not among the defendants on the
lawsuit. [GN]
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Urrutia Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lanai Urrutia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case No.
23-CA-001359 was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,
Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on March 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00613-SCB-CPT to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. -- https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/ --
is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arun Ravindran, Esq.
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 203-4573
Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com
fhedin@hedinhall.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Clay Matthew Carlton, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
200 S Biscayne Blvd., Ste 5300
Miami, FL 33131-2339
Phone: (305) 415-3447
Email: clay.carlton@morganlewis.com
- and -
Javier Alexander Roldan Cora, Esq.
Justin M.L. Stern
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 415-3396
Fax: (305) 415-3001
Email: javier.roldancora@morganlewis.com
justin.stern@morganlewis.com
ALBERTSONS COS: Agrees to Settle Stewart Class Suit for $107-M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Safeway and Albertsons Cos. agreed
to pay $107 million to resolve claims they falsely advertised some
products with "buy one get one" (BOGO) sales.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased certain meat
products advertised with a "Buy One, Get One Free" or "Buy One, Get
Two Free" promotion at Safeway locations in Oregon using a Safeway
Club Card between May 4, 2015, and Sept. 7, 2016.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Safeway of violating
Oregon law by raising the price of meat products sold under "Buy
One, Get One Free" and "Buy One, Get Two Free" promotions. By
raising the prices above regular retail prices, Safeway allegedly
deceived customers into believing they were getting a good deal
while actually overcharging for the products.
Safeway is a grocery store chain owned by Albertsons Cos. The chain
has locations around the country, including numerous locations in
Oregon.
Safeway and Albertsons haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed
to a $107 million settlement to resolve the false sale class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Safeway settlement, class members can
receive an equal share -- estimated to be $200 -- of the net
settlement fund.
Exact payments may be higher or lower depending on the number of
participating class members and the net settlement fund after
deductions for expenses and other costs.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 16, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Safeway settlement is scheduled
for July 10, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by July 10, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased certain meat products advertised with a
"Buy One, Get One Free" or "Buy One, Get Two Free" promotion at
Safeway locations in Oregon using a Safeway Club Card between May
4, 2015, and Sept. 7, 2016.
Potential Award
$200 (estimated)
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form Deadline
06/16/2023
Case Name
Stewart, et al. v. Albertsons Cos. LLC, et al., Case No. 16CV15125,
in the Oregon Circuit Court for Multnomah County
Final Hearing
07/10/2023
Settlement Website
SafewayBOGOClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
Safeway BOGO Class Action Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 1031
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
info@SafewayBOGOClassAction.com
855-475-1347
Class Counsel
David F Sugerman
Nadia H Dahab
Sarah R Osborn
SUGERMAN DAHAB
Tim Alan Quenelle
TIM QUENELLE PC
Defense Counsel
Sarah J Crooks
PERKINS COIE LLP [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Brittain Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Barbara Brittain, Linda Dial, individuals, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Amazon.com Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:22-cv-01764-CAB-DEB, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington on March 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00444-BJR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
W EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
7700 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 930
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 674-4922
Fax: (949) 674-4930
Email: jacob@swemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Shalini Dogra, Esq.
DOGRA LAW GROUP PC
2219 Main Street, Unit 239
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: (747) 234-6673
Fax: (310) 868-0170
The Defendants are represented by:
Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq.
Charles Christian Sipos, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3577
Email: LTsuji@perkinscoie.com
CSipos@perkinscoie.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Clark Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jasmin Clark, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Amazon.com Inc., DAJ
Distribution, Inc. doing business as: Onyx Distribution, Inc., Full
Rise, LLC, Does 2-20, inclusive, Case No.
30-02022-01255339-CU-PL-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
California County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00500-JWH-ADS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eduardo Martorell, Esq.
Jean-Paul Le Clercq, Esq.
Jordan M. Zim, Esq.
MARTORELL LAW APC
6100 Center Drive Suite 1130
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Phone: (323) 840-1200
Fax: (323) 840-1300
Email: emartorell@martorell-law.com
jpleclercq@bgwlawyers.com
jzim@martorell-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniella Michelle Gutierrez, Esq.
M Ray Hartman, III, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP, Esq.
11452 El Camino Real Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130-2594
Phone: (858) 720-5700
Fax: (858) 720-5799
Email: daniellagutierrez@perkinscoie.com
rhartman@perkinscoie.com
- and -
David Samuel Watnick, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1120 NW Couch Street 10th Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
Phone: (503) 727-2196
Fax: (503) 727-2222
Email: dwatnick@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Brent Marshall Karren, Esq.
Haley L Hansen
MANNING GROSS AND MASSENBURG LLP
444 South Flower Street Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 622-7300
Fax: (213) 622-7313
Email: bkarren@mgmlaw.com
hhansen@mgmlaw.com
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Order Certifying Class in Berry Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, American Campus Communities, Inc., et al., Petitioners
v. Beth Berry, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Respondents, Case No. 21-0874 (Tex.), Judge
James D. Blacklock of the Supreme Court of Texas:
a. reverses the court of appeals' judgment;
b. reverses the district court's order certifying a class; and
c. remands the case to the district court for further
proceedings consistent with his Opinion.
Certification of a plaintiff class under Rule 42 converts a
conventional lawsuit into a far more complicated and consequential
case. In the history of a lawsuit, crossing the class-certification
Rubicon fundamentally changes the nature of the proceeding,
imposing unique burdens on the judicial system and raising the
stakes for the parties and their lawyers, often exponentially so.
For these reasons, Rule 42 and the Supreme Court of Texas'
precedent require a rigorous and searching judicial analysis of the
plaintiffs' claims to ensure, prior to certification, that the
claims are suitable for class resolution. Essential to this
analysis is a thorough understanding of the substantive law
governing the proffered class claims. Only by properly
understanding the legal basis for the claims asserted can a court
reliably determine the suitability of those claims for class-action
litigation.
American Campus Communities, Inc. and related entities own and
manage dozens of residential properties. Four former tenants sued
American Campus, alleging that American Campus violated section
92.056(g) of the Property Code by omitting required language from
its leases. Sections 92.056 and 92.0561 of the Code create various
remedies for tenants whose landlords fail to adequately repair
their properties. Section 92.056(g), the focus of the litigation,
requires leases to contain language in underlined or bold print
that informs the tenant of the remedies available under this
section 92.056 and Section 92.0561.
The Plaintiffs asked the district court to certify a class of more
than 65,000 former American Campus tenants whose leases omitted the
language required by section 92.056(g). They claim that the missing
lease language makes American Campus strictly liable to each class
member for a statutory civil penalty of one month's rent plus $500.
They further claim that the absent lease language amounts to a
statutorily prohibited contractual waiver of American Campus's
repair obligations, which, if true, would subject American Campus
to "actual damages, a civil penalty of one month's rent plus
$2,000, and reasonable attorney's fees. The Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified nine-figure recovery, stemming purely from the omitted
lease term.
Although some of the named Plaintiffs allege deficiencies in
American Campus's repair of their particular apartments, they do
not allege that other class members have experienced similar
problems, and they did not seek certification of a class of tenants
whose apartments have not been adequately repaired. Nor do they
allege that any class member suffered financial damage caused by
inadequate repairs or inadequate lease terms. Instead, they sought
class certification based on the theory that the omission of the
statutorily required lease language, standing alone, entitles each
class member to recover statutory damages, penalties, and
attorney's fees under sections 92.0563(a)(3) and 92.0563(b).
In addition to opposing class certification in the district court,
American Campus moved for summary judgment. Among other grounds, it
argued that the Property Code does not create the strict liability
envisioned by the Plaintiffs for the mere omission of section
92.056(g)'s required lease term. American Campus reiterated these
points in its response to the class-certification motion, in which
it argued that the lawsuit amounted to an ineffectual attempt to
manufacture strict-liability requirements and civil-penalty
remedies that do not exist under a plain reading of the Texas
Property Code. The district court denied American Campus' motion
for summary judgment and then granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. American Campus appealed the
class-certification order.
The court of appeals affirmed a modified version of the
certification order, which omits the plaintiffs' request for
class-wide injunctive relief but authorizes class-wide litigation
of the claims alleging statutory strict liability for the missing
lease term. It considered itself prohibited, in this interlocutory
appeal, from considering American Campus' argument that the
proffered class claims are legally baseless because the Property
Code does not create strict liability for omission of the section
92.056(g) lease term. This argument about the nature of the
Plaintiffs' claims was, in the court of appeals' view, the proper
subject of a non-appealable summary judgment motion, not an
appealable class-certification motion. If this is correct, then
American Campus' argument regarding the meaning of the Property
Code cannot be passed upon by an appellate court until after final
judgment, and class-wide litigation may proceed without regard to
whether the plaintiffs are correct about the nature or existence of
the class claims.
American Campus petitioned for review in the Supreme Court of
Texas. It contends, among other arguments, that the Plaintiffs'
claims have no basis in the Property Code or in any other source of
law and therefore cannot form the basis of a proper
class-certification order. The Supreme Court of Texas granted the
petition.
In today's case, the Supreme Court of Texas is asked what happens
when the proposed class claims are facially defective as a matter
of law. In other words, when the claims for which the plaintiffs
seek class certification have no basis in law, even taking all the
allegations as true, can class certification nevertheless be
granted?
Judge Blacklock opines that the answer is no. He says no valid
purpose is served by authorizing class-wide litigation of a legally
baseless theory of liability on which the Plaintiffs cannot recover
no matter what facts come to light during litigation. The rigorous
analysis of the claim required by Rule 42 cannot meaningfully or
usefully be performed on a facially defective claim. In such cases,
including the instant case, class certification must be denied.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Blacklock reverses the court of
appeals' judgment and the district court's order certifying a class
is reversed. He remands the case to the district court for further
proceedings consistent with his Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://rb.gy/qa4g7 from Leagle.com.
APPLE INC: Puleo Files Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc. The case
is styled as Bruce E. Puleo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01345-JD
(N.D. Cal., March 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Francis Ruf, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Fax: (310) 201-9160
Email: kruf@glancylaw.com
- and -
Diana Janik Zinser
Jeffrey Lawrence Spector
William G. Caldes
SPECTOR ROSEMAN AND KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 496-0300
Fax: (215) 496-6611
Email: dzinser@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Flynn Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Incorporated Village of Malverne, et al. The case is styled as John
Flynn, Gwendy Flynn, and all other similarly situated Petitioners
on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the
Incorporated Village of Malverne, The Incorporated Village of
Malverne, Respondents, Case No. 604681/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., March 23, 2023).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
The Malverne Village Assessor's office --
https://www.malvernevillage.org/assessment -- places values on all
land and improvements to land within the Village of Malverne.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP
132 SPRUCE STREET
CEDARHURST, NY 11516
BAKERSFIELD BEHAVIORAL: Crouch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bakersfield
Behavioral Healthcare Hospital, LLC. The case is styled as Allison
Crouch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Bakersfield Behavioral Healthcare Hospital, LLC, Case No.
BCV-23-100865 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 20, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Bakersfield Behavioral Healthcare Hospital --
https://www.bakersfieldbehavioral.com/ -- is a mental health clinic
in Bakersfield, California.[BN]
BALL STATE: SC Hears Oral Arguments in COVID-19 Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Hadley of The Reflector reports that the Indiana State
Supreme Court visited the University of Indianapolis' campus to
hear oral arguments for a class action lawsuit on Tuesday, April 11
in Ruth Lilly Performance Hall.
According to the press release from the Indiana Judicial Branch,
UIndy students and professors, judiciary and legislative
professionals, media, high school students from across the state,
the six state supreme court justices and others listened to the
traveling arguments from lawyers from both parties in the Keller J.
Mellowitz v. Ball State University, Board of Trustees of Ball State
University, and State of Indiana case.
The synthesis provided by the Indiana Supreme Court's Office of
Communication, Education and Outreach said the class action lawsuit
being discussed on campus was brought about by a BSU student
claiming the university breached the student-university contract
and provided "unjust enrichment" during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
arguments heard in the performance hall were about an appeal by
Mellowitz regarding the Marion Superior Court's ruling for him to
amend his original complaint to comply with a law passed about
COVID-19-related class action lawsuits. The superior court's ruling
then went to the Court of Appeals and was reversed. The reversal
was then challenged by BSU and Indiana’s supreme court assumed
jurisdiction over the case.
Senior political science student, President of the Pre-Law Society
Registered Student Organization and Treasurer of the Janus Club
Megan Tadevich -- who plans to attend the Indiana University
McKinney School of Law after graduation -- served as the honorary
bailiff for the hearing on campus. Bailiffs gavel a court into and
out of session.
"It was super cool," Tadevich said. "I didn't really realize how
involved I would be. I didn't know I’d have this script to
follow. I didn't know I'd actually be banging the gavel. I thought
it was more like a title type of thing. But it was super cool to be
able to be interacting with the real bailiff. And I got to shake
one of the justice's hands, which felt unreal . . . This is what I
want to do with my life, [to be] in the courtroom. So to be able to
be more than [on] the outside looking in was really cool."
Senior political science student and 2022-2023 President of UIndy
Democrats Pricilla Garcia -- who also plans to attend the IU
McKinney School of Law after graduation -- served as a building
escort to Chief Justice Loretta Rush and was able to converse with
her one-on-one.
"She is such a respectable woman and I admire her so much, and I am
so thankful to have had the opportunity to meet her and to meet all
of the justices . . .," Garcia said.
Tadevich and Garcia both thought the supreme court's visit to UIndy
was a noteworthy, real-life experience with the judicial branch.
"I thought it was incredible," Tadevich said. ". . . It was really
cool to see real lawyers in a real time case that's not like a TV
drama."
"I thought it was such a unique experience that I think I was very
fortunate to be able to witness that," Garcia said. "And I think a
lot of other students can agree to that, that it was such an
impactful visit, for especially someone like me, who is aspiring to
go to law school, to be able to kind of see their session in action
and seeing how the lawyers interact with one another . . . And so I
think overall, the visit was very amazing and such a great honor
and privilege for the students."
Tadevich said the supreme court was supposed to visit UIndy's
campus in 2020 by invitation of political science professor Laura
Wilson, but the COVID-19 pandemic pushed the event back.
". . . I want to say Chief Justice Loretta Rush was here in 2018
and visited Dr. [professor] Wilson's classes and everything,"
Tadevich said. "And then they had planned to hear a case on campus
. . . So in April of 2020, they were supposed to be here with the
high schools coming to us. But obviously COVID[-19] hit and
everything fell apart."
The IN Supreme Court's visit to UIndy was only the 49th time they
have traveled outside the State House to hear oral arguments since
1994, according to Rush.
"I think having that accessibility and that transparency is really
really cool," Tadevich said. "I understand logistically that
[hearing traveling arguments has] a lot of moving parts [and]
that's not a super sustainable way to do it. But my honors project
was about public opinion and the Supreme Court, and seeing that
dynamic. So it's really cool to be able to see [how] they're
interacting with the public, but they're not accounting for what
the public may or may not want. It was really cool to see that."
The recording of the hearing at UIndy's campus can be found at
Courts.IN.gov. [GN]
BIOVENTUS INC: Consolidated Complaint Must be Filed by June 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CIARCIELLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BIOVENTUS INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.),
the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part
class certification schedule:
-- No later than May 12, 2023, the defendants must provide Lead
Counsel with a detailed written explanation of any
deficiencies
they contend subject the original complaint to dismissal.
-- The Lead the Plaintiff shall file and serve a consolidated
complaint or adopt the original complaint on or before June
12,
2023.
-- The defendants shall file and serve an answer or a motion to
dismiss and brief in support on or before July 17, 2023.
-- If a motion to dismiss is filed, any amended complaint
pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) SHALL be filed
no
later than July 31, 2023.
-- The defendants shall answer or respond by August 14, 2023,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3); and the
briefing schedule in Local Rule 7.3 applies to any motion to
dismiss.
-- The defendants SHALL file and serve their reply brief in
further
support of their motion to dismiss on or before September 18,
2023.
Bioventus is a leader of innovations for active healing and
surgical orthobiologics with a comprehensive portfolio of
clinically efficacious and cost-effective solutions for patients,
physicians and payers.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LeLzET at no extra charge.[CC]
BLACK & DECKER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in Stanley Black & Decker? If so,
please visit Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or
pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your rights.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the common stock of
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. ("Stanley" or the "Company") between
October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Stanley is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools, power
tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial customers,
as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial customers.
Over the last few years, Stanley Black & Decker implemented a
"corporate simplification" to spin off some of its business units
and focus Company investments and attention into two main business
segments: Tools & Outdoor, and Industrial.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
rising interest rates, inflation, and trends in returning to work
away from home were quickly eroding then-heightened demand for
Stanley's tools and outdoor products; (ii) the heightened,
extraordinary demand Stanley had enjoyed as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 into 2022 was returning to 2019
pre-pandemic levels; (iii) Stanley's operations were already
showing signs of slowing demand; (iv) as a result of
reorganization, share repurchasing, and dividend growth, Stanley
lacked the cash to react with agility to changes in demand; and (v)
as a result of Stanley's inability to react to a sharp decline in
demand, the Company's results and metrics, particularly sales
volume, were negatively impacted.
On the morning of April 28, 2022, Stanley issued a press release
providing that "[n]et sales for the quarter were … partially
offset by lower volume (-6%)[.]" Contemporaneously, Stanley also
filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC detailing the Company's financial
and operating results for the first fiscal quarter ended April 2,
2022. Stanley disclosed in the 1Q Form 10-Q that net sales for the
Company's first quarter were "partially offset by a 6% … decrease
from volume", furtively indicating that demand was slowing.
On this news, the price Stanley's stock declined $12.01 per share
to close at $127.13 on April 28, 2022.
Then, on July 28, 2022, before the market opened, Stanley issued a
press release reporting the Company's financial and operational
results for the second quarter 2022 ended July 2, 2022. The press
release stated, in pertinent part, that "the macroeconomic
environment—including inflation, rising interest rates and
significantly slower demand in late May and June -- drove the
majority of the challenges we faced this quarter"; "the softening
of the demand environment accelerated rapidly during the last
portion of the quarter"; and that "[n]et sales for the quarter were
. . . partially offset by lower volume (-13%)."
On this news, Stanley's stock price declined $18.87, or more than
16%, to close at $98.58 per share on July 28, 2022.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 23, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or acquired Stanley common stock, and/or would
like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Stanley
Black & Decker, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2023 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
BLUE CROSS: Cantu Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE CANTU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION,
d/b/a/ www.bcbs.com; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03084 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2023), arises out of
the Defendants' actions that violated the Video Privacy Protection
Act of 1988.
When Plaintiff watched videos on www.bcbs.com, the Defendants
allegedly disclosed information that allowed Google to readily
identify Plaintiff's video-watching behavior. Defendants did so
knowingly and for the purpose of retargeting Plaintiff in
connection with Google advertising campaigns. The Defendants did
not obtain the informed, written consent of Plaintiff to disclose
personally identifiable information concerning Plaintiff to third
parties, says the suit.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is comprised of 34
independent and locally operated BCBSA companies that provide
health insurance in the US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
BOW PLUMBING: Expert Disclosures on Class Status Extended
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSELYN BRASWELL, et al.,
v. BOW PLUMBING GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00025-ECM-KFP (M.D.
Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order: granting
expert disclosure deadlines as follows:
-- The deadline for the Plaintiff's expert disclosures on class
certification is extended from May 26, 2023 to June 23, 2023.
-- The deadline for the Defendant's expert disclosures on class
certification is extended from July 14, 2023 to July 28,
2023.
BOW Plumbing manufactures plumbing products. The Company offers
plastic pipe, fittings, drainage, and pressure plumbing products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VdCsJe at no extra charge.[CC]
BRIDGE PROPERTY: Cal. Ct. App. Affirms Bernuy Suit as Time-Barred
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned as RONALD BERNUY, Plaintiff and
Appellant v. BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant and
Respondent, Case No. A163240 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals
of California for the First District affirms the trial court's
order granting summary adjudication in favor of Bridge Property
Management Company.
Bridge Property Management Company (BPMC) manages and operates an
affordable housing complex in Chino known as Ivy II at College Park
Apartments (Ivy II). On May 22, 2019, other Ivy II applicants who
are not parties to this litigation filed a federal class action
lawsuit called Limson v. Bridge Property Management Company
(N.D.Cal. 2019) 416 F.Supp.3d 972. The Limson class action
complaint alleged that BPMC violated the Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act. In December 2019, the Limson plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their ICRAA claims, apparently because they
were unable to meet the $5 million amount-in-controversy
requirement for class actions in federal court.
Meanwhile, on Sept. 16, 2019, Ronald Bernuy filed this action
against BPMC alleging causes of action for violation of ICRAA,
unfair business practices, declaratory relief, and invasion of
privacy. Bernuy's complaint seeks "general and special damages in
an amount to be determined by a jury for each violation" of his
rights, as well as statutory damages, under ICRAA.
Thereafter, Bernuy's action was selected as the "bellwether case"
for purposes of adjudicating the following issues: (1) whether the
California Supreme Court's 2018 decision in the case styled First
Student Cases (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1026 -- amounted to a subsequent
change in the law that relieves BPMC of liability for its ICRAA
violations; and (2) whether certain plaintiffs' ICRAA claims are
time-barred under the applicable two-year statute of limitations or
whether the limitations period was tolled by the pendency of a
putative class action.
The trial court ultimately issued a decision concluding BPMC could
not be held liable for ICRAA violations committed before the
California Supreme Court upheld ICRAA's constitutional validity in
First Student. The court also determined that Bernuy's ICRAA claim
was filed after the applicable statute of limitations period had
run and that the Limson class action did not toll the limitations
period in his case.
The Court points out that "Bernuy was a member of the putative
class in Limson and here he has pleaded the same damages for the
same alleged violations involved in that action. Consequently, the
Limson class action provided BPMC with ample notice of the
'substantive claims being brought against them,' as well as the
'number and generic identities of the potential plaintiffs' . . .
Given ICRAA's express prohibition on class recovery of the $10,000
minimum damages amount, Ivy II applicants who were not prepared to
prove actual damages in excess of $10,000 had no reasonable basis
for relying on the Limson action to toll the statute of limitations
for their ICRAA claims. Instead, they had every incentive to file
their individual actions within the two-year limitations period in
order to preserve their rights, and indeed, they had no other
option. . . There appears no dispute that the statutory period
began to run on August 14 and/or September 1, 2017 or that Bernuy
filed the instant action on September 16, 2019. This means that
Bernuy's action is untimely."
The Court concludes that the First Student decision is properly
given retroactive effect so as to subject BPMC to liability for its
ICRAA violations. However, the Court also concludes that the policy
considerations underlying the class action tolling doctrine do not
support its application in Bernuy's case and that therefore his
ICRAA claim is time-barred. Thus, while the Court holds that the
trial court erred in refusing retroactive application of the First
Student decision, the Court affirms the trial court's judgment in
favor of BPMC on statute of limitations grounds.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 30, 2023, is
available https://tinyurl.com/4376v7ec from Leagle.com.
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS: Luviano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cargill Meat
Solutions Corporation. The case is styled as Jasmine Luviano, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cargill Meat
Solutions Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0003094 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 29, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Cargill Meat Solutions -- http://www.cargill.com/-- is a
subsidiary of the Minneapolis-based multinational agribusiness
giant Cargill Inc, that comprises Cargill's North American beef,
turkey, food service and food distribution businesses.[BN]
NOTE: There are no professionals stated in the doc.
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Lowry Sues Over Securities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Lowry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES, INC., RACHEL E. HAURWITZ, JASON V.
O'BYRNE, RYAN FISCHESSER, SCOTT BRAUNSTEIN, ANDREW GUGGENHIME,
JEFFREY LONG-MCGIE, and NATALIE R. SACKS, Case No. 23CV029855 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 23, 2023), is brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Caribou common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about July 23, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"), pursuing claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") as a result of the Defendants' materially false
and/or misleading statements.
The Company is developing, among other product candidates, CB-010,
an allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy1 that is in a Phase 1
clinical trial, referred to as "ANTLER", to treat relapsed or
refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma ("r/r B-NHL"). According to
Defendants, CB-010 is the first clinical-stage allogeneic anti-CD19
CAR-T cell therapy with programmed cell death protein 1 ("PD-1")
removed from the CAR-T cell surface by a genome-edited knockout of
the PDCD1 gene, which purportedly sets CB-010 apart from other
allogeneic CAR-T cells by, inter alia, improving the "persistence"
of antitumor activity.
On July 1, 2021, Caribou filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on July 22, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement"). On July 23, 2021, pursuant to the
Registration Statement, Caribou's common stock began publicly
trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the
ticker symbol "CRBU". That same day, Caribou filed a prospectus on
Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which
incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the
"Prospectus" and, collectively with the Registration Statement, the
"Offering Documents"). Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Caribou
issued 19 million shares of common stock to the public at the
Offering price of $16.00 per share for proceeds of $282.72 million
to the Company, before expenses, and after applicable underwriting
discounts.
The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents
and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) CB-010's treatment effect was not as
durable as Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii)
accordingly, CB-010's clinical and commercial prospects were
overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Offering Documents were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.
On June 10, 2022, Caribou issued a press release reporting
"positive" data from the ANTLER Phase 1 clinical trial. Among other
results, Caribou reported that "at 6 months following the single
dose of CB 010, only 40% of patients remained in CR complete
response (2 of 5 patients) as of the May 13, 2022 data cutoff
date", prompting investor concern over the durability of the CB-010
treatment. On this news, Caribou's stock price fell $1.78 per
share, or 20.41%, to close at $6.94 per share on June 10, 2022.
Then, on December 12, 2022, Caribou issued a press release
"reporting new 12-month clinical data from cohort 1 in the ongoing
ANTLER Phase 1 trial, which purportedly showed long-term durability
following a single infusion of CB-010 at the initial dose level 1
(40x106 CAR-T cells)." Among other results, Caribou reported that
"3 of 6 patients maintained a durable CR at 6 months" and "2 of 6
patients maintain a long-term CR at the 12 month scan and remain on
the trial", thereby confirming investor fears that the CB-010
treatment lacked significant durability. On this news, Caribou's
stock price fell $0.81 per share, or 9.03%, to close at $8.16 per
share on December 12, 2022. As of the time this Complaint was
filed, Caribou common stock continues to trade below the $16.00 per
share Offering price, damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of Caribou's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Caribou common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents and was damaged thereby
Caribou is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that engages
in the development of genome-edited allogeneic cell therapies for
the treatment of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors in the
U.S. and internationally.[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
CELGENE CORP: Securities Class Suits Briefing Set for July
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 27, 2023, that the briefing for the
consolidated securities class suits are expected to be done around
July 2023.
Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class
Action"). The complaints allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions
concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and
projected sales of Otezla*, and (3) the new drug application for
Zeposia.
The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.
In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint in full.
In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part
and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims
arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301).
Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice.
In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with
respect to the remaining claims.
In March 2023, the Court granted the defendants leave to file a
motion for summary judgment in the Celgene Securities Class Action,
with briefing expected to be completed in or around July 2023.
Celgene Corp. is a global biopharmaceutical company. The Company
focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of
therapies designed to treat cancer and immune-inflammatory related
diseases. [BN]
CEREBRAL INC: Suit Filed in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerebral Inc. The
case is styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cerebral, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-02410-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (Wabtec) --
https://www.wabteccorp.com/ -- is a leading global provider of
equipment, systems, digital solutions, and value-added
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
CLAYEO ARNOLD APLC
6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 735
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (747) 777-7748
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
- and -
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER AND GRAIFMAN PC
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Phone: (845) 356-2570
Fax: (845) 356-4335
Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- and -
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
ARNOLD LAW FIRM
6200 Canoga Avenue Suite 375
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (747) 777-7748
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Lynda Grant, Esq.
THE GRANT LAW FIRM PLLC
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Phone: (212) 292-4441
Fax: (212) 292-4442
Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com
- and -
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER AND GRAIFMAN PC
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Phone: (845) 356-2570 x 202
Fax: (845) 356-4335
Email: memert@kgglaw.com
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: 2 Classes Certified in Conner FLSA-NCWHA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH B. CONNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, also known as Cleveland County Emergency Medical
Services, Defendant, Civil Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-MR-WCM (WD.N.C.),
Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Asheville Division:
a. denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;
b. grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify as Collective and
Class Action; and
b. grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Revive Motion for
Collective and Class Certification.
On Jan. 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the action individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against Defendant Cleveland
County Emergency Medical Services ("CCEMS"), asserting claims for a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq., and a violation of the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act ("NCWHA"), N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 95-25.1 et seq.
CCEMS filed its answer on Jan. 30, 2018, and on May 1, 2018, the
Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint. The Court
granted the Plaintiff leave and the Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on June 5, 2018. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
asserts claims against Cleveland County a/k/a Cleveland County
Medical Services ("Cleveland County") for a violation of the FLSA
and for a state law breach of contract claim. Cleveland County
filed its answer to the Amended Complaint on July 2, 2018.
On Nov. 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Class and
Collective Action, seeking conditional certification of her FLSA
claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
and certification of her breach of contract claim as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On
Jan. 21, 2019, Cleveland County filed a Response to the Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify Class and Collective Action, opposing
certification of both claims. On Jan. 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed
a reply to Cleveland County's Response.
On Dec. 21, 2018, Cleveland County filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims. On Aug. 21, 2019, the Court adopted the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the Honorable W. Carleton Metcalf,
United States Magistrate Judge, dismissing the Plaintiff's FLSA
claim with prejudice and declining supplemental jurisdiction on the
Plaintiff's state law claim. It therefore denied as moot the
Plaintiff's Motion for Collective and Class Certification.
The Plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal, and on Jan. 5, 2022,
the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion vacating the Court's Aug. 21,
2019 order, concluding that the Plaintiff had stated a cognizable
claim for an FLSA violation and remanding for further proceedings
on the merits of the Plaintiff's claims. On April 18, 2022, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Revive her earlier Motion for
Collective and Class Certification. On May 23, 2022, Cleveland
County filed a Response in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion to
Revive. On June 6, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Reply to Cleveland
County's Response in Opposition.
Judge Reidinger concludes that conditional certification of the
Plaintiff's FLSA claim as a collective action is appropriate and
that certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure is appropriate for the Plaintiff's state law breach
of contract claim. He conditionally certifies as a collective
action for the FLSA claim a class comprised of 24 on/48 off
employees who were employed by Cleveland County anytime between
Jan. 2, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2017. He certifies as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 a class comprised of 24 on/48 off employees who
were employed by Cleveland County anytime between Jan. 2, 2016, and
Dec. 31, 2017. He orders Cleveland County to submit objections to
the proposed notice within the time frame as set out.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Reidinger grants the Plaintiff's
Motion to Revive Motion for Collective and Class Certification;
grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify as Collective and Class
Action; and denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
The Plaintiff's counsel, Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., is appointed as
the counsel for the class.
Within 14 days of the entry of the Order, the Defendant will submit
objections to the Plaintiff's proposed class and collective action
notice and the Plaintiff will have 14 days after the filing of any
such objections to file a response to those objections.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Memorandum of
Decision & Order is available at https://rb.gy/m8ri2 from
Leagle.com.
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Court Certifies Conner Overtime Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leila Merrill of EMS1 reports that a federal judge has certified a
class and collective action of EMS employees in their overtime suit
against their employer, Cleveland County.
More than 100 current and former employees could seek back pay, the
Carolina Journal reported on April 26, 2027.
An employee, Sara Conner, claims that Cleveland County violated
federal law and breached its contracts with these employees by not
paying them correctly for overtime work. In weeks when Conner
worked overtime, the county EMS reduced her regular rate of pay.
The case has drawn national attention. Sixteen state governments
filed a brief in support of Cleveland County's appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court, along with the International Municipal Lawyers
Association and the New Civil Liberties Alliance. However, the
Supreme Court decided in December not to take up the case. [GN]
COLONIAL PENN: Seeks to File Documents Under Seal in Kelley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THURMA J. KELLEY,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-03348-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting its leave to file under seal:
(a) Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kathy J. Huang in support of
Colonial Penn's Opposition to the Plaintiff Thurma J.
Kelley's
motion for class certification, which contains deposition
testimony designated confidential by the Plaintiff Thurma J.
Kelley pursuant to the Protective Order, and
(b) portions of the Opposition that quote or reference the
confidential deposition testimony.
The Application is submitted concurrently with the Declaration of
Jesse Steinbach in support of the Application, redacted versions of
the documents proposed to be filed under seal, unredacted
highlighted versions of the documents proposed to be filed under
seal, and a proposed order.
On April 21, 2023, Colonial Penn will file its Opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Declaration of
Kathy J. Huang in support of Colonial Penn's Opposition attaches as
Exhibit A excerpts of the November 21, 2022 transcript of the
deposition of the Plaintiff Thurma J. Kelley, the entirety of which
was designated as confidential by the Plaintiff pursuant to the
Protective Order.
The Opposition itself also references portions of that confidential
deposition testimony. Under Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b), "a person
seeking leave of Court to file some or all of a document under seal
(the 'Filing Party') must file an Application for Leave to File
Under Seal ('Application')" pursuant to subdivision (a).
Colonial Penn is an American life insurance company based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42472Hp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathy J. Huang, Esq.
Jesse Steinbach, Esq.
Brooke Bolender, Esq.
Adam J. Kaiser, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3004
Telephone: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
E-mail: Kathy.Huang@alston.com
Jesse.Steinbach@alston.com
Brooke.Bolender@alston.com
Adam.Kaiser@alston.com
CORE CASHLESS: McGowan Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Core Cashless, LLC.
The case is styled as Kelley McGowan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Core Cashless, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00524-LPL (W.D. Pa., March 24, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
CORE -- https://corecashless.com/ -- is a global leader of
integrated cashless payment solutions providing patrons the
convenience of managing their account through a kiosk and the
security of purchasing with the swipe of a card, wristband or
mobile phone.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
DELTONA, FL: Stone Island Homeowners Sue Over Floodwaters
---------------------------------------------------------
Patricio G. Balona, writing for The Daytona Beach News-Journal,
reports that Stone Island homeowners are suing the city of Deltona
alleging the city diverted Tropical Storm Ian's floodwaters through
their community causing "catastrophic damage."
In the class-action lawsuit filed on April 26 in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the complaint
alleges that the city of Deltona created a "floodplain" out of the
Stone Island community when it opened a flood structure which
"ultimately led to hundreds of millions of gallons of floodwaters
being redirected to, through and over Stone Island."
At least 41 homeowners are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Homeowners are asking a federal court for a jury trial to determine
what the city of Deltona should pay them for their losses.
According to the suit, homeowners are seeking full compensation of
more than $50,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys
fees.
According to the lawsuit, the city of Deltona built the drainage
system in 1991 to push floodwaters from Deltona to Lake Bethel,
which is east of Stone Island, and then to the St. Johns River.
In 2005, after a lawsuit by the Stone Island Community, Deltona
closed off the drainage system by building a dam that stopped
floodwaters from flowing through the community.
Dam opened without permission?
When Tropical Storm Ian made landfall in Florida in late September
and early October 2022 bringing torrential rains and massive
flooding, the city of Deltona, without permission from the St.
Johns Water Management District, opened the dam which caused the
flooding, the suit alleges.
Deltona opened the dam even though the city's stormwater master
plan made officials aware that the Stone Island community would
flood, the suit claims.
And Deltona's knowledge of the impact of flooding was also
highlighted when the St. Johns Water Management District refused to
give Deltona permission to open the dam in 2008 during Tropical
Storm Fay and in 2017 for Hurricane Irma, the suit said.
Prior to 2022, the Stone Island community had not experienced
catastrophic flooding as it did during Tropical Storm Ian, the
class action suit said.
On Oct. 3, 2022, a city engineer reported in a city meeting that
the flood-control structure had been opened without the permission
of the St. Johns Water Management District. The city did not
request a permit until Oct. 6, according to the lawsuit. It was
issued on Oct. 13.
Flood '100 houses or 1,000 houses?'
At a city commission meeting a representative from Deltona asked
whether Deltona "would rather flood 100 houses or flood 1,000
houses?"
The rising waters and the lingering floods caused Volusia County to
shut off sewer pumps in the Stone Island community creating an
unsanitary situation with sewage backing up throughout the
community causing further damage, the suit claims.
Deltona left the dam open from late September when Tropical Storm
Ian hit Florida through at least January, the lawsuit states.
The News-Journal left a message with the office of Deltona Mayor
Santiago Avila, Jr. on April 30 but did not immediately hear back.
[GN]
DREAMSPACE ENTERPRISES: Augustin Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Yvjahmyr Augustin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DREAMSPACE ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a SEXYMODEST
BOUTIQUE, Case No. CACE-23-005487 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct.,
Broward Cty., March 20, 2023), is brought under the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), as a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited telephonic sales calls.
To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's
telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members
harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory
damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class members, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
unlawful actions of Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."
The Defendant is an online clothing and apparel retailer..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Office: (786) 289-9471
Direct: (305) 975-3320
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
FCA US: Neu Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC, et al.
The case is styled as James Neu, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Core Cashless, LLC, Case No.
5:23-cv-00509-MCS-KK (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0800
Fax: (619) 230-1874
Email: sward@barrack.com
sbasser@barrack.com
- and -
Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
6420 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Phone: (310) 752-9385
Fax: (877) 500-8781
Email: jeff.westerman@zimmreed.com
FIRST ENERGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Energy disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the Southern
District of Ohio.
On July 28, 2020 and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE
filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a
lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement
Association, has been appointed by the court.
A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The
consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of
persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and
July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing
misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and
results of operations.
The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or
former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in
connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and
June 2020.
On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the U.S Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order.
FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in
connection with the resolution of this lawsuit.
Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE
cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss.
FirstEnergy Corp., through its subsidiaries, provides various
electric utility services in the United States. The Company is
based in Akron, Ohio.
FIRST REPUBLIC BANK: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST
REPUBLIC BANK, JAMES H. HERBERT, II, HAFIZE GAYE ERKAN, MICHAEL J.
ROFFLER, OLGA TSOKOVA, MICHAEL D. SELFRIDGE, NEAL HOLLAND, and
KPMG, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01993 (N.D. Cal., April 24,
2023), arises out of the Defendants' violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities
and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
This securities class action is brought on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired First Republic
securities between January 14, 2021, and March 14, 2023. In Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation filings and multiple public
statements throughout the said period, First Republic allegedly
misrepresented the strength of the Company's balance sheet,
liquidity, and position in the market. Among other things, the
Defendants understated and concealed the magnitude of the risks
facing the Company's business model that would result from any
decision by the Federal Reserve System to raise the federal funds
rate, thereby undermining the value of the Company's loan and
securities portfolios and liquidity, says the suit.
First Republic is a California state-chartered bank and trust
company that provides private banking, private business banking,
and private wealth management. Specifically, First Republic
provides its clients with a wide range of financial products,
including residential, commercial, and personal loans, deposit
services, and private wealth management, including investment,
brokerage, insurance, trust, and foreign exchange services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3470
E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com)
- and -
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
- and -
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Darren J. Check, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZE) R & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
namjed@ktmc.com
dcheck@ktmc.com
- and -
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Barbara A. Schwartz, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZE) R & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: rdegnan@ktmc.com
bschwartz@ktmc.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 NW 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
stu@robertdklausner.com
FIRST REPUBLIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
First Republic Bank ("First Republic" or the "Company") (NYSE:FRC)
between January 14, 2021 and March 14, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California and alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
First Republic is a California state-chartered bank and trust
company that provides private banking, private business banking,
and private wealth management. Throughout the Class Period, First
Republic and its executives repeatedly touted the Company's "safe
and sound" business model, assuring investors that First Republic
was strongly-positioned - particularly due to its purportedly
"diversified deposit base" - to weather a variety of economic
conditions, and downplayed the risks that rising interest rates
posed to the Company's net interest income ("NII") and net interest
margin ("NIM"). These were both critical financial metrics that
calculated the income generated on the Company's interest-earning
assets and the value of the Company's mortgage loan portfolio.
On October 14, 2022, the Company announced disappointing third
quarter 2022 financial results, reporting that First Republic's NII
growth had slowed to 20.6% year-over-year (down from 24.1%
year-over-year growth the prior quarter) and its NIM had plummeted
to 2.71% (down from 2.80% the prior quarter). First Republic
attributed the decrease in the Company's NIM to "average funding
costs increasing more rapidly than the offsetting increase in the
average yields on interest-earning assets."
On this news, the price of First Republic common stock declined by
$22.14 per share, or more than 16%, to close at $112.59 per share
on October 14, 2022.
On March 8, 2023, SVB Financial Group ("SVB"), the parent company
of Silicon Valley Bank (considered by many analysts to be a peer
bank of First Republic) announced that it was seeking to raise
approximately $2.25 billion in capital due to continued higher
interest rates, pressured public and private markets, and elevated
levels of deposit attrition. SVB also disclosed that it had sold
"substantially all of its available for sale securities portfolio,"
incurring a loss of approximately $1.8 billion. In response, SVB's
depositors rushed to withdraw their funds out of fear over SVB's
solvency. On March 10, 2023, SVB collapsed and regulators seized
control of the bank, placing SVB in FDIC receivership. Investors
immediately began to question First Republic's ability to withstand
the interest rate environment and remain solvent.
On this news, the price of First Republic common stock declined by
an astonishing $83.79 per share, or more than 72% over three
trading sessions, to a closing price of $31.21 per share on March
13, 2023.
On March 15, 2023, after the end of the Class Period, S&P Global
Ratings ("S&P") downgraded its long-term issuer credit rating and
preferred stock issue rating for First Republic due to the risks of
deposit outflows leading to increased funding costs. That same day,
Fitch Ratings ("Fitch") announced that it had also downgraded First
Republic's credit rating, observing that "FRC's funding and
liquidity profile has changed and represents a 'weakest link.'"
On this news, the price of First Republic common stock declined by
$8.47 per share, or more than 21%, to close at $31.16 per share on
March 15, 2023.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 23, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or acquired First Republic securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
First Republic Bank Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2023 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
FIRST SOLAR INC: Continues to Defend Pontiac Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the securities class suit in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona.
On January 7, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit titled City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. First Solar, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00036-MTL, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company and
certain of our current officers. The complaint was filed on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of First Solar
common stock between February 22, 2019 and February 20, 2020,
inclusive.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly
false and misleading statements related to the Company's Series 6
solar modules and its project development business. It seeks
unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses.
On April 25, 2022, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing the Palm Harbor Special Fire Control & Rescue District
Firefighters' Pension Plan and the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters’ Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs.
On June 23, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that
brings the same claims and seeks the same relief as the original
complaint.
On January 10, 2023, the Court granted the Putative Class Action
Defendants' motion to dismiss in full, with leave to amend by
February 10, 2023.
On February 10, 2023, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint.
Putative Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint on February 24, 2023.
Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
March 10, 2023, and Putative Class Action Defendants filed a reply
in support of their motion to dismiss on March 17, 2023.
Given the early stage of the litigation, at this time the Company
is not in a position to assess the likelihood of any potential loss
or adverse effect on its financial condition or to estimate the
amount or range of possible loss, if any, from this action.
First Solar, Inc.is a solar technology company and provider of PV
solar energy solutions based in Arizona.
FLAGSHIP ENTERPRISES: King Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Valencia King, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. FLAGSHIP
ENTERPRISES HOLDING, INC., a California Corporation, FLAGSHIP
CULINARY SERVICES, INC., an unknown business entity, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV413335 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara Cty., March 29, 2023), is brought against the Defendants'
violation of the California Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff for
all the regular and/or overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and other Class Members worked over 8 hours in a day
and or 40 hours in a week during their employment with the
Defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
thereon alleges, that the Defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of wage abuse against their hourly paid or non-exempt
employees within the state of California. This pattern and practice
involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all the regular
and/or overtime wages earned, and for missed meal periods and rest
breaks in violation of California law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee in California.
The Defendants are engaged in business throughout the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: May 8 Extension for Class Cert Bid Response Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY FLOWERS AND DEBBIE
FLOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC; MERIT ENERGY COMPANY,
LLC; CAER ENERGY, LLC f/k/a RIVERBEND OIL & GAS VIII, LLC. Case No.
4:21-cv-00330-LPR (E.D. Ark.), Merit asks the Court to enter an
order:
-- Extending the time to respond to the Plaintiffs Gary and
Debbie
Flowers's motion for class certification, to May 8, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs' reply deadline be extended to May 22, 2023,
and
for all other relief to which it may be entitled.
On April 4, 2023, the Court extended the deadline for the
Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification from April 14, 2023, to April 28.
Merit requests additional time to respond to the renewed motion for
class certification.
Merit proposes a ten-day extension of the current deadline, making
the Defendants' responses due on May 8, 2023. Merit also proposes
that the Plaintiffs then be given two weeks to reply, making their
reply due on May 22, 2023.
Merit does not anticipate that this extension will affect any other
deadlines set by the Court.
Merit has conferred with all parties and is authorized to represent
that the Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion. Merit is authorized
to represent that Flywheel Energy Production, LLC and Caer Energy,
LLC, join the motion.
Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company.
Merit Energy is privately held US-based oil and gas company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/425RfYM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael B. Heister, Esq.
R. Ryan Younger, Esq.
E. Jonathan Mader, Esq.
QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
111 Center Street, Suite 1900
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 379-1700
Facsimile: (501) 379-1701
E-mail: mheister@qgtlaw.com
ryounger@qgtlaw.com
jmader@qgtlaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces McCabe Suit Over Ford 10R80 Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a Ford 10R80
transmission class action lawsuit alleges at least five models are
equipped with 10-speed transmissions that cause the vehicles to
jerk, shift harshly, lunge, clunk and hesitate between gears.
The lawsuit also alleges the 10R80 transmissions can cause a sudden
loss of power in these models.
2017 to present Ford Expedition
2017 to present Ford Mustang
2017 to present Ford Ranger
2017 to present Ford F-150
2017 to present Lincoln Navigator
The Ford 10R80 transmission class action lawsuit includes:
"All persons in the United States and its territories who formerly
or currently own or leased one or more vehicles with a 10R80
10-speed automatic transmission."
In September 2019, Massachusetts plaintiff Daniel McCabe leased a
2019 Ford Ranger with a 10R80 10-speed transmission. McCabe says
about seven months after he leased the Ranger, the 10R80 10-speed
transmission "held gears much longer than it should."
"He felt as though the car was "lethargic" and that the car was not
responsive to the pedal. He often felt like the vehicle was hunting
for the proper gear and skipping gears while driving. Sometimes he
would hear a loud "clunk" once the gear was finally put in place."
— Ford 10R80 transmission class action lawsuit
However, the plaintiff doesn't allege he took his truck to a dealer
or mechanic or if the Ranger was diagnosed with transmission
problems.
The class action lawsuit alleges Ford knew or should have known the
transmissions contain defects.
According to the transmission lawsuit, a "common design and/or
manufacturing defect in Ford's 10R80 transmissions is a potentially
life-threatening safety issue, and Ford has refused to recall or
replace the defective Transmissions."
Ford allegedly tells customers the transmissions are normal when in
fact, according to the class action, the transmission problems make
the vehicles "unreasonably dangerous."
The lawsuit alleges Ford failed to warn owners and lessees about
the allegedly defective 10R80 transmissions, and now those vehicles
are worth less than they should be.
"Because of the Defect, the Class Vehicles are likely to suffer
serious damages and potentially catch fire if accidents occur, and
there is an unreasonable and extreme risk of serious bodily harm or
death to the vehicle's occupants and others in the vicinity."
Ford Transmission Recalls
Although the lawsuit alleges Ford has not issued recalls for the
transmissions, the class action references transmission-based
recalls to allegedly prove the automaker knows the transmissions
are defective.
In February 2019, Ford issued a recall for 2019 Ford Ranger trucks
equipped with 10-speed automatic transmissions. Ford said the
Ranger trucks could roll away due to problems with the gear shifter
interlock functions.
In May 2019, Ford announced a 2019 Ranger truck recall because the
gear shift indicators could say the trucks were in PARK when they
weren't.
And in April 2020, Ford recalled 2020 Ford Ranger and F-150 trucks
with 10-speed automatic transmissions.
Ford 10R80 Transmission TSBs
The class action lawsuit also references technical service
bulletins issued by Ford to dealerships regarding transmissions.
TSB 18-2079 was issued in March 2018 concerning 2017 F-150 trucks
that "may exhibit harsh or delayed shifts." Ford technicians were
told to reprogram the powertrain control modules, and truck owners
were told these transmissions were equipped with adaptive shift
strategies.
This allows the computer to "learn the transmission's unique
parameters and improve shift quality. When the adaptive strategy is
reset, the computer will begin a re-learning process. This
re-learning process may result in firmer than normal upshifts and
downshifts for several days."
That TSB was followed by these bulletins:
TSB 18-2274
TSB 20-2083
TSB 20-2339
TSB 20-2277
TSB 21-2315
TSB 22-2139
The plaintiff asserts many of these bulletins simply repeat the
same instructions to dealerships where technicians are told to
reprogram control modules and inform owners about how the
transmissions use adaptive shift strategies.
According to the transmission class action lawsuit, Ford actively
concealed defects in the 10R80 10-speed transmissions and instead
told customers the transmissions were performing normally.
The Ford 10R80 transmission class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Eastern
Division): Daniel McCabe v. Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiff is represented by Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman, PLLC, The Carlson Law Firm, P.C., Brent Coon &
Associates, and Wallace Miller LLP. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fuel Economy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FORD MOTOR COMPANY F-150 AND RANGER TRUCK FUEL
ECONOMY MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. MARSHALL B.
LLOYD; TRACEY TRAVIS; DUSTIN DAWSON AND RICK SHAWLEY; MICHAEL
SMITH; EVAN ALLEN AL BALLS; BRIAN LEJA; STEPHEN MATTSON; JOHN
SAUTTER; RANDY TRANSUE; RICK SHURTLIFF; RONALD J. DISMUKES; JEFFERY
FOSHEE; ACCURATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION; STEVE BEAVERS; DAVID
BREWER; RYAN COMBS; VICTOR PEREZ; HAROLD BROWER; KYLE MANNION;
NICHOLAS LEONARDI; DEAN KRINER; JAMES WILLIAMS; MATTHEW COMBS;
DUSTIN WALDEN; STEVEN HULL; KENNETH BERNARD; MARK HILL; CODY SMITH;
DANIEL GARDNER; ROBERT GOOLSBY; JOHN JUNG; MATTHEW SMITH; JOSH
BRUMBAUGH; RYAN HUBERT; WILLIAM DON COOK; HILARY GOODFRIEND;
KATHRYN HUMMEL; SCOTT FORMAN; DILLON DRAKE; RAMIN SARTIP, DARREN
HONEYCUTT; AHMED ABDI; JAMAR HAYNES; SCOTT WHITEHILL; MATTHEW
BROWNLEE; BENJAMIN BISCHOFF, STEPHEN LESZCZYNSKI; CASSANDRA
MORRISON; ROBERT RANEY; DAVID POLLEY; MARK NAPIER; KEITH FENCL;
MARK ARENDT; HARVEY ANDERSON; ROSALYNDA GARZA; JEFFREY QUIZHPI;
JEFFREY KALOUSTIAN; RONALD CEREMELLO; RANDALL MAINGOT; GEORGE
ANDREW RAYNE; ROBERT LOVELL; SAMUEL HUFFMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-1245 (6th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the
district court's the judgment of the district court granting Ford's
motion to dismiss the complaint and dismisses the Plaintiffs'
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are a group of consumers alleging that Ford
intentionally submitted false fuel economy testing figures for
certain vehicles to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
They claim that this, in turn, led the agency to provide an
inaccurate fuel economy estimate to consumers, which induced
consumers (including the Plaintiffs) to buy those vehicles. The
district court ruled that federal law preempted plaintiffs'
state-law claims.
The case centers on allegations that Ford cheated on its fuel
economy and emissions testing for certain truck models, including
the F-150 and Ranger. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), 42 U.S.C. Section 6201 et seq., and its corresponding
regulations specifically control such testing, so an initial
overview of this testing regime is in order.
Pursuant to this testing regime, Ford conducted testing and
provided the resulting figures to the EPA for the 2018, 2019, and
2020 F-150 and 2019 and 2020 Ranger trucks. The EPA then published
its fuel-economy estimates for those vehicles. The F-150 had an
EPA-estimated mpg of 20 city, 26 highway, and 22 combined, while
the Ranger had an EPA-estimated 20 city, 25, highway, and 22
combined mpg. Ford used these figures in its advertisements,
promoting the 2019 Ranger as the "most fuel-efficient gas-powered
midsize pickup in America" and the F-150 as "best in class for fuel
economy."
The Plaintiffs claim, however, that Ford committed fraud in its
testing. In September 2018, several Ford employees questioned the
testing process, which led to Ford announcing that it would
investigate its testing of the 2019 Ranger and other vehicles. It
then disclosed that it was under criminal investigation by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for its emissions and fuel-efficiency
testing. Several other agencies opened investigations, including
the EPA. After these allegations arose, independent car reviewers
performed "real-world mileage" tests and determined that the actual
performance of the Ranger and other vehicles was "nowhere close" to
the EPA estimates.
The Plaintiffs tested the 2018 Ford F-150 and 2019 Ford Ranger to
verify the fuel economy of those vehicles. Their testing (which
they contend conformed to the EPA's standards) showed that Ford
fraudulently reduced the road-load resistance level used in the
dynamometer testing. The road-load figures obtained from the
coastdown tests for each vehicle were found to have more resistance
(which would result in more fuel consumption) than the road-load
models reported to the EPA. They determined that the mpg estimates
of the F-150 should be 17.7 city, 22.7 highway, and 20.0 combined,
with the Ranger being 18.3, 23.4, and 20.6, respectively.
In short, the Plaintiffs' testing allegedly proves that the EPA
estimates for both those truck models are several mpg better than
what they should be. This means that both trucks consume much more
fuel than previously estimated, costing consumers thousands of
dollars in added fuel cost.
The Plaintiffs then filed a host of putative class-action suits
alleging that Ford cheated during its coastdown testing procedure
to ensure that it received a more favorable fuel economy estimate
from the EPA. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated those cases in the Eastern District of Michigan. The
district court directed plaintiffs to file a consolidated master
complaint, and the ensuing complaint, at nearly 1,000 pages long,
included claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of express warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment under the
laws of every state.
The Plaintiffs requested several forms of relief, including: 1)
certification of the proposed class; 2) "Declaring, adjudging, and
decreeing the conduct of the Defendant as alleged herein to be
unlawful, unfair, and deceptive"; 3) "Requiring that all Class
members be notified about the lower fuel economy ratings and higher
emissions at Ford's expense and providing correct fuel economy and
emissions ratings"; and 4) awarding plaintiffs restitution and
damages. Id. at 3014-15.
Ford moved to dismiss the complaint, raising a host of reasons.
Pertinent for our purposes, Ford contended that 1) federal law both
expressly and impliedly preempted the Plaintiffs' claims, 2) the
EPA had primary jurisdiction over the case, such that the district
court should dismiss the case, and 3) the Plaintiffs'
misrepresentation and omission claims failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. The district court agreed with Ford on
all counts and dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint. The Plaintiffs
timely appealed.
Ford asserts that the Plaintiffs' fraud-on-the-agency claims are
impliedly preempted because those claims conflict with the EPA's
testing and fraud-policing authority set forth in the EPCA and with
the fact that the EPA is responsible for the fuel economy figures.
The Plaintiffs say otherwise, arguing their claims are based on
state-law duties that are identical to those that federal law
imposes on auto manufacturers.
The Sixth Circuit agrees with Ford and concludes that the
Plaintiffs' claims inevitably conflict with the EPCA and its
regulatory scheme. It finds that federal law provides how the EPA
regulates fuel economy standards and what the EPA must balance in
arriving at its own estimates. It similarly gives the EPA
significant authority to investigate and deter fraud. State-law
tort claims, like the Plaintiffs', would skew this balance and
permit juries to take the EPA's place in determining whether fuel
economy.
The Plaintiffs contend that several Supreme Court cases dictate the
opposite conclusion. They claim that these cases illustrate how
Ford's state-law duties are identical to the EPCA's and that, given
Ford's fraud, Ford can comply with both to rectify their actions.
We cannot agree.
The Sixth Circuit holds that (i) the Plaintiffs' claims could not
exist apart from federal law; (ii) the regulatory scheme gives the
EPA significant authority to investigate and correct alleged fraud;
(iii) the regulatory scheme governing fuel economy standards
requires the EPA to approve those figures and publish them as its
own; and (iv) mere reliance on the EPA estimates, without making
any further disclosures about a vehicle's supposed real-world fuel
economy, is not enough.
In conclusion, the Sixth Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs'
fraud-on-the-agency claims against Ford are impliedly preempted as
conflicting with federal law. It opines that the EPCA provides
ample authority for the EPA to regulate testing, deter fraud, and
publish its own fuel economy estimates. The EPA must balance
several objectives in doing so, and state-law tort claims would
skew this balance.
For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit thinks this sort of litigation
would exert an extraneous pull on the scheme established by
Congress, and it is therefore pre-empted by that scheme. It affirms
the judgment of the district court.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://rb.gy/53qhi from Leagle.com.
ARGUED: Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle, Washington, for the Appellants.
Stephanie A. Douglas -- douglas@bsplaw.com -- BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC,
Troy, Michigan, for the Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP,
Seattle, Washington, E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com --
Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- Emily E. Hughes --
eeh@millerlawpc.com -- THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Rochester, Michigan,
Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dicellolevitt.com -- John E. Tangren --
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com -- DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC, Chicago,
Illinois, for the Appellants.
Stephanie A. Douglas, BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC, Troy, Michigan, Jill M.
Wheaton -- jwheaton@dykema.com -- Kyle M. Asher --
kasher@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for
the Appellee.
FULFILLMENT LAB: TWF Amended Bid to Withdraw as Counsel OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly, v. THE
FULFILLMENT LAB, INC; RICHARD NELSON; BEYOND GLOBAL, INC.;
BRIGHTREE HOLDINGS CORP.; BMOR GLOBAL LLC; DAVID FLYNN; RICKIE JOE
JAMES, Case No. 3:20-cv-01528-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Linda Lopez entered an order granting the TWF's amended motion to
withdraw as counsel of record.
On or before April 28, 2023, TWF shall (1) serve a copy of this
Order on the Clients and file proof of service with the Court
and
(2) inform the Clients of the contents of this Order by phone,
text message, and email and submit a declaration of having done
so.
The Defendants David Flynn and Rickie Joe James may proceed pro
se
(without counsel) and must inform the Court and opposing
parties
of their current addresses on or before May 12, 2023 pursuant
to
Civil Local Rule 83.11(b).
The Defendant BMOR Global, LLC must retain counsel and have
counsel file a notice of appearance on or before May 12, 2023
or
be subject to default proceedings filed by the Plaintiffs
pursuant
to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Clients may file an opposition to the pending motion for class
certification on or before May 26, 2023.
The operative complaint in this consumer class action involving
weight loss pills was filed March 7, 2022, by the Plaintiffs Janet
Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff against the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on June
4, 2022, which is currently pending. On June 24, 2022, the Court
denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for
service by alternate means through the Nevada Secretary of State as
to the Defendant BMOR.
On July 19, 2022, the Defendants David Flynn and Rickie Joe James
were served by alternate means with a summons, the Second Amended
Complaint, and the Court's order allowing service by alternate
means.
On November 30, 2022, TWF filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel for
their Clients.
Fulfillment Lab provides warehousing, fulfillment, e-commerce,
shipping, and logistics.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nhfcbp at no extra charge.[CC]
GACHINA LANDSCAPE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Lopez Hernandez, an individual and on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, a
California corporation; DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No.
23CV413038 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., March 23, 2023), is
brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants failed to pay all minimum wages, failed to pay all
overtime wages, failed to provide rest periods and pay missed meal
period premiums, failed to provide meal periods and pay missed meal
periods, failed to maintain accurate employment records, failed to
pay wages timely during employment; failed to indemnify all
necessary business expenditures, failed to furnish accurate
itemized wages statements, and Violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee.
GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT is a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California
and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Drew Levine, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 824-3828
Fax: (310) 862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
dl@melmedlaw.com
GEICO INDEMNITY: McMillian Suit Removed to C.D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alemah McMillian, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Geico Indemnity Company, Geico General
Insurance Company, Geico Casualty Company, Government Employees
Insurance Company, Case No. MID L 208 23 was removed from the
SUPERIOR Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01671-GC-DEA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
GEICO Indemnity Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an
insurance company. The Company provides vehicle, property,
business, and life insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM &SININS
Laurel Oak Corporate Center
1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Phone: (856) 596-4100
Fax: (856) 702-6640
Email: mgalpern@lawjw.com
- and -
Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Phone: (914) 934-9200
Fax: (914) 934-9220
Email: seth@klafterlesser.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Curtis J Turpan, Esq.
HARWOOD LLOYD LLC
130 Main St.
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 359-3675
Fax: (201) 487-4758
Email: cturpan@harwoodlloyd.com
GLOCK INC: Oct. 12 Filing Extension of Class Cert Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN C. JOHNSON, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. GLOCK, INC., a Georgia Corporation; GLOCK Ges.m.b.H, an Austrian
entity; JOHN and JANE DOES I through V; ABC CORPORATIONS I-X, XYZ
PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS and/or JOINT VENTURES I-X, GUN
COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS I-V, Case No. 3:20-cv-08807-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties file joint stipulation and Proposed Order to
continue class certification briefing schedule as follows:
1. The new deadline for the Plaintiff to file his Motion for
Class
Certification is October 12, 2023.
2. The new deadline for the Defendants to file an Opposition to
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is December
12,
2023.
3. The new deadline for the Plaintiff to file his Reply in
support
of his Motion for Class Certification is February 12, 2024.
4. The new hearing date on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is February 29, 2024.
The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his Motion for Class
Certification is currently set for June 7, 2023. And the hearing on
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is currently
scheduled for October 25, 2023.
Glock is a weapons manufacturer headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram,
Austria, named after its founder, Gaston Glock. While the company
is best known for its line of polymer-framed pistols, it also
produces field knives, entrenching tools, and apparel.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/426pAqI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
Jake W. Schulte, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
jschulte@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Robert K. Lewis, Esq.
Amy M. Pokora, Esq.
LEWIS AND LEWIS
TRIAL LAWYERS, PLC
28150 N Alma School Rd, Ste 103-637
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
Telephone: (602) 889-6666
E-mail: Rob@LewisLawFirm.com
Amy@LewisLawFirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul G. Cereghini, Esq.
Carissa Casolari, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
Telephone: (408) 279-5393
Facsimile: (408) 279-5845
E-mail: paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com
Carissa.casolari@bowmanandbrooke.com
- and -
John F. Renzulli, Esq.
Christopher Renzulli, Esq.
Howard B. Schilsky, Esq.
RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 1005
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 285-0700
Facsimile: (914) 285-1213
E-mail: jrenzulli@renzullilaw.com
crenzulli@renzullilaw.com
hschilsky@renzullilaw.com
HOME BOX OFFICE: Tehrani Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Josephine Tehrani, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. Home Box Office, Inc., Cooler
Waters Productions LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV01514 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on March 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02148-JFW-MAR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Labor: Labor/Mgt. Relations.
Home Box Office, Inc. is an American multinational media and
entertainment company operating as a unit of Warner Bros.
Discovery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank Hyung-Jin Kim, Esq.
KIM LEGAL, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (323) 482-3300
Email: fkim@kim-legal.com
- and -
Helen U. Kim, Esq.
HELEN KIM LAW APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (323) 487-9151
Fax: (866) 652-7819
Email: helen@helenkimlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen A Rossi, Esq.
Adam Levin, Esq.
Gabriel Centray Hemphill, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG AND KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120
Phone: (310) 312-2000
Fax: (310) 312-3100
Email: sar@msk.com
axl@msk.com
gch@msk.com
HOMEAGLOW INC: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas & Tomasevic of Cision PR Newswire reports that labor and
employment class action litigation, filed against Homeaglow Inc.
(known as Dazzling Cleaning) for allegedly misclassifying its
cleaners as "independent contractors."
According to the lawsuit, Homeaglow has failed to provide minimum
protections to Cleaners under California law such as reimbursing
their business expenses (i.e. cleaning supplies, mileage for
driving to and from client locations) and ensuring they are paid
for each hour of work even when the client is unavailable, cancels,
or is late. The lawsuit further alleges Homeaglow does not always
pay Cleaners the wages it promises for their services and forces
Cleaners to pay illegal fees for things like "advertising" and new
client development.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and unpaid wages for the
affected cleaners, as well as to hold Homeaglow accountable for its
violations of state labor laws.
"Unfortunately, despite California's best efforts to ensure fair
working conditions and adequate wages, Homeaglow and other 'gig
economy' platforms continue to underpay and illegally classify
their workers to enhance their bottom line," according to Shaun
Markley, counsel for the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit.
For more information, please contract Nicholas & Tomasevic at (619)
325-0492 or visit https://nicholaslaw.org/.
CONTACT:
Shaun Markley
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 325-0492 Telephone
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org {GN]
HOMEGOODS INC: Faces Edlebeck Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges HomeGoods has violated California's Labor Code by
not permitting night shift workers to leave the building during
unpaid meal breaks in a case - captioned Edlebeck v. HomeGoods,
Inc. et al.
The 20-page case claims that by not allowing overnight employees to
leave for their breaks, HomeGoods has failed to provide the
California workers with proper minimum and overtime wages, required
meal and rest breaks and proper wages in lieu of missed breaks.
The plaintiff, a former employee at HomeGoods' Encinitas,
California location, says it was the retailer's policy to lock the
facility and set the alarm during her shift from 9:00 p.m. to 5:45
a.m., which the suit says she typically worked through the
October-December holiday season. According to the case, employees
could not leave without the assistance of the assistant store
manager, and they were informed that they could not leave the
building during their unpaid meal break at 1:30 a.m. or during rest
periods.
HomeGoods' failure to relinquish all control over night-shift
workers during their meal breaks means that these periods count for
hours worked, and the plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees should have been paid for this time.
"As defined by the Industrial Welfare Commission, hours worked
include all time an employee is subject to the employer's control
and all time the employee is suffered or permitted to work,
regardless of whether the employee is required to work," the filing
states.
The suit alleges that as a result of its lock-in policy, HomeGoods
has violated California's Labor Code by failing to pay employees at
least the minimum wage for the time they were under its control, or
overtime wages for any hours worked over eight in a day or 40 in a
workweek.
In addition, the case claims that HomeGoods has denied night-shift
employees their required meal and rest breaks. The complaint claims
the employees are therefore entitled to one hour of pay at their
regular rate for each day that they were not provided
statutory-compliant rest periods.
In further violation of California law, HomeGoods, the suit
alleges, has "knowingly and intentionally" failed to provide
employees accurate wage statements as the documents did not include
the non-compliant meal periods, which count for hours worked.
Finally, the retailer has yet to pay former workers all wages due
upon the termination of their employment since they were not paid
for the non-compliant meal periods, the case says.
The suit also names as a defendant Nash Tang, the assistant store
manager who supervised the plaintiff during her employment at
HomeGoods' Encinitas, California location.
The lawsuit looks to represent current and former employees
employed by HomeGoods in California who were subjected to the
overnight lock-in policy between July 1, 2019 through February 27,
2023. [GN]
IIK TRANSPORT: Illinois Court Certifies Class in Prokhorov Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
in the case captioned as ANDREY PROKHOROV, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IIK
TRANSPORT, INC. and IVAN KAZNIYENKO, Defendants, Case No. 20 CV
6807 (N.D. Ill.).
Plaintiff Andrey Prokhorov worked as a truck driver for Defendant
IIK Transport, Inc. He alleges that IIK took deductions from
drivers' pay and failed to reimburse drivers' work expenses in
violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act. He says
IIK did this by misclassifying drivers as independent contractors,
who are not protected by the Act. He sued IIK Transport and its
president, Ivan Kazniyenko, on behalf of himself and all other IIK
drivers who were classified as independent contractors. He now
moves to certify the class.
The Plaintiff defines the class as "All individuals who worked as
delivery drivers for IIK in Illinois between November 2010 and the
present and who were classified as independent contractors." The
Defendants say this definition is overbroad.
The Court holds that "as of 2007, the applicable statute of
limitations for "actions brought under the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act" is ten years. The complaint was filed on Nov.
17, 2020. The Plaintiff's definition (drivers who worked for IIK
between November 2010 and November 17, 2020) is therefore overbroad
by 16 days." The Court further holds that "this is not a reason to
deny class certification. Instead, the solution is to 'amend the
class definition as needed to correct for the overbreadth.'"
The Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act "applies to all
employers and employees in this State." Thus, according to the
Defendants, different drivers may be residents of different states
and likely drove different amounts of time in Illinois, so figuring
out who the Act applies to will require individualized analyses of
each driver's logbooks, GPS information, and other documents -- not
proof common to all drivers. The Court points out that "the Act
applies to employers and employees 'in this State,' and the
proposed class comprises only drivers in Illinois. Individualized
evaluation of class members' time in Illinois will not be necessary
to resolve the questions common to the class."
The Plaintiff argues that all parts of the test can be adjudicated
through common evidence. The Court finds that "All drivers worked
exclusively for IIK and were barred from working for other
companies. This is common evidence that can determine whether
drivers were free from control and direction. . . Because the
delivery drivers were subject to the same business model, whether
or not they could survive independent of IIK can be adjudicated
through common evidence. The employee/independent-contractor
question is conducive to class-wide resolution." The Court holds
that "the Plaintiff doesn't have to show that victory will turn on
common proof. He only needs to show that some question will turn on
common proof -- here, whether the drivers were properly classified.
. . the plaintiff has alleged and provided supporting documents to
show that all drivers were similarly situated on each of the three
parts of the test. That's all that's necessary for purposes of
class certification."
The Court finds it hard to determine ex ante how much incentive the
drivers have to sue. Even if their claims are large enough to be
worth pursuing individually, the commonality of the claims is a
reason to find a class action superior. Different judges won't have
to decide the same classification issue -- based on identical
material facts -- again and again, expending unnecessary time and
effort and creating the risk of different outcomes. Resolving this
case as a class action is superior to resolving it via alternative
methods.
Accordingly, the class is certified as follows: "All individuals
who worked in Illinois as delivery drivers for IIK between November
17, 2010, and the present and who were classified as independent
contractors."
A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March
30, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/33zryc8a from
Leagle.com.
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Crockett Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Living
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Kristin Crockett, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Independent
Living Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-21226-RNS (S.D. Fla., March
29, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Independent Living Systems, LLC -- https://ilshealth.com/ -- offers
a comprehensive range of clinical and third-party administrative
services to managed care organizations and providers that serve
high-cost, complex member populations in the Medicare, Medicaid and
Dual-Eligible Market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and –
Jeffrey Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and –
Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Phone: (866) 540-5505
Fax: (866) 300-7367
Email: nczipperian@millershah.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian Michael Ercole
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 415-3416
Fax: (305) 415-3001
Email: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com
- and –
Melissa Marie Coates
MORGAN LEWIS
200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 415-3440
Fax: (305) 415-3001
Email: melissa.coates@morganlewis.com
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Holcombe Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Living
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as William Holcombe, Maria Gomez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Independent Living Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-21131-DPG (S.D.
Fla., March 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Independent Living Systems, LLC -- https://ilshealth.com/ -- offers
a comprehensive range of clinical and third-party administrative
services to managed care organizations and providers that serve
high-cost, complex member populations in the Medicare, Medicaid and
Dual-Eligible Market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Parkway, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Phone: (405) 389-4989
Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: jcohen@milberg.com
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Ramirez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Living
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as David Ramirez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Independent Living
Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-21148-JEM (S.D. Fla., March 22,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Default.
Independent Living Systems, LLC -- https://ilshealth.com/ -- offers
a comprehensive range of clinical and third-party administrative
services to managed care organizations and providers that serve
high-cost, complex member populations in the Medicare, Medicaid and
Dual-Eligible Market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Abraham Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 740-1423
Email: adam@edelsberglaw.com
scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
Steven Patrick Sukert, Esq.
Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Fax: (954) 525-4300
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 415-3416
Fax: (305) 415-3001
Email: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com
- and -
Melissa Marie Coates, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS
200 s. biscayne boulevard, Suite 5300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 415-3440
Fax: (305) 415-3001
Email: melissa.coates@morganlewis.com
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Toledo Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Amy Toledo, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. 23STCV06489 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 23,
2023), is brought against Independent Living Systems, LLC
("Defendant" or "ILS") on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated individuals who whose personally identifiable
information and protected health information was accessed by and
disclosed to unauthorized persons in a data breach occurring in
June and July of 2022 (collectively, "Class Members").
On March 14, 2023, the Defendant reported a breach of confidential
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") (collectively, "PII/PHI") of an undisclosed
number of individuals whose information ILS stores and transmits as
part of the variety of managed services it provides (the "Data
Breach"). ILS works with a number of partner health plans and their
enrollees and/or referred individuals. Specifically, ILS services
include plan administration, nutrition support, and comprehensive
care management, among other services.
According to ILS, between June 30 and July 5, 2022, an unauthorized
actor obtained access to certain ILS systems. ILS detected this
breach on July 5, 2022 when it experienced an incident involving
the inaccessibility of certain computer systems on the ILS network.
ILS subsequently learned that some information stored on the ILS
network was acquired by this unauthorized actor while other
information was accessible and potentially viewed.
ILS has confirmed that the PII/PHI exposed in the breach includes:
name; date of birth; and medical record number. On information and
belief, the Plaintiff believes other information regarding her and
other Class Members may also have been taken or been accessible to
the unauthorized actor. Although ILS knew of the breach on July 5,
2022, and although ILS had the results of a comprehensive data
review by January 17, 2023 with regard to the Data Breach, ILS did
not notify Plaintiff and other Class Members of the Data Breach
until March 14, 2023.
ILS owed a duty to the Plaintiff and Class Members to maintain
reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and
safeguard the PII/PHI it collected and stored on its network. The
Defendant breached that duty by, inter alia, failing to implement
and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to
protect the PII/PHI from unauthorized access and unnecessarily
storing and retaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal
information on its inadequately protected network.
As a result of the Defendant's inadequate cybersecurity, the Data
Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII/PHI was
accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all affected
consumers in California whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of
the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks, for herself and the Class,
injunctive relief, actual and other economic damages, consequential
damages, nominal damages or statutory damages, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual.
Independent Living Systems, LLC is a Florida limited liability
company licensed to do business and actually doing business in the
State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
KIZIRIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Phone: 818.221.2800
Facsimile: 818.221.2900
Email: armand@kizirianlaw.com
- and -
Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Phone: 818.547.5300
Facsimile: 818.547.5678
Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com
INDIAN HILL EXEMPTED: R.L.K. Files ADA Suit in S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indian Hill Exempted
Village School District. The case is styled as R.L.K., by her next
friends, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Indian Hill Exempted Village School District, Case No.
1:23-cv-00171-JPH (S.D. Ohio, March 26, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Indian Hill Exempted Village School District --
https://www.indianhillschools.org/ -- is a public school district
in Indian Hill, Ohio, a suburb of Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Whittaker, Esq.
WHITTAKER LAW, LLC
1431 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 259-3758
Fax: (513) 436-0689
Email: justin@whittakerlawfirm.com
INTELSAT SA: Lead Plaintiff's Last-Minute Motions Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Forrester of Advanced Television reports that Judge Jeffrey
White of the US District Court in California's Northern District
has ruled his decision in the long-running Class Action alleging
insider trading over the sale of Intelsat shares by certain
shareholders including the chairman Dave McGlade.
The judge, on April 26th, dismissed various last-minute motions
from the Lead Plaintiff and entered judgement in favour of the
Defendants and against the Lead Plaintiff.
In other words, the Class Action and its associated allegations
have failed.
While this was an entirely civil case, there has been no sign of
any criminal allegations against the cited shareholders in the
civil case or any sign - to date - of an investigation by the US
Securities & Exchange Commission. [GN]
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES: FLSA Collective Action Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANGELICA ALVAREZ and
SHAHRAM SHAHANDEH, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. International House of Pancakes, IHOP 5332, Inc, HASSAM
SALOUS, MOHAMMED SALOUS, WASEEM SALOUS, BASSAM SALOUS, Case No.
4:22-cv-00329-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan,
Jr. entered an order conditionally certifying collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Court further approves the parties' stipulations to the
following notice process and schedule, and it is hereby ordered:
1. The Parties have also stipulated to the following notice
process and schedule:
a. No later than 14 days after the Court enters an order
granting this Stipulation and Motion, the Defendant will
provide the Plaintiff's counsel with a list of the
Servers
the Defendant employed at any time during the period.
b. Within 14 days of the Defendant's production of the list,
the Plaintiff's counsel shall send the approved Notice
and
Consent to Join form to the Putative Collective Members
via
U.S. mail and email.
c. Putative Collective Members shall have 45 days from the
date
the Notices and Consent to Join forms are mailed to
return a
copy of the Consent to Join form to the Plaintiff's
Counsel
for filing.
IHOP is an American multinational pancake house restaurant chain
that specializes in American breakfast foods.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LhoPEn at no extra charge.[CC]
JAMES COOK: Students File Class Action Over "Useless" Course Degree
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Charisa Bossinakis, writing for LADbible, reports that students are
suing a Queensland university after discovering their course was
'useless'.
Almost 20 students have decided to take matters into their own
hands after claiming their Business and Commerce degree at James
Cook University (JCU) in Townsville was about as useful as a
submarine with windscreen wipers.
Former student Sam Boon told A Current Affair that he had dreams of
becoming a financial planner after studying.
In 2019, Boon saw a promotional video for the course for those
'interested in a career in financial advising, financial planning,
investment services or in stock brokering'.
"The financial advising major will be an accredited major and has
largely been developed because of changes in the regulatory
requirements in the financial services sector," the video said.
Boon decided to pursue the course, only to find that the university
failed to get this accredited major, which was a prerequisite to
being a financial planner.
To make matters worse, Boon was at the tail end of his course.
"I've just spent three years studying with no real opportunity at
the end to become a financial adviser," he told the news
programme.
The aspiring financial planner reached out to the university, but
to no avail, despite sending 10 to 15 emails about the issue.
He and his former classmates are now pursuing a class action
against the university.
"[It's] for distress, disappointment, the loss of income, the
opportunity to increase my salary," Boon said.
Solicitor Duke Myrteza, who's representing the 18 students in the
class action, said he's never seen a situation like this in his 30
years of practising law.
"A course must not be advertised, or a course of study must not be
represented as accredited when it's not, and it's essential that no
statements are made to students that are false or misleading,"
Myrteza said.
JCU issued a statement to A Current Affair, explaining that the
course had been accredited since 1 July 2022.
They added that students who were enrolled in the course were
provided with a transition to the newly accredited program, and
graduated students received an accredited degree.
LADbible has reached out to JCU for comment.
This comes after the university made headlines last year when it
cut 130 staff jobs after seeing a significant drop in student
enrolment.
According to ABC News, Vice Chancellor Simon Biggs said JCU [GN]
JEAN COUTU: Must Face Opioid Class Action, B.C. Supreme Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Lazaruk, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that two Quebec
companies included in the dozens being sued in B.C.'s proposed
class-action lawsuit intended to recover its health costs related
to opioids have lost their bid to be excluded from the action.
The B.C. government launched the suit in 2018 against companies
that included Pro Doc Limitee and the Jean Coutu Group, both based
in Quebec.
They asked the B.C. Supreme Court to declare that it had no
jurisdiction over B.C.'s claims against it and to be dismissed from
the defendants' list because they don't do business in B.C.
Jean Coutu operates 420 franchised stores/pharmacies, mainly in
Quebec, and Pro Doc, its wholly owned subsidiary, purchased opioids
from manufacturers and then resold them to Jean Coutu, the judgment
said.
"In this factual and legal context, and at this early stage, I find
there is a good arguable case that it was reasonably foreseeable
that Pro Doc or Jean Coutu‑distributed opioids would indirectly
find their way to consumers in B.C. or be consumed in B.C., even if
they were only directly distributed to wholesalers or pharmacies in
Quebec," said Justice Michael Brundrett in his written reasons for
judgment released last week.
B.C.'s claim against the manufacturer defendants is they "marketed
and promoted opioids in Canada as less addictive than they knew
them to be, and for conditions they knew the drugs were not
effective in treating," he wrote. "These misleading marketing and
promotion efforts allegedly resulted in an increase in the
prescription and use of all opioids."
And the defendants delivered the opioids in "quantities they knew
or should have known exceeded any legitimate market, thereby
intensifying the crisis of opioid use, addiction and death in
Canada," he said the suit alleges.
The class action is suing for opioid-related health care costs and
damages from the 40 companies from 1996, when Purdue Pharma
(Canada) started selling painkiller OxyContin, to the present.
Pro Doc and Jean Coutu submitted they had no connection to B.C.
because they're not residents in B.C., they didn't commit alleged
harm in B.C., "and it was not reasonably foreseeable that persons
in British Columbia would use or be exposed to the applicants'
opioids."
B.C. last June announced a $150 million settlement with Purdue, the
largest defender in the proposed class-action lawsuit.
The lawsuit, launched on behalf of all federal, provincial and
territorial governments, does not seek damages for individuals or
families, but to recoup costs to the public health-care system,
such as hospitalizations, emergency responses and addiction
treatments.
Its application to certify the class-action lawsuit in B.C. Supreme
Court is scheduled for this fall and could open the door to further
settlements to recover health-care costs.
The allegations contained in the civil claim have not been proven
in court. [GN]
JGL RESTAURANT: Court Upheld $1.2M Verdict Over Unjust Enrichment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Greenwald & Laake, PA reports that the Fourth Circuit Court
affirmed the District Court's decision denying Schuster's Rule
40(b) motion and upholding JGL's $1.2 Million jury verdict on
unjust enrichment in the Schuster class action case on Friday,
April 21, 2023. The JGL team representing the
Appellant/Cross-Appellees included JGL partners Steven Michael
Pavsner, Erika Jacobsen White, and Brian J. Markovitz. [GN]
JOSEPH R. BIDEN: Kennedy Sues Over Censorship Campaign
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, & CONNIE
SAMPOGNARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as
President of the United States; KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, in her official
capacity as White House Press Secretary; VIVEK H. MURTHY, in his
official Capacity as Surgeon General of the United States; XAVIER
BECERRA, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services; DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, in his official
capacity as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases and as Chief Medical Advisor to the President;
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES; CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; CAROL Y. CRAWFORD, in her official
capacity as Chief of the Digital Media Branch of the Division of
Public Affairs within the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, a.k.a. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS; JENNIFER SHOPKORN, in her official capacity as Senior
Advisor for Communications in the U.S. Census Bureau; DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security; ROBERT SILVERS, in his
official capacity as Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy,
Policy, and Plans within DHS SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, in her official
capacity as Senior Counselor for National Security in the Office of
the Secretary for DHS; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JEN
EASTERLY, in her official capacity as Director of the Cybersecurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency; CYBERSECURITY AND
INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY; GINA McCARTHY, in her official
capacity as White House National Climate Advisor; NINA JANKOWICZ,
in her official capacity as director of the so-called
"Disinformation Governance Board" within DHS; ANDREW SLAVITT, in
his official capacity as White House Senior COVID-10 Advisor; ROB
FLAHERTY, in his official capacity as Deputy Assistant to the
President and Director of Digital Strategy at the White House;
COURTNEY ROWE, in her official capacity as White House Covid-19
Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement; CLARKE
HUMPHREY, in her official capacity as White House Digital Director
for the Covid-19 Response Team; BENJAMIN WAKANA, in his official
capacity as the Deputy Director of Strategic Communications and
Engagement at the White House COVID-19 Response Team; DANA REMUS,
in her official capacity as Counsel to the President; AISHA SHAH,
in her official capacity as White House Partnerships Manager, LAURA
ROSENBERGER, in her official capacity as Special Assistant to the
President, MINA HSIANG, in her official capacity as Administrator
of the U.S. Digital Service within the Office of Management and
Budget in the Executive Office of the President, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, LAURA DEHMLOW, in her
official capacity as Section Chief for the FBI's Foreign Influence
Task Force, ELVIS M. CHAN, in his official capacity as Supervisory
Special Agent of Squad CY-1 in the San Francisco Division of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, JAY DEMPSEY, in his official
capacity as Social Media Team Lead, Digital Media Branch, Division
of Public Affairs at the CDC, ERIC WALDO, in his official capacity
as Chief Engagement Officer for the Surgeon General, YOLANDA BYRD,
in her official capacity as a member of the Digital Engagement Team
at HHS, CHRISTY CHOI, in her official capacity as Deputy Director,
Office of Communications, HRSA within HHS; TERICKA LAMBERT, in her
official capacity as Director of Digital Engagement at HHS and
Deputy Director of the Office of Digital Strategy at the White
House, JOSHUA PECK, in his official capacity as Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Public Engagement at HHS, JANELL MUHAMMED, in her
official capacity as Deputy Digital Director at HHS, MATTHEW
MASTERSON, in his official capacity as Senior Cybersecurity
Advisory within CISA in the Department of Homeland Security, LAUREN
PROTENTIS, in her official capacity as an official of CISA,
GEOFFREY HALE, in his official capacity as an official of CISA,
ALLISON SNELL, in her official capacity as an official of CISA,
BRIAN SCULLY, in his official capacity as an official of DHS and
CISA, ZACHARY HENRY SCHWARTZ, in his official capacity as Division
Chief for the Communications Directorate at the U.S. Census Bureau,
LORENA MOLINA IRIZARRY, in her official capacity as an official of
the Census Bureau, KRISTIN GALEMORE, in her official capacity as
Deputy Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood
Partnerships at the Census Bureau, ERICA JEFFERSON, in her official
capacity as Associate Commissioner for External Affairs within the
Office of the Commissioner at the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, MICHAEL MURRAY, in his official capacity as
Acquisition Strategy Program Manager for the Office of Health
Communications and Education at the FDA, BRAD KIMBERLY, in his
official capacity as Director of Social Media at the FDA, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SAMARUDDIN K. STEWART, in his official
capacity as Senior Technical Advisor and/or Senior Advisor for the
Global Engagement Center of the State Department, DANIEL KIMMAGE,
in his official capacity as Acting Coordinator for the Global
Engagement Center at the State Department, ALEXIS FRISBIE, in her
official capacity as a member of the Technology Engagement Team at
the Global Engagement Center at the State Department, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, MARK
A. ROBBINS, in his official capacity as Interim Executive Director
of the EAC, and KRISTEN MUTHIG, in her official capacity as
Director of Communications for the EAC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM (W.D. La., March 24, 2023), is brought for
declaratory and injunctive relief (no damages are sought) brought
on behalf of consumers of news on social-media platforms against
the federal agencies and officers participating in this censorship
campaign.
Over 80% of Americans now access the news from digital devices, and
some 80% of online news traffic is accessed through news
aggregators and social-media companies, principally Facebook,
Google (which owns YouTube), and Twitter. Consumers of online news
have standing to bring this suit for the same reason consumers of
prescription medicines had standing in Virginia State Board of
Pharmacy: because the First Amendment protects not only the right
to speak, but also the "right to 'receive information and ideas.'"
Moreover, consumers of online news are the most appropriate parties
to challenge the federal government's online censorship campaign.
Indeed, a nationwide class of online news consumers is the only
fully appropriate party to seek the remedy necessary and warranted
here—i.e., a nationwide injunction. Only a nationwide injunction
can effectively redress the federal government's nationwide effort
to censor constitutionally protected online speech, and the most
appropriate party to seek that remedy is not an individual who has
been censored, nor even a state Attorney General, but rather a
nationwide class of online news consumers. Apart from the
Judiciary, no branch of our Government, and no other institution,
can stop the current Administration's systematic efforts to
suppress speech through the conduit of social-media companies.
Congress can't, the Executive won't, and States lack the power to
do so. The fate of American free speech, as it has so often before,
lies once again in the hands of the courts, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a natural person and citizen
of New York, is a world-renowned attorney and author and the
founder of Children's Health Defense (CHD).
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., is President of the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
G. Shelly Maturin, II
LAW OFFICE OF G. SHELLY MATURIN, II, L.L.C.
322 Heymann Blvd., Suite 1
Lafayette, LA 70503
Phone: (337) 362-3514
Email: shelly@maturinlaw.com
- and -
Jed Rubenfeld, Esq.
1031 Forest Rd.
New Haven, CT 06515
Phone: (203) 432-7631
Email: jed.rubenfeld@yale.edu
JP MORGAN: EIS Bid to Compel Arbitration OK'd in Capps Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHY CAPPS, et al, v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al Case No. 2:22-cv-00806-DAD-JDP
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting
Defendant Experian Information Solutions' motion to compel
arbitration and staying Count VII:
-- The Plaintiffs and defendant Experian are required to notify
the
court that arbitration proceedings have concluded within 14
days
of the issuance of the arbitrator's decision;
-- Because all claims in this action are now stayed pending the
completion of arbitration, all dates currently on the calendar
in
this case are vacated; and
-- The Defendant Experian's motion for a protective order and for
a
stay of discovery is denied as having been rendered moot by
this
order.
Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiffs have not
established that defendant Experian waived its right to compel
arbitration in this case.
On May 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs Kathy Capps and Loring Capps filed
this action against the defendants. The operative complaint
contains seven causes of action.
The plaintiffs assert one cause of action against defendant
Experian for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
JPMorgan is an American national bank headquartered in New York
City, that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking
subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and financial services
holding company, JPMorgan Chase.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NkD3GX at no extra charge.[CC]
KAISER FOUNDATION: Schmitt Bid to File 5th Amended Complaint Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA SCHMITT, et al., v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-01611-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik
entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
fifth amended complaint.
The Plaintiffs have not shown that they were diligent. The
disparate impact claim and a sufficient factual basis therefore
were known prior to the amendment deadline. That the Ninth Circuit
subsequently confirmed that a disparate impact claim could be
pursued under the Affordable Care Act.
They subsequently filed an unopposed motion to add an additional
plaintiff, and the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on December
15, 2020. Now, two and a half years after the amendment deadline,
plaintiffs seek permission to further amend their pleading to add a
claim for disparate impact.
Kaiser Foundation provides health insurance coverage for
individuals, Medicare, state and federal employees, and employer
groups.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vfmoqq at no extra charge.[CC]
KENNETH JOEKEL: Villarino Sues Over Failure to Provide Water
------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Villarino, an individual, Laura J. Johnson, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KENNETH
JOEKEL, an individual; MARC PLOTKIN, an individual; PACESETTER
PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., a Texas profit corporation; PACESETTER
PERSONNEL SERVICE OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida profit corporation;
FLORIDA STAFFING SERVICE, INC., a Florida profit corporation; and,
TAMPA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., a Florida profit corporation each
dib/a PACESETTER; PACESETTER PERSONNEL; PACESETTER PERSONNEL
SERVICE; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES; PACESETTER PERSONNEL
SERVICES, LLC; PPS; and/or FW SERVICES; Case No. CACE-23-010725
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., March 23, 2023), is
brought against the Defendants' violation of the Florida Labor Pool
Act of 1995 (the "Labor Pool Act," "FLPA" or the "Act"), which was
enacted in 1995 as an important and remedial statute intended to
end appalling and shameful historical abuses of day laborers by
labor pool companies, including, inter alia, not providing drinking
water and bathroom facilities to these workers; charging them for
drinking water, and for the use of basic safety equipment and the
very tools required to perform the work assigned; and overcharging
these workers for transportation to and from worksites.
This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all those
similarly situated who were employed by Defendants as "unskilled"
general laborers or "day laborers" at Defendants' now closed labor
hall facility located at 381 East Commercial Boulevard, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida 33334 (the "Commercial Boulevard labor hall")
between January 29, 2016 and the location's closure in February,
2021 (the "Relevant Time Period"). During the Relevant Time Period,
Defendants failed to provide drinking water and bathroom facilities
to Plaintiffs and over 3,800 other similarly situated day laborers
who worked out of Defendant's Commercial Boulevard labor hall
during the Relevant Time Period. Thus, this Complaint brings causes
of action against Defendants under the FLPA and seeks Class Status
as to these claims, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as general "unskilled"
laborers or day laborers at the Defendants' now closed labor hall
facility, the Commercial Boulevard labor hall.
The Defendant is an individual and is the 100% owner of all
corporate the Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dion J. Cassata, Esq.
CASSATA LAW, PLLC
Boca Crown Centre
7999 North Federal Highway, Suite 202
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (954) 364-7803
Email: dion@cassatalaw.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com
KINGFISHER MEDIA: Aviles Sues Over False Promotion and Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Aviles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KINGFISHER MEDIA, LLC, a Utah limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
30-2023-01313366-CU-Mf-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., March 20,
2023), is brought against the Defendants' false promotion and
marketing of their supplements.
The Defendant sells a line of supplements known as "High T
Testosterone Booster" (the "Product") by falsely claiming that it
will boost "Strength, Stamina, Energy, Energy, Vitality and Male
Libido." In reality, Defendant's claims have been proven false by
overwhelming scientific evidence, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a consumer advocate with dual motivations for
purchasing the Product.
The Defendant is a Utah for profit entity that develops,
manufactures, promotes, markets, distributes and/or sells the
Product to consumers nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLACK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. LANDMARK RECOVERY OF
LOUISVILLE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00217 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting additional time to
respond to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.
Landmark Recovery seeks to move its response deadline to May 12,
2023. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). In addition to asserting these claims on
behalf of himself, the Plaintiff also seeks to certify a collective
action.
The Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on March10, 2023. On
March 22, 2023, counsel for Landmark Recovery agreed to accept
service of process.
Landmark Recovery moves to extend its deadline to respond to the
Plaintiff's motion to May 12, 2023. The case involves a relatively
small number of employees. A collective action, if certified, would
entail notice being sent to a relatively limited number of
individuals. In light of this fact, the Defendant is currently
considering whether to agree to conditional certification, for the
purposes of resolving this matter.
Landmark Recovery is a family-owned drug and alcohol addiction
treatment provider.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LzlySc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan O. Harris, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
611 Commerce Street, Suite 2803
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 565-1665
E-mail: jonathan.harris@jacksonlewis.com
LANIER INC: Leave to Amend Class Complaint Sought in Allen
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ALLEN, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. LANIER, INC. and
MICHAEL H. LANIER, Case No. 3:22-cv-00268-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
(a) granting the Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint
alleging a class claim under Wisconsin state law;
(b) certifying a class action for purposes of settlement only;
(c) certifying an FLSA collective action for purposes of
settlement
only;
(d) preliminarily finding that the Parties' settlement of the
Wisconsin class claims appears to be fair, reasonable, and
adequate as to members of the class, subject to any
objections
that may be raised at the final fairness hearing and final
approval of the class settlement by this Court;
(e) finding that the Parties' settlement of the FLSA claim
appears
to be fair, reasonable, and adequate as to members of the
collective action,
(f) granting preliminary approval of the Wisconsin class action
settlement;
(g) granting approval of the FLSA collective action settlement;
(h) approving as to form and content the Parties' proposed
notice
and claim form as reasonable notice practicable under the
circumstances and in full compliance with applicable law;
(i) orders that each class member be given a full opportunity to
file a claim, object to, or opt out of the Settlement
Agreement, and to participate at the final approval hearing;
(j) scheduling a final fairness hearing; and
(k) awarding such further relief as the Court deems equitable
and
just.
On May 12, 2022, the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants
alleging minimum wage violations resulting from under-reimbursed
vehicle costs incurred on the job in violation of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff asserted those claims individually and on behalf of
similarly situated delivery drivers currently and formerly employed
by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants
under-reimbursed their delivery drivers' vehicle costs incurred on
the job, thereby reducing the workers net wages below the federal
and state minimum wage rates.
The settlement class, which is comprised of 483 individuals, is
defined as:
"All persons who worked for the Defendants at Domino's Pizza
stores in Wisconsin as delivery drivers between July 23, 2019
through April 1, 2023."
-- Each Settlement Class Member's Individual Miles shall be
divided by the Class Miles to obtain his/her "Payment Ratio.
"
-- Each Settlement Class Member's Payment Ratio shall be
multiplied by the Net Settlement Amount to arrive at his/her
Potential Settlement Payment.
-- All settlement payments will be treated as non-taxable
payments
in reimbursement for incurred expenses.
-- The largest payment is $4,737.48 and the lowest payment is
$0.13, however any individual who would receive a payment
lower
that $30 based on the above calculation method will instead
receive a minimum $30 payment.
Lanier is in the pizzeria, chain business.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/421mDaM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
jay@foresterhaynie.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Anthony D. Dick, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 4000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (440) 740-2110
E-mail: tdick@fisherphillips.com
LG DISPLAY: Still Not Served Hatzlacha Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co. Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company has not
been served with the complaint related to the class action suit
filed by Hatzlacha consumer organization as of April 18, 2023.
In December 2013, a class action complaint was filed by Hatzlacha,
a consumer organization, on behalf of Israeli consumers against LG
Display and other defendants in the Central District in Israel.
As of April 18, 2023, the company has not been served with the
complaint from Hatzlacha.
LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the
Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally. It offers various
display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices.
The Company also provides panels for industrial and other
applications, including entertainment systems, automotive
displays,
portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic equipment. It
serves end-brand customers and their system integrators. The
Company was formerly known as LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and changed
its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February 2008. LG Display Co.,
Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Seoul, South
Korea."
LINCOLN BENEFIT: Seeks to Rescind Class Certification in Farley
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANA FARLEY, Individually
and on Behalf of the Class, v. LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY, a
Nebraska Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order rescinding the
Court's April 19, 2023, Order certifying a class in the action and
an Order for Additional Briefing.
Lincoln Benefit believes that, based on the concessions and
adjustments The Plaintiff made to the proposed class claims and
definition during the class certification hearing and in The
Plaintiff's reply in support of certification, the Court did not
receive the benefit of briefing of the issues upon which
certification was decided, and Lincoln Benefit requests additional
briefing to address these issues.
On April 24, 2023, counsel for Lincoln Benefit emailed counsel for
The Plaintiff to schedule an expedited conference regarding this
Motion. Counsel for The Plaintiff responded and provided his
availability. Counsel for Lincoln Benefit scheduled a WebEx
conference for 3:30 pm PT on April 24, 2023, in accordance with
counsel's stated availability.
Lincoln Benefit provides life insurance and annuity solutions.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VkIvM5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tarifa B. Laddon, Esq.
Katherine villanueva, Esq.
W. Glenn Merten, Esq.
Jamie M. Campisi, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-203-4000
E-mail: tarifa.laddon@faegredrinker.com
kate.villanueva@faegredrinker.com
glenn.merten@faegredrinker.com
jamie.campisi@faegredrinker.com
LOREAL USA: Gilburd Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Gilburd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. L'Oreal USA Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00687-SRB (D. Ariz., April 24, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant allegedly sent multiple text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 3994 to promote its goods and
services. In addition, the Defendant did not honor Plaintiff's
request to opt out of text message solicitations. Through this
class action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, says the suit.
L'Oreal USA Inc. is a corporation whose principal office is located
in New York. Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business
activities throughout the state of Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
LOUISIANA REGIONAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Regional Landfill Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated putative
class suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.
Between June 2016 and December 31, 2020, one of the Company's
subsidiaries, Louisiana Regional Landfill Company ("LRLC"),
conducted certain operations at a municipal solid waste landfill
known as the Jefferson Parish Landfill (the "JP Landfill"), located
in Avondale, Louisiana, near the City of New Orleans. LRLC's
operations were governed by an Operating Agreement, entered into in
May 2012 by LRLC under its previous name, IESI LA Landfill
Corporation, and the owner of the JP Landfill, Jefferson Parish
(the "Parish"). The Parish also holds the State of Louisiana
permit for the operation of the JP Landfill. Aptim Corporation
operated the landfill gas collection system at the JP Landfill
under a separate contract with the Parish.
In July and August 2018, four separate lawsuits seeking class
action status were filed against LRLC and certain other Company
subsidiaries, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation in Louisiana state
court, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, before Judge Susie Morgan in
New Orleans. The Court later consolidated the claims of the
putative class action plaintiffs.
Beginning in December 2018, a series of 11 substantively identical
mass actions were filed in Louisiana state court against LRLC and
certain other Company subsidiaries, the Parish, and Aptim
Corporation.
The claims of the mass action plaintiffs were consolidated in
federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, also before
Judge Susie Morgan (the "Addison" action).
The putative class actions and the Addison action assert claims for
damages from odors allegedly emanating from the JP Landfill. The
consolidated putative class action complaint alleges that the JP
Landfill released "noxious odors" into the plaintiffs' properties
and the surrounding community and asserts a range of liability
theories—nuisance, negligence (since dismissed), and strict
liability—against all defendants. The putative class is described
as all residents of Jefferson Parish who have sustained legally
cognizable damages as a result of odors from the JP Landfill, but
the complaint proposes to revise the geographic definition based on
further evidence. The putative class plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages for nuisance and unidentified property value diminution.
The Addison plaintiffs assert claims for nuisance, negligence, and
(with respect to the Parish) unconstitutional takings under the
Louisiana Constitution; on behalf of two plaintiffs, the Addison
complaint also asserts claims for wrongful death and survivorship.
The Court held an eight-day trial on general causation during
January and February 2022. General causation was to address the
questions of whether the JP Landfill could cause odors and
emissions that are able to reach plaintiffs' properties and whether
those odors and emissions could result in the types of medical
impacts and nuisance conditions complained of by the putative class
and mass action plaintiffs. Among other things, defendants urged
the court to find general causation tied to the geographic limits
of landfill emissions that may have the potential to cause a
nuisance based on air modeling done by defendants' experts.
On November 29, 2022, the Court issued a 45-page decision on the
general causation trial.
The Court concluded that all putative class and mass action
plaintiffs established general causation—specifically that
emissions and gases from the JP Landfill were capable of causing
certain damages alleged by the plaintiffs.
The Court held that it only needed to determine the level of
exposure necessary to result in injuries and that the level existed
somewhere offsite, and that it was not required to delineate this
level of exposure within a geographic area.
The Court did, however, limit the time period for damages, to
between July 2017 and December 2019, and the types of alleged
injuries for which the plaintiffs are able to seek damages, to
headaches, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, sleep disruption,
dizziness, fatigue, anxiety and worry, a decrease in quality of
life, and loss of enjoyment or use of property.
The Addison plaintiffs' claims of diminution of property value were
put on a separate track from these damages and not addressed. The
Court has held several case management conferences since the
general causation decision to discuss how to proceed with the class
and mass action cases, and the Court has proposed trying certain
Addison plaintiffs' cases on the merits prior to class
certification being determined as to the putative class case. The
Company has opposed that sequence by motion, and the Court has
recognized its objection on the record. Subject to that objection,
the Company jointly proposed a case management order with the
Addison plaintiffs that allows for fact and expert discovery on a
subset of 8-13 Addison plaintiffs who will proceed to trial. The
Court adopted and so-ordered that case management order on April
17, 2023, under which trial is scheduled for September 2023.
On April 17, 2023, the Company and the other Defendants filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus from the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals challenging the April 17, 2023 case management order’s
sequencing of a merits trial before class certification.
The Defendants also filed a motion to stay proceedings in the
district court until the Fifth Circuit issues a decision on the
writ petition. The Fifth Circuit has requested responses from the
Plaintiffs and invited a response from the district court, which
were due April 26, 2023.
The Company has already obtained dismissal of approximately one
third of the original Addison plaintiffs, the number of which now
totals 544, and believes it has strong defenses to the merits of
the Addison action, including specific causation issues due to
other odor sources in the area.
The Company also believes it has strong defenses to certification
of the putative class actions, although the Court has not yet
indicated when it will allow certification to be briefed and
decided, and sequencing of that process may be affected by the
Fifth Circuit’s decision on the writ petition.
The Company is continuing to vigorously defend itself in these
lawsuits; however, at this time, the Company is not able to
determine the likelihood of any outcome regarding the underlying
claims, including the allocation of any potential liability among
the Company, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation.
Louisiana Regional Landfill Company provides waste disposal and
landfill services.
LOYALTY VENTURES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 26
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 30
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Loyalty Ventures Inc. (OTC: LYLTQ)
between November 8, 2021 and June 7, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than June 26, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Loyalty securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Loyalty class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6803 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 26, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Complaint
alleges that defendants misled investors and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Air Miles program suffered from a lack of investment
prior to the spinoff; (2) as a result, Sobeys had informed
defendants it was considering exercising its early termination
rights; (3) the threat of Sobeys' departure loomed throughout 2021
including in the timeframe leading up to the spinoff; (4)
defendants expected the departure of any single large sponsor, such
as Sobeys, would have "network effect" on the value of the entire
Air Miles program; (5) the high leverage and debt service
obligations foisted upon Loyalty Ventures, in conjunction with the
"network effect" impact on the value of the Air Miles business,
threatened the Company's ability to continue operations; and (6) as
a result, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
financial guidance, business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Loyalty class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6803 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MADISON SQUARE: Gross Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Gross, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT
CORP., Case No. 651533/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., March
27, 2023), is brought arising from MSG's unlawful use of biometric
data to benefit its bottom line.
MSG improperly uses the biometric data that it collects from
consumers to systematically identify and remove any attorney from
its venues who may be associated with a law firm that dares to file
a lawsuit against MSG. Regardless of the size or legitimacy of the
claim, litigants, their attorneys, any employee of a related law
firm, and business foes alike risk being banned for challenging
MSG. MSG has leveraged this threat of exclusion (and unceremonious
on-site expulsion) from the epicenters of New York City
entertainment that MSG owns and controls to induce a valuable
chilling effect on litigation against MSG. The objective of MSG's
policy is clear--to profit from the use of its facial recognition
technology system by deterring litigation and, in turn, reducing
MSG's significant litigation expenses. MSG's campaign not only
shocks the conscience, as articulated by the numerous public
officials that have spoken out on this matter--it is also unlawful.
MSG's profit-motivated use of its facial recognition technology
system violates the protected (and valuable) privacy rights of
consumers in their unique and personal biometric identifier
information.
MSG has implemented a facial recognition technology system in order
to collect and analyze biometric identifiers from each person that
enters the MSG Venues. MSG misuses this protected data to implement
a systematic campaign to chill potential litigation against it. MSG
accomplishes this by maintaining a database of biometric data
associated with banned persons (any attorney employed by a law firm
that has sued MSG) and conducting a facial recognition scan of each
person that enters an MSG Venue so that it can identify and eject
any banned person. In order to implement this system, MSG shares
all of this biometric data with at least one third-party vendor.
This shameless practice has resulted in hardworking, decent people
being banned--and, in some cases, thuggishly evicted--from MSG and
its sister properties. For example, MSG recently used facial
recognition to remove a mother chaperoning her daughter on a Girl
Scouts trip to the Rockette's Christmas Spectacular at Radio City
Music Hall merely because the mother was employed by a law firm
that brought a lawsuit against MSG (notwithstanding that the woman
had no role in the lawsuit).
The Plaintiff brings this Action, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, to vindicate the privacy rights of all
persons who visited the MSG Venues in New York City and had their
biometric identifier information collected by Defendant's facial
recognition technology system during the period commencing July 9,
2021, and ending on the earlier of the date of entry of judgment in
this Action or on the date MSG ceases to engage in the unlawful
practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a ticket for, and attended, a concert at
Madison Square Garden on February 10, 2022.
Madison Square Garden, widely known as the "Most Famous Arena on
Earth," has served as the quintessential New York City sports and
concert arena since it was founded in 1879.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Israel David, Esq.
Hayley Lowe, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
Madeline Sheffield, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
17 State Street, Suite 4010
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 739-0622
Facsimile: (212) 739-0628
Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
hayley.lowe@davidllc.com
blake.yagman@davidllc.com
madeline.sheffteld@davidllc.com
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a consolidated antitrust class
suit.
Multiple putative class actions have also been filed in state and
federal courts in the United States and in the United Kingdom
against us alleging violations of antitrust laws and other causes
of action in connection with these acquisitions and/or other
alleged anticompetitive conduct, and seeking damages and injunctive
relief. Several of the cases brought on behalf of certain
advertisers and users in the United States were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
On January 14, 2022, the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, our motion to dismiss the consolidated actions.
On March 1, 2022, a first amended consolidated complaint was filed
in the putative class action brought on behalf of certain
advertisers.
On December 6, 2022, the court denied our motion to dismiss the
first amended consolidated complaint filed in the putative class
action brought on behalf of certain advertisers.
The Company believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we are
vigorously defending them.
Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of
"Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN]
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from consolidated putative consumer
class suits.
Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions were
filed in state and federal courts in the United States and
elsewhere against the Company and certain of its directors and
officers alleging various causes of action in connection with its
platform and user data practices as well as the misuse of certain
data by a developer that shared such data with third parties in
violation of its terms and policies, and seeking unspecified
damages and injunctive relief. With respect to the putative class
actions alleging fraud and violations of consumer protection,
privacy, and other laws in connection with the same matters,
several of the cases brought on behalf of consumers in the United
States were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
On September 9, 2019, the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative
consumer class action.
On December 22, 2022, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the lawsuit, which provides for a payment of
$725 million by us and is subject to court approval.
In addition, the Company's platform and user data practices, as
well as the events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a
developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), state attorneys general, and other government inquiries in
the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions.
The Company entered into a settlement and modified consent order to
resolve the FTC inquiry, which took effect in April 2020. Among
other matters, its settlement with the FTC required the Company to
pay a penalty of $5.0 billion which was paid in April 2020 upon the
effectiveness of the modified consent order.
The state attorneys general inquiry and certain government
inquiries in other jurisdictions remain ongoing.
The Company believe the lawsuits described above are without merit,
and is vigorously defending them.
Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of
"Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN]
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Information-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from information-related class suits.
Beginning on June 7, 2021, multiple putative class actions were
filed against the Company alleging that the it improperly received
individuals' information from third-party websites or apps via its
business tools in violation of its terms and various state and
federal laws and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and it is
vigorously defending them.
Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of
"Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN]
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Public Nuisance Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from consolidated public nuisance class
suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
A putative class action was also filed in U.S. state court on
behalf of users under the age of 13, several class actions have
been filed in Canada on behalf of Canadian users, and multiple
school districts and one state in the U.S. have filed public
nuisance claims based on similar allegations.
On October 6, 2022, the federal cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The California state court proceedings are now pending before a
trial judge from Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and is
vigorously defending them.
Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of
"Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN]
MISS KITTYS: Jones Sues Over Misclassification of Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------
ISIS JONES, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals, Plaintiff v. MISS KITTY'S, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01327 (S.D. Ill., April 24, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant to work or perform as an
exotic dancer for, at, or in Defendant's Showgirls Club, during the
period of about 2015 through about March 10, 2023. Allegedly, the
Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as a non-employee contractor and
unlawfully denied her full and timely payment of minimum wage
compensation and retention of all earned wages, tips, and
gratuities in violation of the FLSA, IMWL, and IWPCA.
Miss Kitty's Inc. is a corporation, formed under the laws of the
State of Illinois, with its principal place of business in St.
Clair County, Illinois. It owns and operates Miss Kitty's Showgirls
Club, located at 5200 Bunkum Road, Washington Park, Ilinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Athena M. Herman, Esq.
416 Main Street, Suite 811
Peoria, IL 61602
Telephone: (309) 966-0248
E-mail: athena@athenahermanlaw.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
MNS LTD: Court Approves $12-M Settlement in Kona-Led Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Brown of Daily Coffee News reports that the last remaining
non-bankrupt defendant in the four-year-old class action suit
brought about by a group of coffee farmers from Kona, Hawaii, has
agreed to a $12 million settlement, according to court records.
A United States district court judge in the Western District of
Washington State gave preliminary approval to the settlement on
April 25, 2023. It would require Honolulu-based MNS Ltd. -- the
parent company of the Honolulu-based convenience store chain ABC
Stores --- to pay $12 million to settle claims related to damages
suffered by producers due to Kona coffee mislabeling.
MNS was one of 21 defendants initially named in the four-year-old
case, alongside large national and regional chains such as Costco,
Walmart, Amazon, Kroger, Safeway and Albertsons.
The settlement, which is nearly twice as much as the second-largest
settlement in the case to date, would effectively bring the case
litigation to a close and result in more than $33 million in total
recovered damages to the class.
Dating back to 2019, the original complaint presented the results
of laboratory testing on 19 different coffee products that were
marketed and sold as Kona coffee but allegedly contained little or
no coffee that was actually produced in Kona, a well-known
coffee-growing region.
The plaintiffs invoked the Lanham Act, a 1946 U.S. trademark act
designed to protect from "false designation of origin" in the sale
of consumer products.
"Even though only 2.7 million pounds of authentic green Kona coffee
is grown annually, over 20 million pounds of coffee labeled as
'Kona' is sold at retail," the original motion, filed in the State
of Washington district court, states. "That is physically
impossible; someone is lying about the contents of their 'Kona'
products." [GN]
MONUMENT INC: Malinowski Sues Over Data Privacy Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE MALINOWSKI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONUMENT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03411 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's illegal transmission of Plaintiff's protected health
information(PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) to
unauthorized third parties such as Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta
and/or Google LLC d/b/a Google via a tracking pixel installed on
Defendant's website.
According to its report submitted to the United States Department
of Health and Human Services, Defendant admits that the PHI/PII of
at least 108,5843 individuals was improperly and unlawfully
disclosed to third parties such as Facebook and Google without
those individuals' knowledge or consent. Accordingly, the
Defendant's disclosure of Plaintiff's PHI and PII constitutes a
gross violation of common law and statutory data privacy laws
including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996, says the suit.
Monument, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located at 350 Seventh Avenue, Suite 600, New York, New
York. It hosts a telehealth platform to provide treatment for
alcohol dependency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel H. Robinson, Esq.
ROBINSON YABLON COOPER & BONFANTE LLP
232 Madison Ave.RM 909
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 725-8566
- and –
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
- and –
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
MOSAIC BAYBROOK: Class Certification Order in Cessor Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P., Mosaic Baybrook Two, L.P.,
and Mosaic Residential, Inc., Petitioners v. Tammy Cessor,
Respondent, Case No. 21-0161 (Tex.), Judge J. Brett Busby of the
Supreme Court of Texas:
a. reverses the court of appeals' judgment;
b. reverses the trial court's order certifying a class under
Rule 42 is reversed; and
c. remands the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.
The matter is an interlocutory appeal from an order certifying a
class action regarding claimed violations of section 92.019 of the
Property Code, which regulates Texas landlords' ability to impose
late fees on tenants who fail to pay their rent on time.
Petitioners Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P., Mosaic Baybrook Two, L.P.,
and Mosaic Residential, Inc. (collectively, "Mosaic") argue that
the trial court abused its discretion in certifying a class.
Baybrook Village is a residential apartment complex near Houston
that includes over 700 apartment units. When Mosaic acquired the
property in 2015, it imposed a uniform late-fee policy on tenants
at Baybrook Village. Late-paying tenants were also required to
repay Mosaic any rent concessions they had received.
Mosaic determined its fee schedule on a property-wide basis and put
it into effect on May 6, 2015. The record shows that in setting the
late fees for Baybrook Village, Mosaic considered a variety of
factors, including the average monthly rent, the average number of
delinquent rent accounts per month, and the average number of
delinquent accounts that never pay at all, as well as the cost of
readying an evicted tenant's apartment for a new tenant. Its
calculation also included certain overhead costs and the loss of
the use of funds during the delay in payment. Finally, it
considered what its "competitive set" in the local industry was
charging and limited its late fee accordingly.
In a typical month, Mosaic would automatically assess fees for late
payment of rent on eighty or more of its over 700 apartment units.
From May 1, 2015, to Sept. 30, 2017, Mosaic's charges to Baybrook
Village tenants for late payment of rent amounted to almost
$280,000, and Mosaic assessed additional amounts to recoup rent
concessions it had previously granted.
In July 2016, Respondent Tammy Cessor leased an apartment at
Baybrook Village from Mosaic. Although the monthly base rate for
Cessor's unit was $950, Mosaic gave her a rent concession that,
when applicable, lowered her monthly rent to $858. Realizing she
would not be able to make a timely payment of her full rent for
August, Cessor contacted Mosaic. Mosaic told Cessor to pay the $510
she was able to pay on August 1, then pay the rest within ten days.
Although Cessor paid the $510 as instructed, Mosaic posted a notice
on Cessor's door that (1) showed late fees had been added to the
amount due for August rent, and (2) threatened to evict her if she
did not pay the balance within three days. Cessor paid the $348
balance roughly a week later. Mosaic then charged Cessor $130 in
late fees and required Cessor to repay Mosaic $92 for the rent
concession she had received.
In February 2017, Cessor sued Mosaic for breach of section 92.019
of the Texas Property Code, which governs landlords' ability to
assess late fees on rent, on behalf of herself and a class of
others similarly situated. The following month, Mosaic filed its
original answer, which included a general denial and did not assert
any affirmative defenses. The parties' agreed docket control order
set a deadline of June 16, 2018, for amending and supplementing
pleadings without leave of court.
Cessor filed a Rule 42 motion for class certification in July 2018,
in compliance with the docket control order. She also attached a
proposed trial plan to her motion. Over two months after the
deadline to respond, Mosaic filed its opposition to class
certification on October 26. Mosaic's response did not deny that
the class holds all legal questions in common and did not reference
the statute of limitations or any other affirmative defense.
Instead, Mosaic argued that any class certification would be based
on a significant misunderstanding of the law because "the mandatory
'rigorous analysis'" that Rule 42 requires "had not been
conducted."
On November 9, without seeking or obtaining leave of court, Mosaic
filed an amended answer that raised several affirmative defenses
for the first time, including that Cessor's claims were barred by a
two-year statute of limitations. Three days later, on November 12,
the trial court held a full-day hearing on class certification. The
belated defenses were not mentioned at the hearing.
On November 20, the trial court signed an order granting Cessor's
opposed motion for class certification. Subject to certain
exclusions, the trial court certified the following class: All
current or former residential tenants of Baybrook Village
Apartments under written leases where one of the Defendants was the
owner, and who, during the Class Period of May 1, 2015, to Sept.
30, 2017, were charged a rent late fee that the Defendants' records
show was paid.
Mosaic filed a timely interlocutory appeal of the trial court's
class certification order. The court of appeals affirmed, holding
that the record demonstrated the trial court had conducted the
rigorous analysis required under Rule 42. The Supreme Court of
Texas granted Mosaic's petition for review.
First, Mosaic contends the trial court failed to conduct a rigorous
analysis of how the requirements for class certification apply to
the Plaintiff's cause of action because it did not resolve
potential legal disputes regarding the statute's meaning.
Judge Busby opines that this argument fails because Mosaic has not
shown how the trial court's decision to resolve these merits
disputes -- which the parties had not yet teed up for decision --
on a class-wide basis undermines any of the certification
requirements.
Second, Mosaic contends the trial court did not comply with Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(c)(1)(D), which required it to include
the elements of Mosaic's defenses in the trial plan and address
their effect on the requirements for class certification.
Judge Busby says these defenses were raised in a late amended
answer, and the parties neither moved for leave to file the answer
nor moved to strike it. Because the Plaintiff has not objected to
the amendment under Rule of Civil Procedure 63, he holds the trial
court abused its discretion by failing to address the defenses. He
therefore reverses the court of appeals' judgment and the
certification order, and remands to the trial court for further
proceedings.
In sum, Judge Busby concludes that the first challenge does not
require reversal. It is not enough for Mosaic to suggest the
existence of potential latent ambiguities in the trial court's
treatment of section 92.019. Mosaic must also explain how such
ambiguities undermined the rigorous analysis of the claim required
by Rule 42, which Mosaic has not done.
The trial court did abuse its discretion, however, in failing to
address the defenses Mosaic raised in its late amended answer.
Because Cessor has not objected to the amendment, the trial court
had no discretion under Rule 63 to refuse to consider the defenses.
The court must therefore reexamine Rule 42's requirements in light
of the applicable defenses as well.
The court of appeals' judgment is reversed, the trial court's order
certifying a class under Rule 42 is reversed, and the case is
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://rb.gy/8nwmi from Leagle.com.
MOSAIC BAYBROOK: Partial Summary Judgment in Simien's Favor Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P., and Mosaic Baybrook Two,
L.P., Petitioners v. Paul Simien, Respondent. Mosaic Baybrook One,
L.P.; Mosaic Baybrook Two, L.P.; and Mosaic Residential, Inc.,
Petitioners v. Paul Simien, Respondent, Case No. 19-0612,
Consolidated for oral argument with No. 21-0159 (Tex.), Judge J.
Brett Busby of the U.S. Supreme Court of Texas affirms the trial
court's grant of partial summary judgment in Simien's favor, as
well as the court of appeals' judgment affirming the trial court's
order certifying a class under Rule 42.
These two interlocutory appeals arise from a single suit by
Respondent Paul Simien against his landlords, Petitioners Mosaic
Baybrook One, L.P., Mosaic Baybrook Two, L.P., and Mosaic
Residential, Inc. (collectively, "Mosaic"). Their dispute concerns
a "Water/Sewer Base Fee" that Mosaic billed tenants each month to
recover certain amounts it had paid the municipal utility district.
This fee included not only (1) each apartment's allocated portion
of the utility's customer service charge for water and sewer
service, but also (2) an undisclosed amount equivalent to part of
the utility's charges for non-water emergency services.
Mosaic operates as the corporate landlord of various properties,
including the Baybrook Village apartments, a residential apartment
complex near Houston that includes over 700 apartment units. Mosaic
has owned and managed Baybrook Village since May 2015. In July
2015, Mosaic hired RealPage Utility Management to prepare monthly
statements for the tenants of Baybrook Village. As part of that
process, Mosaic sent RealPage a sample lease used by prior
management. Mosaic carried forward most of the sample lease's terms
in the leases it signed with Simien and other tenants. Some of the
changes Mosaic made to the sample lease are relevant in evaluating
the parties' positions about whether the leases authorize Mosaic to
charge Simien for fire, EMS, and law enforcement services. We
therefore examine the leases in some detail.
In June 2016, Simien signed a lease with Mosaic for an apartment at
Baybrook Village with an initial lease term of July 1, 2016, to
July 31, 2017. On Feb. 6, 2017, Simien filed a class action
petition and jury demand against Mosaic. He sued Mosaic under the
Water Code on behalf of a tenant class, alleging that this practice
violated administrative rules regarding submetering of utility
service or nonsubmetered master metered utility costs. Among other
things, the rules provide that charges billed to tenants for
submetered or allocated utility service may only include bills for
water or wastewater from the retail public utility.
Simien alleged that he routinely paid Mosaic over $50 per month in
water and sewer charges when his actual charges should have been
approximately $17 less. He alleged that Mosaic had violated the
Water Code and applicable Public Utility Commission ("PUC") rules
by assessing and collecting water and sewer base fees in excess of
the actual water and sewer base fee that the MUD imposed on Mosaic.
Simien sought the statutory remedies that section 13.505 of the
Water Code provided for tenants at that time, which include three
times the amount of all overcharges, a civil penalty of one month's
rent for each class member for each violation, and reasonable
attorney's fees.
In its first appeal ("Simien 1"), Mosaic challenges the trial
court's grant of Simien's motion for partial summary judgment on
liability, as well as the court's subject-matter jurisdiction over
Simien's requests for particular elements of damages.
Judge Busby holds that the Water Code authorizes the PUC to
regulate billing for non-volume water service charges, and its
rules expressly apply to the MUD's fixed customer service charge.
Simien has established that Mosaic overcharged him in violation of
section 13.505 of the Water Code and PUC Rule 24.124(a) by
including non-water amounts in that service charge, and the trial
court correctly granted partial summary judgment in his favor.
Therefore, Judge Busby concludes that the trial court has
jurisdiction because at least some damages are available for this
statutory claim. And he affirms the partial summary judgment
because Simien's lease did not authorize Mosaic to charge him for
non-water emergency services. Mosaic overcharged Simien in
violation of the statute and rules by including undisclosed
non-water charges Simien did not owe in the base fee it billed him
for water and wastewater utility service.
In its second appeal ("Simien 2"), Mosaic challenges Simien's
standing and argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
certifying a class under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure. It argues the Court should reverse the court of appeals'
judgment affirming the class certification order for two reasons.
It first challenges the rigor of the trial court's assessment of
the underlying substantive law as part of its consideration of the
prerequisites to certifying a class. Alternatively, Mosaic contends
that the trial court's failure to list the elements of its pleaded
affirmative defenses in the class certification order independently
warrants reversal.
Because Mosaic failed to raise any substantive challenges to
certification other than its attack on the now-affirmed partial
summary judgment, Judge Busby rejects Mosaic's argument that the
trial court failed to conduct a rigorous analysis in certifying the
class. He opines that Simien has standing because he paid the fee.
As to class certification, he says Mosaic's primary challenge is
that the trial court did not conduct a rigorous analysis and
significantly misunderstood the law because Simien's claim fails on
the merits. But the merits are relevant only to the extent a
rigorous analysis shows that the claim is legally baseless or that
the court misunderstood the law in some other manner that affects
the requirements for class certification. He says the Court has
affirmed the partial summary judgment for Simien, and Mosaic has
identified no other disputed legal issue regarding its claim that
could have a significant effect on any certification requirement.
Mosaic also argues that the trial court's order failed to address
its defenses. But the court disposed of all but one defense prior
to certification, and it accounted for the remaining defense of
limitations in setting the class period. Judge Busby therefore
affirms the certification order.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://bit.ly/3Nqad8p from Leagle.com.
MY WAY TRADING: Residents Sue Over Fire in Recycling Facility
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Thiele of WFYI Indianapolis reports that Richmond residents
are suing the owner of the former plastics recycling business that
caught fire. The fire displaced more than a thousand people and
sent harmful smoke and debris into the air.
It alleges the owner of My Way Trading knew the property was
unsafe, but didn't take necessary steps to address it -- leading to
the events that caused the fire.
Two residents and one business close to the warehouses are named in
the class action lawsuit, but the law firm representing residents
said many more could follow.
Richmond resident Roscoe Holder said he joined the class action
suit to see some justice for a fire that never should have
happened. he said when his family evacuated, they were unable to
bring equipment that helps his son with cerebral palsy walk, talk
and sit up.
"The only thing we have in our car 24/7 is his specialized
stroller. So he was pretty much just sitting in that the whole time
or he would have to lay on the floor the whole time we were
evacuated," Holder said.
Holder said when his family returned home, their house still had a
plastic, chemical smell -- which made him concerned.
Among other things, the suit said the fire harmed residents'
physical and emotional health, caused them to lose wages and
lowered their property values.
Trevor Crossen owns Crossen Law Firm, which represents Richmond
residents in the suit. He said the lawsuit will help protect
residents affected by the fire and allow the firm to get documents
to determine its cause.
"I have some clients that are still in hotels. I have clients that
are still off work. I have clients that can't go back to their
house, even now, because they have various medical conditions that
don't allow them to be back in this area," Crossen said.
The plaintiffs are seeking at least $25,000 in damages. Crossen
said for a governmental entity, historically the cap for class
action suits is about $700,000 per person or $5 million total.
Crossen said he believes the city of Richmond is also partly
responsible for the fire and could face legal action in the future.
The city owns part of the property and knew My Way Trading was a
fire hazard waiting to happen.
The city attorney has said Richmond may pursue its own lawsuit
against the company once cleanup is done. Fire officials are still
working to investigate the cause of the fire and have asked former
employees at the Richmond plastics recycler for help.
A community help line for Richmond residents is available at
765-973-9300 and the city of Richmond's website.
We couldn't reach the city or the owner of My Way Trading for
comment. [GN]
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Ct. Partly OK's Sweeney Bid to Compel Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN SWEENEY, et al., v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01569-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery.
The Defendants must supplement their responses to Plaintiffs'
discovery requests. Accordingly, the terms of other Nationwide GACs
and the associated compensation received by Nationwide is relevant,
at minimum, to Defendants' section 1108(b)(5) defense.
The Defendants arguments against supplementing their discovery
responses rely heavily on their asserted statutory
defenses—namely, (1) that the Plan is a "transition policy" that
satisfies the requirements of 29 U.S.C. section 1101(b)(2) and 29
C.F.R. section 2250.401c-1, such that Defendants are insulated from
liability under 29 U.S.C. sections 1104 and 1106, and (2) that
Defendants meet the requirements for the affirmative defense
against claims for prohibited transactions and self-dealing under
29 U.S.C. section 1108(b)(5).
Indeed, the Defendants' assertion of these defenses underscores the
relevance of much of Plaintiff's requested discovery. One of the
criteria of section 1108(b)(5)'s affirmative defense is that the
Plan pays "no more than adequate consideration" to Nationwide Life.
Nationwide is an largest insurance and financial services company,
focusing on domestic property and casualty insurance, and life
insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ABG4LC at no extra charge.[CC]
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in Norfolk Southern? If so,
please visit Norfolk Southern Corporation Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or
pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your rights.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the common stock of
Norfolk Southern Corporation ("Norfolk Southern" or the "Company")
(NYSE: NSC) between October 28, 2020 and March 3, 2023, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On Friday, February 3, 2023, eastbound NSR general merchandise
freight train 32N derailed 38 railcars in East Palestine, Ohio,
about a mile from the Ohio-Pennsylvania border, leaving behind what
the Associated Press called "a mangled and charred mass of boxcars
and flames." Train 32N was made up of 2 head-end locomotives, 149
railcars, and 1 distributed power locomotive. Although no formal
regulatory definition exists, 150 cars is the Federal Railroad
Administration's threshold for classifying a train as "very long."
Train 32N was being operated by just three Norfolk Southern
personnel that day: a conductor, an engineer, and a
conductor-in-training.
Even though the train was not officially classified as a hazardous
material train, which would have required the Company to post and
display notification of its cargo, the consist ( i.e., the group of
rail vehicles which make up a train) included 20 placarded
hazardous materials tank cars transporting liquids, flammable
liquids, and flammable gas. Among the hazardous materials being
transported were vinyl chloride, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether,
ethylhexyl acrylate, isobutylene, and butyl acrylate. The derailed
equipment included 11 tank cars carrying hazardous materials that
subsequently ignited, fueling fires that damaged an additional 12
non-derailed railcars.
According to a subsequent preliminary investigative report about
the accident by the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB"),
the derailment occurred after a wheel bearing on a hopper car (a
type of railroad freight car used to transport loose bulk
commodities such as coal, ore, and grain) overheated and failed. In
this instance, the hopper car contained plastic pellets, and the
combination of the hot axle and plastic pellets started an initial
fire. Video surveillance from a business 20 miles out of East
Palestine showed the axle had been on fire for at least 20 miles
before the derailment occurred.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose, among other
things: (a) that Norfolk Southern's Precision Scheduled Railroading
("PSR)", including its use of longer, heavier trains staffed by
fewer personnel, had led to the Company suffering increased train
derailments and a materially increased risk of future derailments;
(b) that Norfolk Southern's PSR, including its use of longer,
heavier trains staffed by fewer personnel, was part of a culture of
increased risk-taking at the expense of reasonable safety
precautions due to the Company's near-term focus solely on profits;
and (c) that Norfolk Southern's PSR, including its use of longer,
heavier trains staffed by fewer personnel, rendered the Company
more vulnerable to train derailments and train derailments with
potentially more severe human, financial, legal, and environmental
consequences.
On February 21, 2023, the EPA issued a unilateral administrative
order requiring Norfolk Southern to pay for all cleanup actions at
the site. EPA Administrator Michael Regan said at a press
conference that day in East Palestine that the agency was using its
power under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act ("CERCLA") to force the Company to act. "Norfolk
Southern will pay for cleaning up the mess that they created and
for the trauma that they've inflicted on this community," Regan
said. "If the company fails to complete any actions as ordered by
EPA, the Agency will immediately step in, conduct the necessary
work, and then force Norfolk Southern to pay triple the cost."
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the wheel
bearing passed three hot bearing detectors prior to the derailment,
with the temperature increasing each time. However, the hot bearing
detectors would not have notified the crew to stop and inspect the
wheel bearing until it recorded a temperature 170 degrees or
higher, per Norfolk Southern rules. "It wasn't until it was 253
degrees Fahrenheit above ambient temperature that [the crew] got a
notification that they needed to immediately stop and inspect the
hot axle and possibly set out the car."
Before the market opened on March 6, 2023, the Company announced a
6-part plan to improve operational safety that included, inter
alia, adding about 200 temperature sensors along its tracks where
existing sensors are at least 15 miles apart, reviewing the
temperature levels that set off alarms for train crews, and adding
more acoustic sensors that analyze vibrations for potential
problems.
On this news, the price of Norfolk Southern common stock declined
$5.97 per share to close at $222.42 per share on March 6, 2023.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 15, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or acquired Norfolk Southern common stock, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Norfolk Southern Corporation Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or
contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2023 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
NORTH CAROLINA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HODGE, DAVID
HOLBROOK, PHILIP KAY, JACOB FRANCKOWIAK, and RALPH BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADULT CORRECTION, Case No.
5:19-cv-00478-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James C. Dever III
entered an order granting extension of scheduling order and
briefing deadlines as follows:
Event Deadline
The Plaintiffs' deadline to file Motion June 9, 2023
for Class Certification:
The Defendant's deadline to file Motion July 10, 2023
for Decertification and Response to
Motion for Class Certification:
The Plaintiffs' deadline to file Response August 10, 2023
to Motion for Decertification and
Reply Supporting Motion for Class
Certification:
The Defendant's deadline to file Reply Sept. 11, 2023
Supporting Motion for Decertification:
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Lnuwm at no extra charge.[CC]
PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Bifurcate Class Discovery Denied in DelaRosa
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER DELAROSA, v. PAPA
JOHN’S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00179-CEH-SPF (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order
denying the Defendant Papa John's motion to bifurcate discovery.
In this putative class action brought under the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), the Plaintiff alleges that Papa John's,
sent her and other putative class members an automated, marketing
text message without prior express written consent.
The Defendant has filed new motions to dismiss and to strike the
class allegations that are not yet ripe. The Plaintiff opposes
bifurcation of discovery.
Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42qxtrd at no extra charge.[CC]
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Millan Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Pedro Juan Millan, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situatedv. Phoenix Financial Services, LLC,
Case No. 2023-CA-001587-O was removed from the Ninth Judicial
Circuit, Orange County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on March 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-00510-WWB-RMN to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Phoenix Financial Services, LLC --
https://www.phoenixfinancialsvcs.com/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas John Patti, III, Esq.
Victor Zabaleta, Esq.
PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP
3323 Northwest 55th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone: (561) 542-8550
Email: tom@pzlg.legal
victor@pzlg.legal
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Schuette, Esq.
Dayle Marie Van Hoose, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE LLC
3350 Buschwood Park Dr. Ste 195
Tampa, FL 33618-4317
Phone: (813) 890-2460
Fax: (877) 334-0661
Email: mschuette@sessions.legal
dvanhoose@sessions.legal
PRECISION FRANCHISING: Shavin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Shavin, individually and for others similarly situated v.
PRECISION FRANCHISING, INC., Case No. 7:23-cv-00822-D (E.D.N.C.,
April 1, 2023), is brought against Defendant, Precision
Franchising, Inc., under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA") for unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff and the Collective and Class Members worked over 40
hours per week but did not receive one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff and the Collective and Class Members were paid a base
regular rate plus commission and a "production bonus."
The Plaintiff and the Collective and Class Members were paid
overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at one- and
one-half times their base regular hourly rate. The Defendant did
not include Plaintiff's and the Collective and Class Members'
commissions and production bonuses in its regular rate calculations
for overtime purposes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a technician
from June 1, 2021 to the present.
The Defendant owns and operates over 30 Precision Tune Auto Care
service centers across North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Heydt Philbeck, Esq.
BAILEY & DIXON, LLP
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2500
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: 919-828-0731
Facsimile: 919-828-6592
Email: hypilbeck@bdoxon.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Phone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
QUEBEC: Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac Residents Sue Over Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lowrie, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Sylvie
Bechard had only owned her little brick house for six months when
her neighbour came banging on her door on the night of April 27,
2019.
The dike holding back the Lake of Two Mountains had been breached,
and floodwaters were rushing toward her home.
"She said 'Sylvie, we have to evacuate, the dike has given out.
We're being flooded,"' Bechard recalled recently.
Four years after flooding forced the evacuation of more than 6,000
residents of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, Que., and damaged hundreds
of homes, there is plenty of anger from residents who say they're
still suffering from the financial and emotional consequences.
Earlier in Aoril, a class-action lawsuit against the municipality
and the province on behalf of flooding victims was authorized to
move forward.
Bechard remembers the days that followed the breach, when Armed
Forces or police would take her by boat down the flooded streets of
the town northwest of Montreal to retrieve a few belongings. When
she was finally able to return, 11 days later, the scene was
"hell," she said.
While the ground floor was high enough to be spared, her basement
had filled with five feet of stagnant water, destroying her living
room, two bedrooms, and all her photos, clothes and personal
effects.
"Everything I accumulated in my life was there," she said in an
interview.
Richard Lauzon, another Sainte-Marthe resident, also saw his life
plans washed away with the 2019 flooding. Lauzon owned two homes in
the community: one for himself and one that was intended for his
elderly parents.
One house was demolished due to flood damage. The other he sold at
a loss after becoming tired of what he describes as the lack of
responsiveness from the municipal and provincial governments to
questions about being compensated for the repairs.
"I worked all my life to own something of my own, and at the end I
find myself with nothing," said Lauzon, who is now a renter in
another city.
Lauzon is the lead plaintiff in the class action, which alleges
that authorities knew the dike could break and didn't act quickly
enough to prevent it. It has not yet been judged on the facts.
Lauzon cites a 2017 report by private firm Axio Environnement,
which found that significant repairs were needed in order to
counter the effects of erosion and prevent a rupture. "[The dike]
was neglected, and one day or another, it was going to happen," he
said.
Officials have said in the past that the town's mayor had requested
an environmental assessment, and work was expected to begin soon
when the dike broke. Premier François Legault said at the time
that nobody had believed the situation was at imminent risk of
rupture.
The lawyer heading the class action says he has yet to finalize a
dollar figure for the claim. But he wants to ensure residents are
fully reimbursed for the cost of the repairs or loss of their
homes, as well as for the others harms they've suffered, including
psychological.
While many residents received provincial compensation for damage to
their homes, Lauzon said it wasn't enough to cover the full cost.
He said he was given $131,000 for his ruined three-bedroom home, a
figure he calls "ridiculous."
Still seeking compensation
Today, the neighbourhood shows signs of what happened. Vacant lots
sit among the older homes that still stand and others that are
newly built.
The dike that holds back the lake has been rebuilt higher, with a
walking path on top and sloping sides that feature large rocks on
one side, and grass on the other. On a recent visit, the brown
waters lapped about halfway up the side of the dike, not close to
the top, but still far higher than the homes sitting on the other
side.
One of the vacant lots once contained the house where Josée Ares
once lived with her young family.
In a phone interview, she said the house had initially not appeared
to be too badly damaged by the flood. But the next year, cracks
started appearing throughout the foundation due to what an engineer
would later tell her was water damage, as well as the movement of
the ground, which had become unstable.
What followed was a three-year back-and-forth with the city over
the future of the house, which she eventually concluded needed to
be demolished. She said her mental health took a hit as she dealt
with contractors, engineers, and government officials while trying
to work, raise her young son and take care of her partner.
When the demolition permit was granted last summer, all she felt
was relief.
"I thought I'd be emotional because it was my first home, where my
son was born. There are so many memories," she said. "But what was
bigger was the liberation from all that."
Bechard, for her part, spent $40,000 on renovations to make her
home habitable. While she eventually received $50,000 in
compensation from the province, she said it wasn't enough to
restore her home to its previous state, and it didn't take into
account the emotional stress that caused her to take a year off
work.
She wasn't keen on the class action so decided to band together
with another group of residents to hire a lawyer to seek
compensation from the city and province. She said she's hoping to
be awarded $150,000.
Last year, Bechard sold her house. Since then she's become a nomad,
splitting time between friends' homes and travelling. Instead of
buying another house, she decided to upgrade her RV.
"That way if I'm on the edge of a lake and the water rises, I can
just leave," she said. [GN]
RECKITT BENCKISER: Consumers Appeal Review of Settlement Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Neuriva
consumers urged the full Eleventh Circuit to revisit a panel
decision nixing a settlement with manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser
LLC that provided $8 million and changes to the memory supplement
labels.
David Williams and others alleged Reckitt Benckiser deceptively
advertised Neuriva as "backed by science" and "clinically proven"
to improve brain performance when there is no scientific or
clinical proof the product delivers the promised benefits.
The settlement provided $8 million to pay claims as they're made.
The company also agreed to say the products have been "clinically
tested" rather than "shown" or "clinically shown" to confer
cognitive benefits.[GN]
RM ACQUISITION: Bid to Dismiss Velez Class Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICAHEL VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RM ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a
RAND McNALLY, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-02779 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Franklin U. Valderrama of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies
in part Rand's Motion to Dismiss and strikes Rand's Motion to
Strike Class Allegations as moot.
Commercial truck drivers need a GPS system that accurately directs
them to relevant points-of-interest along their journey, not to
mention the correct route, so they can make their deliveries. Velez
purchased Rand's TND 730 and TND 740 GPS devices. Velez, however,
experienced persistent problems with the TND Devices, ranging from
inaccurate maps, misinformation about points-of-interest and poor
or unsafe routes.
Rand manufactures, markets, and sells the TND 730 and TND 740 GPS
devices. The TND devices came with a one-year warranty, which
provided that they will be free of defects in workmanship and
materials for a period of one year from the date of first consumer
purchase.
Velez, a Tennessee resident and commercial truck driver, purchased
the TND 730 in 2014 at a truck stop for approximately $399.99. In
2017, Velez purchased a new TND 740 at a different truck stop in
Illinois for approximately $499. Velez experienced persistent
problems with both devices, including but not limited to,
displaying his location on parallel or non-existent roads and
re-routing him to wrong locations, and taking him in the opposite
direction of where he was headed. In addition to causing
substantial delays, Velez has been left without a reasonable way to
navigate to his destination in his truck.
Velez shipped both TND Devices to Rand for repairs. The repairs,
however, did not provide Velez with better directions, maps,
routing, or point-of-intertest information, or updated maps, and
neither unit worked any better than they had originally. Velez
repeatedly contacted Rand to complain about the problems he was
experiencing with the TND Devices.
Velez filed the class-action suit against Rand. Velez proposes a
class consisting of "all current and former purchasers of the Rand
McNally TND and/or TND 740 in the United States." He asserts the
following causes of action on behalf of himself and the Class: (1)
violations of the MMWA (Count I); (2) breach of the express
warranty, 810 ILCS 5/2-313 (Count II); (3) breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, 810 ILCS 5/2-314 (Count III); (4)
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/2; (5) violations of the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), 815 ILCS Section 510, et
seq. (Count V); (6) unjust enrichment (Count VI).
Before the Court is Rand's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
First, Judge Valderrama finds that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). While
Rand does not argue that CAFA does not afford subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court has a duty to independently assure itself
of its jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits. Velez is a
citizen of Tennessee, and Rand is an Illinois corporation with
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois; the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million in the aggregate; and Velez alleges that there
are more than 100 potential class members. This is all that CAFA
requires.
Second, Judge Valderrama finds that the TND Devices -- which have
features like "Truck-Specific Routing" and detailed information on
truck stops that are aimed specifically at commercial truck drivers
but are useless to an ordinary consumer -- are not consumer
products simply because, stripped of everything that made them
distinctive (and attractive to Velez), they are nothing more than
GPS products. That is, the normal and ordinary use of the TND
Devices is to provide a GPS system to commercial truck drivers.
Accordingly, he grants Rand's Motion to Dismiss the MMWA claim
(Count I) without prejudice.
Third, Judge Valderrama turns to the breach of warranty claims. He
holds that by explicitly referring to the express Warranty relating
to the TND Devices' defects, but not once referring to the factual
allegations regarding Rand's promises to provide Lifetime Maps
updates, he finds that, as pled, the Complaint does not currently
state a breach of express warranty claim based on the Lifetime Maps
updates, and Velez's attempts to argue otherwise in Response fall
short. It is a basic principle that the complaint may not be
amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss. Because
the dismissal of Count II is without prejudice, Velez may include
allegations in any amended complaint that adequately puts Rand on
notice that Velez alleges a breach of express warranty based on
Rand's failure to provide Lifetime Maps updates. The Court does not
opine on the adequacy of any such claim at this juncture.
Fourth, Judge Valderrama finds that the TND Devices are not
"consumer products" for purposes of the MMWA. Accordingly, the
MMWA's disclaimer of implied warranties where an express warranty
has been extended is inapplicable. Rand's implied warranty
disclaimer is valid and enforceable under Illinois law, and as such
grants Rand's Motion to Dismiss Count III. He says he need not
address Rand's alternative argument in support of dismissal based
on Velez's lack of privity with Rand.
Fifth, turning to the state statutory claims, Judge Valderrama
holds that Velez has adequately alleged that he has statutory
standing to pursue ICFA and UDTPA claims. He also agrees with Velez
that his claims premised on Rand's failure to provide Lifetime Maps
updates are timely. Velez filed his Complaint on May 21, 2021, well
within three years of learning that there would be no future
updates to the TND 730 and of learning that no updates were
immediately forthcoming for the TND 740. Accordingly, Velez's ICFA
and UDTPA claims are timely and denies Rand's Motion to Dismiss
these claims.
Sixth, Judge Valderrama finds that the disagreements are enough for
Velez's unjust enrichment claim to survive the Motion to Dismiss,
and he declines to strike Velez's requests for disgorgement or
restitution.
Finally, Judge Valderrama turns to whether Velez has standing to
request injunctive relief. He agrees with Rand that failures to
provide "Lifetime Maps" and updates as long as one owns the TND do
not qualify as concrete future harm sufficient to confer standing
to request injunctive relief. A plaintiff LAO cannot establish
standing by alleging merely a possible future injury -- rather, the
injury must be certainly impending. Therefore, Velez has failed to
establish an imminent risk of future harm based on the hypothetical
possibility that his TND 740 may not be updated.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Valderram grants in part and
denies in part Rand's Motion to Dismiss. He grants the motion with
respect to Counts I through III. He denies the motion with respect
to Counts IV through VI. He grants the motion with respect to
Velez's request for injunctive relief.
The dismissal of the foregoing claims and request for relief is
without prejudice, and Judge Valderrama grants leave to Velez to
file an amended complaint on or before May 12, 2023. If Velez files
an amended complaint by May 12, 2023, the Court directs Rand to
answer or otherwise plead in response by June 2, 2023.
In light of his ruling on Rand's Motion to Dismiss, Judge
Valderrama strikes Rand's Motion to Strike Class Allegations as
moot. However, he grants leave to Rand to file an amended motion to
strike by June 2, 2023, based on Velez's amended complaint. If
Velez does not file an amended complaint by May 12, 2023, the
parties will file a status report by May 19, 2023, informing the
Court as to proposed next steps relating to the class allegations.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://rb.gy/o22yi from Leagle.com.
SEAGEN INC: Continues to Defend PADCEV Class Suit in C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seagen Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period
ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the PADCEV-related class suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
On March 14, 2023, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company, Astellas and Agensys, Inc., alleging that the
defendants failed to warn of side effects to the skin that can
occur when taking PADCEV.
The complaint alleges claims under strict liability, negligence and
fraud, and seeks damages, including punitive damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
Seagen Inc. is an American biotechnology company focused on
developing and commercializing innovative, empowered monoclonal
antibody-based therapies for the treatment of cancer.
SELECT ENERGY: McManaway Seeks Proper OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
ANN MCMANAWAY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SELECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01405-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 24, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Ann McManaway is a resident of Ohio who was employed by
Defendant within the last three years. In support of its oilfield
operations, Defendant scheduled Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees to work 12.5 hours each day. Though scheduled to
work 12.5 hours, Plaintiff was required to work in excess of
16-hour days to complete all required work. However, in the event
that Plaintiff or other similarly situated employees reported their
true hours worked in excess of 12.5 hours on their timesheets,
Defendant's policy was to refuse to process payroll for the entire
workforce until the employee submitted a revised payroll timesheet
that falsely reported no more than 12.5 hours for each given shift,
says the suit.
Now, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation as
well as for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Select Energy Services, LLC is organized under the laws of the
state of Delaware, and maintains a principal place of business in
Texas. The company is engaged in the business of providing water
and chemical solutions to oilfield operators for the purpose of
servicing oil wells. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
LALAK LLC
1991 Crocker Road Suite 600
Westlake, OH 44145
Telephone: (440) 892-3380
E-mail: clalak@employmentlawohio.com
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 29
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Shift4 Payments, Inc. (NYSE: FOUR) resulting
from allegations that Shift4 may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Shift4 securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=15240 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 19, 2023, market analyst Blue Orca
Capital issued a report stating, among other things, that "Shift4
engaged in a string of highly questionable and hyperaggressive
accounting maneuvers seemingly designed to keep the stock afloat,
from cash flow manipulation to inexplicable distributor
acquisitions that enabled it to capitalize a major component of
COGS." Further, the report alleges that "Shift4's CEO began to
engage in highly aggressive stock promotion, proclaiming that FOUR
is 'way too cheap' and that he is 'absolutely' considering taking
the Company private[,]" however the report alleges that at the same
time "Shift4's CEO also claimed to be a 'buyer' when he was, in
fact, a net seller of over 1 million shares in 2022, and just weeks
before his planned disposal of up to 2 million shares alongside the
closing of his [variable prepaid forward (VPF)] contract."
On this news, Shift4's stock price fell $5.95, or 8%, to close at
$62.59 per share on April 19, 2023, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
SHORE FUNDING: Class Discovery Must be Completed by June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFF ANY HARRIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SHORE FUNDING SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00789-JMA-JMW
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James M. Wicks entered an order granting
the Defendant's motion for bifurcation of individual and class
discovery as follows:
-- Discovery is limited to whether on April 19, 2022 the
Plaintiff
received a call from the Defendant at the (205) 503-XXXX
number
and ownership of the subject phone.
-- This also includes discovery of the Defendant as to calls made
to
the Plaintiff. This limited discovery shall be complete on or
before June 30, 2023.
-- On or before June 23, 2023, the parties are directed to file a
joint status report with a proposed schedule for remaining
discovery following the limited discovery.
The Plaintiff Harris commenced this case as a class action alleging
a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
The Plaintiff alleges that on April 19, 2022, the Defendant Shore
Funding Solutions Inc. made an unsolicited pre-recorded
telemarketing call.
The Plaintiffs Complaint describes a proposed "Robocall Class"
consisting of all persons within the United States whose cellular
telephone numbers received a call from the Defendant or a
third-party on its behalf using pre-recorded messages within the
four years preceding the complaint.
Shore Funding is the one stop lending source that can help your
small business, especially when banks will not.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LBKgRR at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
The Defendant is represented by:
Clifford B. Olshaker, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD B. OLSHAKER
98-19 37th Avenue 2nd Fl.
Corona, NY 11368
SILICON VALLEY BANK: Investors Sue Over Misleading SEC Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABA Banking Journal reports that a class action was filed against
Silicon Valley Bank
City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System, et al. v. Greg W.
Becker, et al.
Date: April 7, 2023
Issue: Whether Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) executives made
misrepresentations about the bank's interest rate exposure in its
public statements and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).
Case Summary: Investors of SVB sued former bank executives and
underwriters alleging the bank made misrepresentations in its
public statements and filings with the SEC.
The City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System, Asbestos Workers
Philadelphia Welfare and Pension Fund, and Heat & Frost Insulators
Local 12 Funds (the investors) alleged SVB concealed the magnitude
of risks facing its business model resulting from the Federal
Reserve System raising the federal rate. On March 10th, investors
and depositors attempted to withdraw $42 billion from SVB following
news the bank lost $1.8 billion after a securities sale on March 8,
2023. SVB announced a plan to raise $2 million through offerings of
common stock and depository shares. The bank anticipated this would
strengthen its financial position following a year of interest rate
hikes at the Federal Reserve. Instead, the bank's share price fell
60.4% on March 9, 2023, and investors and depositors expeditiously
pulled their money from the bank. The Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) then took over SVB to protect its depositors
despite most deposits not being FDIC insured.
According to the complaint, CEO Greg Becker issued a press release
touting the bank's outstanding balance sheet growth on January 22,
2021, when SVB announced fourth quarter and 2020 full year
financial results. SVB allegedly concealed risks posed by potential
increases to interest rates and related reduction in client merger
and acquisition activity days later when the company issued
registration statements. The investors also alleged SVB's 2020
annual report misrepresented the risks facing the bank, and SVB's
March 2021 Common Stock Registration statements contained untrue
statements and omitted material facts. However, the investors
claimed they first learned about SVB's liquidity pressures in late
July 2022, when SVB announced "disappointing" second quarter
results and lowered it 2022 financial guidance. The investors
asserted the bank acknowledged the challenging environment but
continued to emphasize the strength of its balance sheet when
customers began to learn about liquidity pressures facing the bank.
However, SVB allegedly continued to downplay liquidity issues well
into the opening months of 2023. The investors claimed this
misleading information caused them to buy SVB's stock at
artificially inflated prices, while the SVB executives knew their
statements were misleading.
Bottom Line: The initial case conference is scheduled for July 6,
2023. [GN]
SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Bank Fees Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Molly A. Arranz and Debra A. Mastrian of Amundsen Davis reports
that SmithAmundsen obtained dismissal of a putative class action
brought against an Indiana financial institution challenging its
assessment of bank fees. The team obtained a favorable ruling on a
motion to dismiss a state court action brought by a customer,
alleging the bank charged improper NSF fees (multiple fees for the
same item) and deceived customers in violation of the Indiana
Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, which resulted in a successful early
resolution of the matter. [GN]
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Spirit
AeroSystems Holdings Inc. failed to tell investors about
quality-control problems with aircraft parts that led its customer
Boeing Co. to halt deliveries of its 737 Max plane, according to a
new securities suit.
The identification of Spirit as the supplier led its stock price to
decline 20% on April 14, shareholder Hang Li says. Li filed the
proposed class action on May 3 in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The 737 Max drew intense scrutiny after a pair of crashes in 2018
and 2019 that killed 346 people. [GN]
STATE FARM: Nichols Bid for Leave to Amend Class Complaint OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLLYNN NICHOLS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00016-SDM-EPD
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order:
-- granting the motion for leave to amend the complaint;
-- granting the motion to compel discovery as to Mitchell -- and
CCC -- valuations; and
-- denying as to class data exceeding the one-year limitations
provision in the State Farm Auto Policy.
The Court said, "Because State Farm has not demonstrated that
allowing Nichols to amend her complaint to include information that
she learned for the first time in discovery would be futile or
unduly prejudicial, Nichols's motion for leave to amend is
granted.
State Farm is a provider of general and life insurance, banking
products and mutual funds.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4247xkL at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Standing Order Entered in Malone Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC RAY MALONE, v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-00580-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal
entered a standing order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff(s) shall immediately serve this Order on all
parties along with the Summons and Complaint.
-- If this case came to the Court by noticed removal, the
removing
Defendant(s) shall serve this Order on all other parties.
The Court further orders as follows:
-- Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance
with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to
L.R.
5−3.1.
-- Any answers filed in state court must be re−filed in this
Court
(separately) as a supplement to the petition.
-- Under 28 U.S.C. section 636, the parties may consent to have a
Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings.
-- All documents required to be "e−filed" in this matter can be
found in General Order No. 10−07 and L.R. 5−4. The Court
specifically directs litigants Revised March 24, 2016.
-- Counsel shall provide one conformed chambers copy of only the
following filed documents.
-- Lead trial counsel for each party must attend any scheduling
and
pretrial conferences set by the Court. Failure of lead trial
counsel to appear for those proceedings is a basis for
sanctions.
-- All discovery matters have been referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge.
State Farm is a provider of general and life insurance, banking
products and mutual funds.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n9sr34 at no extra charge.[CC]
SVB FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 132 PENSION FUND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SVB FINANCIAL GROUP, GREGORY W. BECKER, and DANIEL J.
BECK, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01962 (N.D. Cal., April 24,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws.
This is a federal securities class action that asserts claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Allegedly, the Defendants violated
these federal securities laws by falsely downplaying SVB's exposure
to interest rate changes, and misleadingly assuring investors that
it was in good financial health. Their failure to timely disclose
these material facts caused the price of SVB's common stock to be
artificially inflated, and damaged unsuspecting investors who
purchased SVB shares between November 5, 2020 and March 10, 2023,
says the suit.
SVB, a Delaware company headquartered in Santa Clara, California,
until recently operated Silicon Valley Bank, a regional bank that
offered commercial clients deposit products such as checking
accounts, money market accounts, and multi-currency accounts, and
also provided various credit offerings including traditional term
loans, revolving lines of credit, warehouse facilities, commercial
letters of credit, and credit card programs. Silicon Valley Bank's
clients included startups and venture-capital firms. SVB's common
stock is traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker SIVB. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
2325 Third Street, Suite 329
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 293-8210
Facsimile: (415) 789-4367
E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com
- and -
Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
T-MOBILE US: Continues to Defend Dale Antitrust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile Us Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Dale putative antitrust class suit in the Northern
District of Illinois.
On June 17, 2022, plaintiffs filed a putative antitrust class
action complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, Dale et al.
v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03189, against DT,
T-Mobile, and SoftBank, alleging that the Merger violated the
antitrust laws and harmed competition in the U.S. retail cell
service market.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and trebled monetary damages on
behalf of a purported class of AT&T and Verizon customers who
plaintiffs allege paid artificially inflated prices due to the
Merger.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, but it is
unable to predict the potential outcome.
T-Mobile is a telecommunications company that provides wireless,
messaging, and data services along with mobile phones and
accessories.[BN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over RAV4 Adaptive Headlights Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, CarComplaints.com, reports that Toyota RAV4 adaptive
headlights caused a lawsuit that has now been dismissed, but the
federal judge ruled the plaintiffs can amend and refile their class
action for at least some of the claims.
The class action lawsuit alleges Toyota knowingly misrepresented
2022 RAV4 SUVs were equipped with adaptive headlights when they
were not. The four plaintiffs claim they relied on the
misrepresentations when they purchased the RAV4s.
According to the class action lawsuit:
"Adaptive headlights make cars safer to drive at night because the
headlights' 'sensors cause them to automatically adjust the angle
of the lighting when the driver turns the steering wheel,' which
means that the headlights 'pitch the low beams toward the inside of
the corner of a turn. By angling the headlights in the direction of
travel, the Adaptive Headlights widen the area that the lights
cover and illuminate the direction of travel,' not just the sides
of the road."
The lawsuit alleges the window stickers for "several" of the RAV4s
indicated the vehicles were equipped with adaptive headlights.
The original plaintiff purchased her Toyota RAV4 in 2022, and she
asserts she read marketing materials which said the RAV4 was
equipped with adaptive headlights.
She "reviewed the Monroney label [window sticker] on the vehicle
she purchased, which included the Adaptive Headlights as a feature
of the premium package on her vehicle." When she bought the SUV,
she thought the SUV had the adaptive headlights "and paid a higher
price . . . under th[at] mistaken belief."
But on July 9, 2022, Toyota sent a letter telling her, "it has
recently come to our attention" the Monroney label on her RAV4 said
that it had adaptive headlights but in fact the feature wasn't
included.
Toyota told her the window sticker was wrong because adaptive
headlights was a feature, "not standard on your model."
Toyota also assured the plaintiff the price of the adaptive
headlights, "was not included in the MSRP." In other words, from
the beginning she was not charged for the adaptive headlights
feature.
The plaintiff filed the class action by alleging Toyota refused to
take steps to replace the RAV4, install the adaptive headlights or
give her a refund.
An additional three plaintiffs were later added to the class action
lawsuit, and all allege the same claims as Shu.
The adaptive headlights lawsuit includes these vehicles:
2022 Toyota RAV4 Prime
2022 Toyota RAV4 SE Hybrid
2022 Toyota RAV4 XSE
2022 Toyota RAV4 XSE Hybrid
2022 Toyota RAV4 XLE
2022 Toyota RAV4 XLE Hybrid
2022 Toyota RAV4 XLE Premium
2022 Toyota RAV4 XLE Premium Hybrid
2022 Toyota RAV4 Adventure
2022 Toyota RAV4 TRD Off-Road
2022 Toyota RAV4 Limited
2022 Toyota RAV4 Limited Hybrid
According to the plaintiffs, Toyota "knew that the RAV4 vehicles it
sold and leased in the United States did not contain the adaptive
headlights" The plaintiffs contend the RAV4 advertising materials
and window stickers were false and deceptive.
Toyota RAV4 Adaptive Headlights Lawsuit Dismissed
In a motion to dismiss the Toyota lawsuit, the automaker argued no
customers were charged for adaptive headlights.
Toyota told the judge that plaintiff Shu doesn't assert she even
tried to discuss the adaptive headlights with Toyota before she
filed the class action. In addition, the plaintiff didn't file the
lawsuit until Toyota sent a letter informing her the RAV4 window
stickers were wrong.
After the judge studied arguments from both sides, the class action
lawsuit was completely dismissed.
The judge notes some of the claims against Toyota now asserted by
the plaintiffs were not alleged in the original lawsuit.
As an example, Judge Laurel Beeler referenced allegations made in
the original class action lawsuit regarding marketing materials
which the plaintiffs claim they relied upon when buying the
vehicles.
"However, 'the plaintiffs submitted screenshots and PDFs of the
marketing materials and websites. In their opposition, they use the
exhibits to show that Toyota corrected its misrepresentations by
August 2022. These facts are not in the complaint [lawsuit].'" --
Judge Beeler
The judge also agreed the plaintiffs contend Toyota's actions were
fraudulent, but "[t]he circumstances constituting the fraud must be
'specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular
misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that
they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have
done anything wrong.'"
In another example, the original lawsuit referred to brochures
(plural) but the latest documents from the plaintiffs refer to only
a single brochure.
The judge also found Toyota made fair points about why the generic
allegations in the RAV4 class action are inadequate.
"[O]ne cannot tell what the plaintiffs saw and how they saw it
(e.g., from mailings, on the websites for the dealerships or
Toyota, or otherwise). As the defendants point out, courts have
required plaintiffs to identify the specific advertisements and
promotional materials that they relied on, and when they saw them."
-- Judge Beeler
Another dismissed claim involved how Ms. Shu argued Toyota knew the
RAV4s weren't equipped with adaptive headlights at the time the
vehicles were sold.
But the judge ruled Shu failed to plead Toyota had "pre-sale
knowledge" that the Monroney label and other materials were
incorrect. The plaintiff also failed to plead Toyota had a specific
intent to defraud customers.
Although the judge dismissed the Toyota adaptive headlights
lawsuit, the judge gave leave to amend the class action lawsuit,
minus a few claims.
The adaptive headights class action includes California plaintiff
Sharlene Shu, and New York plaintiffs Mark Tengowski, Roman Sivion
and Mohamed Almakaleh. All the plaintiffs purchased 2022 Toyota
RAV4 SUVs.
The Toyota RAV4 adaptive headlights lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California: Sharlene
Shu, et al., v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Gutride Safier LLP. [GN]
TRUSTPILOT INC: May Face Class Suit From SMEs Over Fake Reviews
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odigitria Ventouris, writing for Newstrail.com, reports that small
and medium enterprises are urged to unite in pursuit of justice,
after Trustpilot got caught red handed removing legitimate reviews
and sustaining fake reviews in cases where companies do not pay
Trustpilot for membership.
Trustpilot, a well-known online review platform, is caught in the
midst of controversy as small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
experience what they believe to be unfair treatment. Trustpilot has
been accused of removing legitimate reviews, while allegedly
allowing fake reviews from non-customers and actual competitors to
remain on their site. This issue is causing growing concern among
SMEs and may lead to significant legal and financial consequences.
The facts:
A respected client, the president of a bank, recently submitted a
review for a PR agency using his domain level email. Surprisingly,
Trustpilot deemed the review "fake" and removed it. In a follow-up
email exchange, the client confirmed the authenticity of the review
and asked for further instructions to rectify the situation.
Adriaan Brits, The CEO of the PR agency expressed frustration with
Trustpilot, noting that the removal of the legitimate review seemed
to be tied to not having a paid Trustpilot membership. This
situation has raised suspicions of potential "extortion" and has
led to concerns that Trustpilot may be causing actual damages to
thousands of SMEs.
The PR agency has announced plans to expose Trustpilot's
ill-spirited behavior, comparing the situation to a "Rosa Parks
moment" for persecuted and abused SMEs. The agency is committed to
assisting others in organizing class action lawsuits against
Trustpilot, aiming to hold the platform accountable for its
potentially unfair practices.
Adriaan Brits said: "This is a Rosa Parks moment for SMEs, marking
a turning point where we refuse to accept unjust treatment by
Trustpilot any longer. This time, Trustpilot chose the wrong
business to bully. We are determined to stand up not only for
ourselves but for all those affected by their questionable
practices. Together, we will fight to ensure fairness and justice
for SMEs. Peter Holten Muhlmann will have to get ready to explain a
lot to SMEs and his investors."
A good example of just how out of touch Trustpilot is with the real
world, is the case of Tesla. It has a Trustpilot rating of 1.8
which is shockingly low considering that it rose to being the
number one EV maker globally, with millions of satisfied clients
– with a mere 1350 reviews. Elon Musk is an example of a business
owner who did not cave into Trustpilot's little game as seemingly
Tesla is not paying them a penny for a profile and ignores the
platform completely.
Investors cautioned:
Investors in Trustpilot are being cautioned about the mounting
dissatisfaction with the platform's practices. The threat of class
action lawsuits and the pursuit of justice by SMEs and their
advocates could lead to significant legal and financial
consequences for the company. Trustpilot's actions are under
scrutiny, and its future reputation is at stake as the situation
unfolds. Trustpilot may have gotten away for years under the
flexible legal system of the United Kingdom, however in the United
States, businesses will go the extra mile to stand up to potential
extortion and ill-willed companies that attach themselves as
parasites to the US economy.[GN]
TSCHETTER SULZER: Class Cert Discovery Must be Completed by Aug. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWNTE WARDEN,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
TSCHETTER SULZER, P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-00271-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for modification of scheduling order and
discovery deadline:
-- The scheduling order is modified to extend the deadline to
complete discovery related to Class Certification up to and
including August 29, 2023. The Court advises Defendant that
additional delay tactics will likely result in an award of
attorney fees.
-- It is further ordered that a telephonic Status Conference is
set
for June 27, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. The parties are directed to
call
the conference line as a participant at (888) 398-2342,
Access
Code 5755390# at the scheduled time.
Tschetter Sulzer is a full-service real estate law firm, which has
been representing owners and managers of residential and commercial
property in Colorado.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lp8Rbs at no extra charge.[CC]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitration Exemption in Drivers' Suit Discussed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner of Reuters reports that Uber Technologies Inc
(UBER.N) drivers are not exempt from a U.S. law requiring them to
bring work-related legal disputes in private arbitration rather
than joining class action lawsuits in court, a U.S. appeals court
ruled on April 19, 2023.
A panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
said that Uber drivers do not qualify for an exemption from the
arbitration law for workers involved in interstate commerce because
they rarely cross state lines when transporting passengers.
A San Francisco-based appeals court came to the same conclusion in
a 2021 case involving Uber, and an appeals court in Boston that
year said Lyft Inc (LYFT.O) drivers were required to arbitrate
legal claims against the company.
Uber and lawyers for the drivers did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.
The ruling came in a proposed class action accusing Uber of
misclassifying drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees, who would be eligible for overtime pay and
reimbursements for work-related expenses and who can cost a company
up to 30% more than contractors.
The Federal Arbitration Act requires the enforcement of agreements
to bring employment-related disputes in arbitration rather than
court, but exempts transportation workers engaged in interstate
commerce. A majority of private-sector U.S. workers, and most Uber
drivers, have signed such agreements.
The question of whether the exemption applies to Uber drivers and
other gig workers is crucial because it determines whether they can
bring large-scale class actions or must individually arbitrate
legal claims. Arbitration is often impractical because of the small
sums at stake in individual cases.
The 3rd Circuit on April 19, 2023 said evidence presented in the
case showed that nearly two-thirds of Uber drivers never cross
state lines, and only 2.5% of Uber trips are interstate. Even when
drivers do make such trips, it is incidental to their work, the
three-judge panel said.
"Take away interstate trips, and the fundamental character of Uber
drivers' work remains the same," Circuit Judge Anthony Scirica
wrote for the court.
The ruling affirmed a New Jersey federal judge's 2021 decision to
send the claims to arbitration. [GN]
UNITED STATES: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Nwaorie Claims v. CBP
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONIA I. NWAORIE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; KEVIN K. McALEENAN,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-20706 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appealsf for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's
dismissal of Nwaorie's claims.
On Oct. 31, 2017, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers
seized over $40,000 from Nwaorie's carry-on luggage before she
boarded an international flight from Houston to Nigeria. The
officers seized Nwaorie's cash pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Section 5317,
which permits the seizure and civil forfeiture of funds traceable
to a failure to report the transportation of over $10,000 to or
from the United States, based on Nwaorie's admitted failure to
properly report the cash. The government later declined to pursue
judicial civil forfeiture proceedings against the seized cash.
In this situation, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA),
18 U.S.C. Section 983, requires the government to "promptly" return
the seized property. But instead of immediately returning the
currency, CBP sent Nwaorie a letter giving her one of two choices.
First, she could sign and return a Hold Harmless Agreement (HHA),
in which she waived any rights against the government and its
agents because of the seizure of the property. According to the
letter, if Nwaorie signed and returned the HHA within 30 days, her
property would be returned. As a second choice, the letter stated
that if she chose not to enter into the HHA, the Government would
initiate administrative forfeiture proceedings.
Nwaorie did not sign the HHA but instead filed the instant putative
class action suit in May 2018, asserting both class and individual
claims, against the United States of America, CBP and Kevin
McAleenan in his official capacity as the Commissioner of CBP.
Nwarorie brought, against all Defendants, two class claims for
ultra vires violations of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act and
for violations of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, as well
as two individual claims for return of her property and for
violations of the Fifth Amendment. On the same day Nwaorie filed
her complaint, she also moved to certify a class on behalf of
herself and similarly situated persons.
After Nwaorie filed her complaint and motion for class
certification, the Government returned to her the amount of cash it
had seized from her. Based in part on this return, the Government
moved to dismiss Nwaorie's claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The motion was referred
to a magistrate judge who recommended that it be granted.
As to subject matter jurisdiction, the magistrate judge reasoned
that sovereign immunity barred Nwaorie's claim against the
government for interest, and since the Government had already
returned the $41,337, her claims arising from the seizure and
attempted forfeiture were moot. The magistrate judge determined,
however, that an exception to mootness for putative class claims
applied to the latter two contentions, which rendered them
nonetheless justiciable. But the magistrate judge recommended that
Nwaorie be found not to have stated a claim on the merits.
The district court adopted the report in full. It dismissed
Nwaorie's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim. The appeal followed.
While the appeal was pending, the Government informed the Fifth
Circuit that CBP has ceased employing HHAs in circumstances like
those presented in the case. Additionally, a DHS Inspector General
Report was issued that identified numerous deficiencies and
inconsistencies in the manner CBP handled civil forfeitures under
CAFRA. In response to the report, DHS agreed to develop a
department-wide directive to: 1) ensure compliant CAFRA
implementation; 2) provide notices and forms that conform to
Federal best practices; and 3) ensure consistent practices for
managing responses to property owners, while taking into account
the different forfeiture authorities of each component. The
Government contends these developments further demonstrate that
Nwaorie's claims are moot, and Nwaorie has not responded.
The Fifth Circuit first considers whether Nwaorie's request for
equitable relief under her individual and putative class claims
arising from the seizure and attempts to force her to sign an HHA
are justiciable. Because it finds this inquiry dispositive, it does
not address their merits. The Fifth Circuit then considers the
merits of Nwaorie's procedural due-process challenge to CBP's
targeting her for additional screenings without providing a
meaningful opportunity to contest this procedure.
Because Nwaorie has not alleged a cognizable injury in support of
the equitable relief she seeks through her individual and class
claims related to the HHA policy, the Fifth Circuit holds that the
district court properly dismissed these claims. It affirms the
district court's dismissal of these claims.
Next, the Fifth Circuit holds that the Supreme Court has clearly
stated that interest may not be awarded against the Government
absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, and no such waiver exists in
the case. It accordingly holds that Nwaorie's claim for interest is
barred by sovereign immunity and thus not justiciable.
Finally, regarding Nwaorie's individual due process claim, the
Fifth Circuit holds that (i) Nwaorie's allegations do not rise to
level of showing that her right to travel was infringed; (ii) while
stigma could conceivably attach depending on the nature and scope
of the screening, Nwaorie has not set forth allegations that show
she has suffered from stigma; (iii) even assuming that Nwaorie
demonstrated stigma, she does not adequately allege the
infringement of another interest; and (iv) Nwaorie has not
adequately pleaded that the Government violated her Fourth
Amendment rights.
For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's
dismissal of Nwaorie's claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/ws72r from Leagle.com.
VDT INC: Lazo Sues Over Misclassification of Truck Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD LAZO, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VDT, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Daniela
Lozovanu, an individual, and Luis Calvo, an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 6:23-cv-00747-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla., April 24, 2023), arises
out of the Defendants' intentional misclassification of its truck
drivers as independent contractors; unpaid wages in violation of
the FLSA and the Florida Minimum Wage Act, unpaid wages in
violation of Florida Statutes Section 448.110 and Fla. Const. Art.
X Section 24; retaliation in violation of the FLSA, and breach of
agreement.
Plaintiff Richard Lazo signed a contractor operating agreement with
VDT and began driving trucks for VDT in or around August 2022.
Plaintiff worked as a driver for VDT from August 2022 through
December 23, 2022, and was misclassified as an independent
contractor. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a driver
VDT, Inc. is a trucking and transportation company with its
headquarters in Mount Prospect, Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Suhaill M. Morales, Esq.
SMM LAW P.A.
5803 NW 151 Street, Suite 205
Miami Lakes, FL 33014
Telephone: (305) 518-7026
E-mail: Smorales@smmlawfirm.com
VISA INC: Remand of Interchange Fees Case to CA State Court Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
VISA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2023, that the plaintiffs in the
Interchange fees class suit filed a motion to remand case to the
state court of California.
On December 30, 2022, a putative class action was filed in
California state court against Visa, Mastercard, and certain
financial institutions on behalf of all Visa and Mastercard
cardholders in California who made a purchase using a Visa-branded
or Mastercard-branded payment card in California from January 1,
2004. Plaintiffs primarily allege a conspiracy to fix interchange
fees and seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and damages as
direct and indirect purchasers based on alleged violations of
California law.
On January 11, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting the same claims as asserted in the prior complaint.
On January 30, 2023, Visa removed the action to federal court.
On February 10, 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the case to MDL 1720.
On March 1, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to
California state court.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
YS BIOPHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 30
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of YS Biopharma Co., Ltd. f/k/a Summit Healthcare
Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: YS, SMIH).
SO WHAT: If you purchased YS Biopharma's securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=15291 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ZYMERGEN INC: June 22 Filing of Class Cert Opposition Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BIAO WANG, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ZYMERGEN INC.,
et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-06028-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation and order
revising deadlines and hearing date for motion for class
certification.
On January 11, 2023, the Parties filed a Joint Case Management
Statement and Proposed Order that, among other things, proposed
deadlines for the filing of a motion for class certification (April
6, 2023), opposition papers (May 18, 2023), and reply papers (June
22, 2023) and proposed a hearing date of July 6, 2023.
1. The deadline for the Defendants to file papers in
opposition
to the motion for class certification shall be extended
until
June 22, 2023;
2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply papers in
further support of the motion for class certification shall
be
extended until July 27, 2023;
3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification,
currently set for July 6, 2023, shall be rescheduled to
August
10, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. or such other date as the Court may
order.
Zymergen is an American biotechnology company based in Emeryville,
California.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41LxXYW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Seefer, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
- and -
Kristin Mood, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan S. Muck, Esq.
Kevin P. Muck, Esq.
Jessica L. Lewis, Esq.
Jordan C. Bradford-shivers, Esq.
Peter J. Kolovos, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
One Front Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (628) 235-1000
Facsimile: (628) 235-1001
E-mail: susan.muck@wilmerhale.com
kevin.muck@wilmerhale.com
jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com
jordan.bradford-shivers@wilmerhale.com
peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Charlene S. Shimada, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
[*] Knox News Investigates Into Leftover Money From Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Whetstone, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports that
as part of a Knox News investigation into leftover money from class
action lawsuits, a reporter reached out to universities across
Tennessee that received donations in the name of attorney Gordon
Ball. The money in question wasn't personally Ball's, but we'll set
that aside.
The universities, who have to follow the state's expansive open
records exemption list, declined to answer specific questions about
the donations.
Why are donations exempt? Where did this exemption come from? Who
wanted it to begin with?
What follows is a brief unpacking of the 2007 law.
Who sponsored the legislation?
The bipartisan bill can be traced back to Knoxville Reps. Joe
Armstrong, a Democrat, and Sen. Jamie Woodson, a Republican.
Knoxville Reps. Harry Tindell, a Democrat, and Doug Overbey, a
Republican, signed on as co-sponsors.
The bill passed unanimously in both the House and Senate, and Gov.
Bill Bredesen signed it into law.
What does the law say?
The law is pretty straightforward.
Gifts to "public institutions of higher education or foundations"
that include the name, address, telephone number, Social Security
number, driver's license information or any other personally
identifiable information about the donor or their family are not
open for public inspection.
Who led the push for it?
Anthony Haynes is now the executive director of the Tennessee
Municipal League. At the time the law was signed, he served as the
director for state relations for the University of Tennessee
System.
The push for the law came from UT, he said. The school, under the
leadership of President John Peterson, was looking to revamp its
fundraising.
What were the reasons?
Woodson, who is now a member of the university's Board of Trustees,
said the law modernized the way schools accepted funds. It was
considered -- and is still considered -- a best practice in
nonprofit and university fundraising.
As Haynes explained it, there were three driving forces.
1. Some donors for whatever reason want to give anonymously because
that's how they like to give. It's akin to dropping cash in the
offering plate at church -- the donors don't want credit.
2. Some donors might not display their wealth. They keep it quiet
so they're not treated differently by their neighbors. Or maybe
they don't want to be hustled or scammed, or even contacted by
other organizations looking for donations.
3. Finally, he said, there are some families who don't want other
members of the family -- their heirs, typically -- to know how much
money has been donated to the university.
What are the ramifications?
Quite simply, the law has cut off any inquiries about donations.
For stories like the investigation Knox News produced, there's no
ambiguity whether the schools -- the University of Memphis, East
Tennessee State University and UT -- have to provide answers or
specifics.
Deborah Fisher is the executive director of the Tennessee Coalition
of Open Government.
"It is understandable that UT, who is trying to raise private
donations for the college, would want to give donors anonymity if
that's what the donors would like," she said. "If someone is giving
you $1 million, I would think UT would like to say, 'OK.'
"Anonymity, however, has a flip side and that is as universities
increasingly rely on donated funds, I think there is a question
about private influence on the public universities," she
continued.
What was the investigation?
Attorney and onetime U.S. Senate hopeful Gordon Ball has repeatedly
used a loophole from a little-known legal doctrine for class action
lawsuit settlements that allows attorneys to give the class's
leftover money away. The investigation explained how the donations
Ball secured from lawsuits ended up with his name on university
buildings.
These donations, called cy pres, totaled some $3 million to
universities and charities across Tennessee. As long as a judge
signed off on them, the donations were fine.
His mark on these schools is impossible to miss.
There's the beautiful top-floor, glass-walled Gordon Ball Scenic
Reading Room at the University of Memphis School of Law. There's
the Gordon Ball Family Athletics Board Room at the University of
Tennessee. And there's the Gordon Ball Court inside the practice
facility at East Tennessee State University.
Attorneys across the country, meanwhile, have been trying to get
rid of these sorts of cy pres donations for years, arguing they
violate the spirit of a process designed to direct money that isn't
given to plaintiffs to organizations that have some connection to
the lawsuit. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***