/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230518.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, May 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 100
Headlines
ALLSTATE LIFE: Order Withdrawing Bid to Seal Entered in Class Suit
ALPHABET INC: Rhode Island Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
AMERICAN EAGLE: Dentons Discusses Ruling in Wiretapping Class Suit
AMERICAN QUEEN: Rodgers-Rouzier Appeals Order Enforcing Arbitration
AMICK FARMS: Filing of Conditional Class Cert Bid Due June 2
APPLE INC: Bid for Class Certification Bid Due June 15
B&B TRANSPORT: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 29, 2024
BACUS FOODS: Holder Balks at Delivery Riders' Unreimbursed Expenses
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to June 21
BCE-MACH II: Class Certification Discovery Cutoff Due June 21, 2024
BETTERHELP INC: Calderon Suit Removed to N.D. California
BLUE TORTILLA: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: More Time to File Reply Briefs Sought
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Certifies Rule 23 Settlement Class in Hunter Suit
BOYNE USA: Anderson Suit Seeks to Certify Claims as Class Action
BOYNE USA: Seeks Denial of Anderson Class Status Bid
BRIANNA HEGEMAN: Hall Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
CALIFORNIA: Birkholz's Bid to Dismiss Guerrero Petition Granted
CANADA: Cattle Producers to Appeal Over Dismissal of BSE Class Suit
CAPITAL ONE: McNeil Suit Seek to Certify Nationwide Class
CAPRI NAILS: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Entered in Li Suit
CAPVISION PRO: Flood Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
CARGILL INC: Tavares Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
CARNIVAL PLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Cyclone-Hit Cruise
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Ferguson Sues Over Patients' Data Breach
CUNEX INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Premiums, Henry Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: Distribution of Karimi Class Settlement Funds Okayed
DOCUSIGN INC: Bid to Dismiss Weston Suit Denied in N.D. Calif.
ELMWOOD CENTERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Fuller Suit Says
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Settles BIPA Class Action for $505,000
EPIQ CORPORATE: Sex Abuse Survivors' Lawsuit Lacks Standing
FCA US: Court Terminates as Moot Bid to Dismiss Fisher Class Suit
FCTI INC: Checking Account Holders Win Class Status in Polvay Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in White Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Gender Bias Class Action for $215 Million
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss See Suit
GREAT WOLF: Fails to Pay Servers' Proper Wages, Hush Suit Alleges
GREYHOUND LINES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Eldridge Alleges
HIGHMARK BCBSD: Class Certification in Walker Suit Gets Final Nod
HONEY POT: Schleicher Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
IVY WOODS: Baldwin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Suit Over Third-Party Tracking Tools
LEWIS BROS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOCURA MARINA: Zubiaga Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
LOYALTY VENTURES: Faces Investors Suit Over Registration Statements
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Reminder for Lead Plaintiff Naming on June 12
META PLATFORMS: Seeks Dismissal of Healthcare Privacy Class Suit
MICROGENICS CORP: Partial Dismissal of Steele-Warrick Suit Appealed
MIDWESTERN PET: Agrees to Settle Pet Food Toxins' Suit for $6.375-M
MOTT HAVEN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Counter Workers
NATIONAL GRID: Tyngsboro Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir.
NEVADA PROPERTY: $863K Settlement in Merced Suit Gets Final Nod
NEWARK, NJ: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Aziz Suit Granted
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: 7th Cir. Rejected Laid-Off Workers' Appeal
PARETEUM CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit With Prejudice
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Kang Securities Class Suit
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Securities Class Action
PPS MSO NY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hercules Suit Alleges
RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Jail Diversion Program Class Action Okayed
SALCEDO EXPRESS: De La Cruz Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
SLOANE STECKER: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Haynes Says
SMART BRIDGE: Faces Tano Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Li Suit Over Inflated Stock Price
STANDFORD INTERNET: Hines Alleges First Amendment Violations
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: ED to Rescind Flawed Program
VALLEY TOWING: Agrees to Settle Overcharged Fees Suit for $60,000
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Petrone Appeals Ruling in Labor Class Action
XTREME MFG: Class Settlement in Gonzalez Suit Wins Final Approval
[*] BakerHostetler Issues Insurance Class Action Update for 2023 Q1
[*] Owen Sound May Join Class Action Over Opioid Crisis in Canada
*********
ALLSTATE LIFE: Order Withdrawing Bid to Seal Entered in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT,
v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-ADA-SAB
(Court), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order
withdrawing requests to seal and directing plaintiff to file
exhibits on public docket.
On November 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her motion to certify a
class in this matter. On that same date, Plaintiff filed a related
notice of request to seal documents in support of the motion.
The Plaintiff sought to seal exhibits 6 and 7 to the declaration of
Craig Nicholas filed in support of Plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The Motion Exhibits had been designated as
confidential by Defendant in this matter pursuant to the parties'
protective order.
On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed her reply in support of the
motion for certification. On April 28, 2023, the parties filed a
stipulation indicating Defendant does not object to the public
filing of the Motion Exhibits or the Reply Exhibits and agreeing
that the Motion Exhibits and the Reply Exhibits can be publicly
filed and Plaintiffs' notices of request to seal documents, can be
deemed withdrawn.
Allstate is a financial services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4278V6I at no extra charge.[CC]
ALPHABET INC: Rhode Island Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re ALPHABET, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-06245-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Lead Plaintiff
Rhode Island requests that the Court:
(1) certify the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)
and
(b)(3):
"All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired
Class A and/or Class C stock of Alphabet Inc. during the
period
from April 23, 2018 through October 7, 2018, inclusive;"
Excluded from the Class are defendants and their families,
the
officers, directors, and affiliates of defendants, at all
relevant times, members of their immediate families and
their
legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any
entity in which defendants have or had a controlling
interest.
(2) appoint Rhode Island as Class Representative; and
(3) appoint Robbins Geller as Class Counsel.
The case has been pending for nearly five years throughout which
the parties' litigation efforts have been extensive, including,
inter alia, multiple motions to dismiss, an appeal resulting in a
published opinion, multiple discovery disputes, and multiple briefs
concerning the scope of the case culminating in a supplement to the
complaint. The common thread among these myriad issues is their
commonality among the proposed class members.
All these years of extensive litigation have demonstrated that this
is a prototypical class action case: thousands of individuals and
entities with the same claims that will yield the same answers
based on the same evidence -- all related to millions of shares of
a company purchased at an allegedly inflated price on the largest
and most
developed securities market in the world. Among the prospective
class members, there is no variation whatsoever regarding any
factual or legal issues here.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NOfh6D at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason A. Forge, Esq.
Laura Andracchio, Esq.
Michael Albert, Esq.
J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
Ting H. Liu, Esq.
Sarah A. Fallon, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: jforge@rgrdlaw.com
landracchio@rgrdlaw.com
malbert@rgrdlaw.com
mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com
tliu@rgrdlaw.com
sfallon@rgrdlaw.com
AMERICAN EAGLE: Dentons Discusses Ruling in Wiretapping Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dentons disclosed that a recent pair of rulings from the Central
District of California may well stem the deluge of so-called
"chatbox" class actions filed under Section 631 of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") (Cal. Penal Code Sections 630 et
seq.). On March 7, 2023, District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald ruled
that serial plaintiff Miguel Licea - whose counsel has filed over
100 cookie-cutter Section 631 complaints in various California
federal and state courts -- had failed to state a claim against
defendant American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., represented by Dentons
attorney Joel D. Siegel. This published ruling, along with the
concurrent ruling in Licea v. Cinmar, LLC, should go a long way
toward stemming the tide of these abusive and meritless lawsuits.
See Licea v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., __ F. Supp. 3d __,
No. 22-cv-01702-MWF-JPR, 2023 WL 2469630 (C.D. Cal. March 7,
2023).
CIPA section 631's "wiretapping" and "eavesdropping" prohibitions
By way of background, in 2022 plaintiff class action law firms
began filing CIPA Section 631 lawsuits en masse, alleging
"eavesdropping" and "wiretapping" of website users' chat
communications. These lawsuits follow on the heels of similar mass
filings under the call-recording provisions of CIPA Sections 632
and 632.7. Each of these complaints alleged that third-party
software code had been embedded on the defendants' websites to
power the sites' chat functionality. They further alleged - in a
highly generalized manner devoid of meaningful specifics -- that
this embedded code provided the third-party with "real time" access
to the chat communications and facilitated the recording of those
communications, without the users' knowledge or consent. These
court filings followed, often within days, an unpublished Ninth
Circuit opinion (Javier v. Assurance IQ, 2022 WL 1744107 (9th Cir.
2022)) that, as one district court aptly observed, seemingly
"opened the floodgates for these cases"1 by reversing a district
court's dismissal order on the grounds of retroactive consent.
In pertinent part, Section 631 makes it unlawful for any person
to:
"intentionally tap[], or make[] any unauthorized connection, . . .
with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable," or;
"willfully and without the consent of all parties to the
communication, or in any unauthorized manner, read[], or attempt[]
to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message,
report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing
over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received
at any place within this state."
CIPA provides for a "$5,000 per violation" statutory penalty, with
no requirement to prove actual damages, rendering it an attractive
vehicle for class action plaintiff attorneys.
The American Eagle outfitters ruling
Several of the Central District's preliminary conclusions in
American Eagle confirmed a wealth of pre-existing CIPA
jurisprudence. For example, the Court confirmed that,
notwithstanding Plaintiff Licea's argument to the contrary, CIPA
Section 631 does in fact contain the same "party exception"
codified in the federal Wiretap Act (see 18 U.S.C. Section
2511(2)(d)) and that therefore a website operator, as a party to
the communication, is legally incapable of tapping or eavesdropping
upon its own communications. The Court also agreed with the
reasoning of "numerous" prior district courts that internet
communications do not constitute the use of a "telephone or
telegraph wire, line, or cable" for purposes of the CIPA
"wiretapping" clause.
The more notable aspects of the Court's ruling were in the context
of CIPA's "eavesdropping" clause. First, the Court concluded that
the third-party software vendor was more akin to a tape-recorder -
capturing and recording the chat communications -- as opposed to an
unannounced third-party auditor. On this point the Court emphasized
that the Complaint did not allege that the third party vendor had
"the ability to use the information independently," for its own
financial benefit, but instead alleged only that the vendor could
use the communications "for the benefit of" the website operator.
Thus, the software code was more akin to a tape-recorder, as
opposed to a true third-party, such that the party-exemption rule
barred the claim. In so doing, Judge Fitzgerald's decision sided
with the earlier decisions of the Northern District in Graham v.
Noom, 533 F.Supp.3d 823 (N.D. Cal. 2021) and Williams v. What If
Holdings, LLC, 3:22-cv-3780, 2022 WL 17869275 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22,
2022).
Finally, the Court ruled that plaintiff had not sufficiently pled
that any communications were intercepted while "in transit,"
meaning prior to the chat communication's arrival at American
Eagle's website. Specifically, the Court agreed with Dentons'
argument that a Complaint's mere recitation of conclusory phrases -
such as "in real time" - were not detailed enough to survive a
pleadings challenge.
Not all defendants have been so fortunate. On February 3, 2023,
Central District of California District Judge Sunshine Sykes denied
a motion to dismiss a virtually identical "chatbox" lawsuit,
allowing that action to proceed to the discovery phase. See Byars
v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 5:22-cv-01358, 2023
WL 1788553 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023) (J. Sykes). That ruling,
however, is better understood in the context of the motion papers
filed in support, which focused primarily on forum selection
arguments and did not brief the party exception under either
federal or state wiretapping laws. [GN]
AMERICAN QUEEN: Rodgers-Rouzier Appeals Order Enforcing Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mary Rodgers-Rouzier, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Final Judgment dated March
31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled Mary Rodgers-Rouzier, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN
QUEEN STEAMBOAT OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-00004-SEB-DML, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, filed on
January 6, 2020, arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff says she works for the Defendant seven days a week, and
on average 12 hours or more per day, or 84 or more hours or week
per week. She alleges that the Defendant did not pay her overtime
wages for the hours she worked over 40 in each individual work
week. The Plaintiff was not and is not exempt from the overtime
provisions of the FLSA, says the complaint.
On March 31, 2023, Judge Sarah Evans Barker signed an Order
granting Defendants' May 23, 2022 renewed motion to compel
arbitration and dismissing the case. Accordingly, Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay Litigation
Pending Individual Arbitration was DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN
PART. The Plaintiff was COMPELLED to arbitrate her entire dispute
pursuant to the parties' Arbitration Agreement. The Court entered
final judgment in favor of Defendants, dismissing the case without
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as MARY RODGERS-ROUZIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERICAN QUEEN STEAMBOAT OPERATING COMPANY,
LLC and HMS GLOBAL MARITIME LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
23-1812, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript information sheet was due May 12, 2023; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on June 7, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MARY RODGERS-ROUZIER, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
Sarah Arendt, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
sarendt@flsalaw.com
- and -
Leah M. Nicholls, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE
1620 L Street NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 797-8600
E-mail: lnicholls@publicjustice.net
AMICK FARMS: Filing of Conditional Class Cert Bid Due June 2
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DIAZ, JEAN-NICHOLE
DIAZ, and DIAZ FAMILY FARMS, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. AMICK FARMS, LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-01246-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis
entered a third amended scheduling order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion June 2, 2023
for Conditional Certification and to
Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) no later than:
2. Fact discovery shall be completed no Nov. 15, 2023
later than:
3. Counsel shall file and serve Jan. 19, 2024
Affidavits of records custodian
witnesses proposed to be presented
by affidavit at trial no later than:
4. Mediation shall be completed in this Feb. 1, 2024
case on or before:
5. Expert discovery shall be completed Feb. 15, 2024
no later than:
6. All other motions, except Daubert March 11,
2024
motions, dispositive motions, those
to complete discovery, those
nonwaivable motions made pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, and those
relating to the admissibility of
evidence at trial, shall be filed
on or before:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LLw7jQ at no extra charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Bid for Class Certification Bid Due June 15
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL BARRETT, MICHEL
POLSTON, NANCY MARTIN, MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, MARIA RODRIGUEZ and
ANDREW HAGENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. APPLE INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order that the
remaining case management dates relating to Class Certification
shall be as follows:
Motion for Class Certification and June 15, 2023
Accompanying Expert Disclosures
Deadline for Filing Opposition to August 24, 2023
Motion for Class Certification and
Accompanying Rebuttal Expert
Disclosures
Deadline for Filing Reply in Support of October 5, 2023
Motion for Class Certification
Hearing on Class Certification Motion October 19, 2023
Apple Inc. is an American manufacturer of personal computers,
smartphones, tablet computers, and computer peripherals.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ny3r63 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LLP
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
arolon@scott-scott.com
hcunningham@scott-scott.com
- and -
Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
SPRENGEL LLP
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (318) 782-4485
E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 767-5180
E-mail: afata@kmllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David R. Singh, Esq.
Morgan D. MacBride, Esq.
Amy Le, Esq.
Sarah Coyne, Esq.
David J. Bier, Esq.
Robert Niles-Weed, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 4th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
E-mail: david.singh@weil.com
morgan.macbride@weil.com
amy.le@weil.com
sarah.coyne@weil.com
david.bier@weil.com
robert.niles-weed@weil.com
B&B TRANSPORT: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 29, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE WILLIAM BALLINGER,
an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. B & B TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01607-ADA-HBK (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena M. Barch-kuchta entered an order
granting the parties' joint stipulated motion to continue class
certification and related deadlines:
Action or Event Date
Deadline to complete class certification Feb, 5,2024
discovery.
Deadline to File Class Certification Feb. 29, 2024
Motion.
Deadline to File Opposition for Class Apr. 29, 2024
Certification.
Deadline to File Reply for Class May 29, 2024
Certification.
Class Certification Hearing Deadline. Jul. 11, 2024
Deadline to advise the Court of settlement, May 29, 2024
ADR, VDRP or mediation efforts to date.
B&B Transport is a transportation company based out of Fresno,
California.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LuWbj8 at no extra charge.[CC]
BACUS FOODS: Holder Balks at Delivery Riders' Unreimbursed Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Holder, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Bacus Foods Corp.; BFCJJS106, LLC; Brandt Bacus; Jared
Bacus; John Doe Corp. 1-10; and John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00763-JFM (D. Ariz., May 3, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Nebraska Wage and Hour Act, and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
Plaintiff Holder has worked as a delivery driver at one of
Defendants' Jimmy John's stores located in Lincoln, Nebraska since
November 27, 2021. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to adequately
reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related and other
work-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the
legally mandated minimum wage for all hours worked.
Bacus Foods Corp. is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business at 1404 S. Longmore, Mesa, Arizona. The company
owns and operates Jimmy John's sandwich stores in Nebraska, Kansas,
Colorado, and Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Joe Scherpenberg, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
jscherpenberg@billerkimble.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to June 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMI BRUIN on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Case No. (Court), the Hon. Judge W. Carleton Metcalf entered
an order granting the parties' second joint motion to extend
discovery period and amend scheduling order, by which the parties
request that certain deadlines be extended by approximately 90
days:
Current Proposed
Class Certification Expert
Reports:
Plaintiff: Apr. 20, 2023 Jul. 19,
2023
Defendant: May 19, 2023 Aug. 17,
2023
Mediation: Jun 2, 2023 Aug. 31,
2023
Class Certification Discovery: Jun. 20, 2023 Sept. 18,
2023
Class Certification Motion: Jun. 21, 2023 Sept. 19,
2023
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage
loan facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42hZMrE at no extra charge.[CC]
BCE-MACH II: Class Certification Discovery Cutoff Due June 21, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as (1) Frederick M. Scott
III, Trustee of the Scott Family Trust; and Wake Energy LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-Mach
II LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00264-R (W.D. Okla.), Hon. Judge David L.
Russell entered a specialized scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadlines
Motions for leave to amend or add May 31, 2023
additional parties:
Documents previously produced by parties Oct. 31, 2023
shall be deemed authenticated except as
to those objected to:
The Plaintiffs' Rule 26 Expert Disclosures, Jan. 31, 2024
Expert Reports, for Class Certification
purposes (Not filed of Record):
the Defendant's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures, Mar. 8, 2024
Expert Reports, for Class Certification
Purposes (Not filed of Record):
Motion for Class Certification Filed Apr. 19, 2024
With All Supporting Evidence:
Response to Motion for Class June 14, 2024
Certification Filed With All Supporting
Evidence:
Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: June 21, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VJoFdS at no extra charge.[CC]
BETTERHELP INC: Calderon Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. BetterHelp, Inc.
doing business as: Compile, Inc. doing business as: MyTherapist
doing business as: Teen Counseling doing business as: Faithful
Counseling doing business as: Pride Counseling doing business as:
iCounseling doing business as: Regain doing business as:
Terappeuta, Case No. 23CV412521 was removed from the Superior Court
of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 4, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02193-MMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
BetterHelp -- http://www.betterhelp.com/-- is a mental health
platform that provides online mental health services directly to
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
11780 W Sample Road, Suite 103
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Phone: (310) 601-6766
Fax: (310) 295-2385
Email: JHammond@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
- and -
Adrian John Barnes, Esq.
BEESON, TAYER & BODINE
483 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 625-9700
Fax: (510) 625-8275
Email: abarnes@beesontayer.com
- and -
Ari Nathan Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Avenue, Ste 600
Tacoma, WA 98402
Phone: (559) 917-4917
Email: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Hammer, Esq.
James Allen Unger, Esq.
KING & SPALDING
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4355
Fax: (213) 443-4310
Email: jhammer@kslaw.com
junger@kslaw.com
- and -
Quyen Le Ta, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 318-1200
Fax: (415) 318-1300
Email: qta@kslaw.com
BLUE TORTILLA: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Alvarez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. BLUE TORTILLA LLC, BLUE TORTILLA SELDEN INC. (DBA BLUE TORTILLA
FRESH MEXICAN GRILLE) and DIANA YOUSEFF, individually, Case No.
9:23-cv-03382 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"),
as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and
related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations ("NYCRR") to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum wage
and overtime wage compensation.
The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However,
despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants only compensated
Plaintiff at a rate of (I) $14 per hour at the beginning of his
employment and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for
that period from 2008 until 2019, when he worked well in excess of
40 hours per workweek. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond
Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees; and a t all
times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants maintain a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work without
providing the minimum and overtime compensation required by federal
and state law and regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook.
The Defendants owned and operated Blue Tortilla LLC, Blue Tortilla
Selden Inc. (DBA Blue Tortilla Fresh Mexican Grille), a corporate
entity principally engaged in Selden, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 203-2417
Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: More Time to File Reply Briefs Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT E. STAFFORD, JR.,
MELISSA BONETTI, HERBERT MALLET, JACQUELINE JOHNSON, CATHRINE
ALLEN, DEVRON JONES, LAURA SHOPE, TABITHA DANIEL, DAMIAN PRENTICE,
LAQUASHA OSAGHEE, and RONDA COLE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC., Case
No. 3:20-cv-00266-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending their respective deadlines for:
(1) Bojangles to file its replies in support of its Motion to
Decertify the Collective Action and Motion for Summary
Judgment, and
(2) the Plaintiffs to file their replies in support of their
Motion
to Certify Rule 23 Class Actions, Appoint Class
Representatives
and Class Counsel and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
through and including May 19, 2023.
Bojangles filed its motion to decertify the collective action and
motion for summary judgment on March 31, 2023. The Plaintiffs filed
their responses to Bojangles' motions on April 28, 2023.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Rule 23 Class Actions,
Appoint Class Representatives and Class Counsel on March 31, 2023,
and their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on April 4, 2023.
Bojangles filed its responses to the Plaintiffs' motions on April
28, 2023.
Bojangles' Restaurants operates as a chain of restaurants. The
Company offers biscuits, sandwiches, salads, chicken, sweets, and
drinks.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VKmczQ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
GESSNERLAW, PLLC
602 East Morehead
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 234-7442
Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles E. Johnson, Esq.
Brian L. Church, Esq.
Brendan P. Biffany, Esq.
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 N. Tryon St., Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Telephone: (704) 377-8303
Facsimile: (704) 373-3903
E-mail: cejohnson@robinsonbradshaw.com
bchurch@robinsonbradshaw.com
bbiffany@robinsonbradshaw.com
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Certifies Rule 23 Settlement Class in Hunter Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH J. HUNTER and DAVID
N. YOUTZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC., et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00411-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L.
Marbley entered an order certifying the Rule 23 Class for
settlement purposes, consisting of the following:
"All natural persons employed by the Defendants at JAC
Molesworth
during the Class Period from January 1, 2015, through June 30,
2022."
Excluded from the Class are: corporate officers, members of the
boards of directors, and senior leaders of the Defendants;
employees of the United States government employed at JAC
Molesworth during the Class Period; and any and all judges and
justices, and chambers' staff, assigned to hear or adjudicate
any
aspect of this litigation.
Also excluded from the Class are those individuals who have
validly
requested exclusion from the Settlement Class (the "Opt-Outs"):
Jennifer L. Teachey and Amy L. Wales-Durrans from both
Settlement
Agreement; and Hillary L. Koma, Mariel Verdi, and Rebecca Wills
from only the Booz Allen-ME Settlement Agreement.
-- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
Class counsel are hereby awarded attorneys' fees and
reimbursements of their costs and expenses in the total
amount
of $3,925,000 ($1,718,435 in fees and $2,211,565 in
litigation
and settlement administration costs) to be paid pursuant to
the
terms of the Settlement Agreements.
-- Incentive Awards
The Court awards to Class Representatives Sarah J. Hunter and
David N. Youtz $10,000 each for service and assistance to the
Class.
-- Distribution of the Settlement Fund
The Settlement Fund shall consist of $1,325,000 from Booz
Allen
Hamilton and Mission Essential Personnel, to be distributed
by
the Claims Administrator in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreements and this Final Order.
-- Dismissal of Action
This action, including all individual and class claims
against
the Defendants Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., Mission Essential
Personnel, LLC, CACI International, Inc., and CACI
Technologies
LLC, resolved herein, is dismissed on the merits and with
prejudice against the Class Representative and all other
Settlement Class Members, except any Opt-Outs, without fees
or
costs to any party or non-party except as otherwise provided
in
this Final Approval Order.
Booz Allen offers consulting, analytics, digital, engineering, and
cyber solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HPEFF8 at no extra charge.[CC]
BOYNE USA: Anderson Suit Seeks to Certify Claims as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as
trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, ROBERT AND NORA ERHART, and TJARDA CLAGETT,
v. BOYNE USA, INC., BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC., and SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b):
1. certifying the Plaintiffs' claims to proceed as a class
action;
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives to pursue
the claims on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
condominium owners described more fully in the accompanying
brief.
Boyne USA owns and operates mountain resorts.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M22so0 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ben Alke, Esq.
John G. Crist, Esq.
CRIST, KROGH, ALKE & NORD, PLLC
209 S. Willson Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 255-0400
E-mail: balke@cristlaw.com
jcrist@cristlaw.com
- and -
Devlan Geddes, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Tierney, Esq.
Henry J. Tesar, Esq.
GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER, P.C.
35 N. Grand Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 587-0618
E-mail: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com
jtierney@goetzlawfirm.com
htesar@goetzlawfirm.com
BOYNE USA: Seeks Denial of Anderson Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as
trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, ROBERT AND NORA ERHART, and TJARDA CLAGETT,
v. BOYNE USA, INC., BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC., AND SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC
Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D) and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A), to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations
from the First Amended Complaint or deny class certification in
this case.
The Plaintiffs have a fundamental conflict of interest with the
class they seek to represent, which precludes any finding that the
Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives. Unlike the
Plaintiffs, many members of the putative class that the Plaintiffs
seek to represent are satisfied with Boyne's rental management
services and want Boyne, and no one else, to manage all units in
the Shoshone condo-hotel, the Summit condo-hotel, and the Village
Center condo-hotel. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs’ claims are not
typical of the claims of absent class members, and no common issues
of law or fact are capable of classwide resolution because the
Plaintiffs’ claims are unique and subject to unique defenses.
Because the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the threshold requirements of
Rule 23(a), no class can be certified.
Boyne USA owns and operates mountain resorts.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LH6dxQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ian McIntosh, Esq.
Kelsey Bunkers, Esq.
Mac Morris, Esq.
Joseph M. Noreña, Esq.
CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
Bozeman, MT 59719-0969
Telephone: (406) 556-1430
E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com
kbunkers@crowleyfleck.com
wmorris@crowleyfleck.com
jnorena@crowleyfleck.com
- and -
Devlan Geddes, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Tierney, Esq.
Henry J. Tesar, Esq.
GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER, P.C.
35 N. Grand
Bozeman, MT 59715
E-mail: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com
jtierney@goetzlawfirm.com
htesar@goetzlawfirm.com
- and -
Ben Alke, Esq.
John G. Crist, Esq.
CRIST, KROGH, ALKE & NORD, PLLC
209 S. Willson Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715
E-mail: balke@cristlaw.com
jcrist@cristlaw.com
BRIANNA HEGEMAN: Hall Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samuel V. Hall, II, on my
own behalf and those similarly situated, v. Brianna Hegeman, Joseph
Williford, "June" Neal, M. Ringgaberg, Case No.
9:23-cv-00883-SAL-MHC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a class of:
"all presently incarcerated within the Chester County Detention
Center."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B0T3Xo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
CALIFORNIA: Birkholz's Bid to Dismiss Guerrero Petition Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RUBEN BARAJAS GUERRERO, Petitioner v. BRIAN BIRKHOLZ,
Respondent, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-08464-MCS (SK) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Mark
C. Scarci of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California grants the Respondent's unopposed Motion to Dismiss
Petition.
Petitioner Guerrero is a federal inmate convicted of drug crimes
and sentenced in the Eastern District of California to serve 262
months in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). He is
incarcerated within the Central District of California at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California
(FCI-Lompoc). While there, the Petitioner was part of the class in
Torres v. Milusnic, 472 F.Supp.3d 713 (C.D. Cal. 2020), a
federal-prisoner class action adjudicated in this district
involving challenged conditions of confinement at FCI-Lompoc during
the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 (the Torres/Garries
class action).
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the Torres/Garries class action,
which resulted in certain injunctive relief but no guaranteed early
release from confinement, the Petitioner now seeks "emergency"
release under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. He argues that he remains at
high risk of Covid-19 health complications and claims that
FCI-Lompoc has not abided by the terms of the judgment in the
Torres/Garries class action.
But, the Petitioner has already filed several Section 2241
petitions seeking early release for those same reasons in the
Torres/Garries class action itself -- all of which were denied. On
essentially the same grounds, he has also filed several
unsuccessful motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
Section 3582 in the Eastern District of California. Those motions,
too, were denied.
The Respondent thus moves to dismiss the Petitioner's latest effort
to secure early release based on the same Covid-19 conditions of
confinement that Petitioner maintains are unconstitutional. Among
other grounds, he argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
review the petition under Section 2241 or Section 3582. And if the
Petitioner is trying to challenge the BOP's discretionary decision
not to release him to home confinement under the CARES Act, the
Respondent adds that Section 2241 provides no jurisdiction to
second-guess that decision. The Petitioner has not timely opposed
the motion to dismiss.
Judge Scarsi says the Respondent is correct that the Court lacks
jurisdiction to address the Petitioner's claim under Section 2241.
First, he says prisoner claims that challenge the constitutionality
of conditions of confinement -- rather than the validity of an
underlying conviction or sentence -- are generally not cognizable
in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Thus, he joins with the vast
weight of authority among district courts in the Ninth Circuit
finding that claims by federal prisoners seeking release from
confinement based on conditions caused by the Covid pandemic may
not be raised through a Section 2241 habeas action. If the
Torres/Garries class action suggests otherwise, it is the exception
that proves the rule.
Second, Judge Scarsi says the Court has no jurisdiction to grant
compassionate release under Section 3582 either. The only federal
courts that have jurisdiction to provide such relief are the
original district courts of conviction and sentencing.
Third, if what the Petitioner seeks to overturn is the BOP's
refusal to release him to home confinement under the CARES Act,
Judge Scarsi says that discretionary decision is unreviewable in
federal court, as well. In 2020, Congress gave the BOP expanded
authority under 18 U.S.C. Section 3624 to place certain eligible
federal prisoners in home confinement to ameliorate the infectious
spread of Covid-19 in prison. But the BOP's exercise of that
discretionary authority is not reviewable in federal court, much
less on collateral review under Section 2241.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/a4tzv from Leagle.com.
CANADA: Cattle Producers to Appeal Over Dismissal of BSE Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Forum reports that a judge's dismissal of a class action
lawsuit launched on behalf of Canadian cattle producers hurt by the
BSE crisis 20 years ago will be the subject of an appeal to be
heard in a Toronto courtroom, likely this year.
Justice Paul Schabas rejected the multi-billion-dollar lawsuit
against the federal government in January 2022, prompting the
plaintiffs to announce an appeal soon afterward.
More recently, Duncan Boswell, senior partner with Gowling WLG in
Toronto and lead counsel in the suit, reported that necessary
filings were completed with the Ontario Court of Appeal in March
2023. "We are hopeful that the appeal can be heard before the end
of this year," Boswell added by email.
The legal odyssey dates back to 2005 when the original claims were
heard in four provinces before the suit moved to Ontario court
exclusively. It was in 2005 that the U.S. allowed young Canadian
cattle, under 30 months of age, back into its marketplace after a
two-year border closure. Other countries shut out Canadian beef for
much longer: It was only this year that Japan finally reopened its
market fully to Canadian beef. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: McNeil Suit Seek to Certify Nationwide Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOB MCNEIL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE
BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-00473-NRM-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
class certification, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks an Order from the Court
certifying a Nationwide Class for breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a New York Subclass
for violation of New York General Business Law section 349.
Capital One is an American bank holding company specializing in
credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42zWCzs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
Shana Khader, Esq.
Lauren Kuhlik, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
hzavareei@tzlegal.com
skhader@tzlegal.com
lkuhlik@tzlegal.com
James Pizzirusso, Esq.
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
Scott Allan Martin, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
snathan@hausfeld.com
smartin@hausfeld.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James R. McGuire, Esq.
Sarah N. Davis, Esq.
Brian J. Wegrzyn, Esq.
Lauren L. Erker, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
150 Spear Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 619-3500
Facsimile: (415) 619-3505
E-mail: jmcguire@orrick.com
sdavis@orrick.com
bwegrzyn@orrick.com
lerker@orrick.com
CAPRI NAILS: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Entered in Li Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Li v. Capri Nails & Eco
Spa Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06296 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order setting the following
briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's anticipated Rule 23 motion
for class certification:
-- The Plaintiff shall serve, but not June 5, 2023
file , moving papers on or before:
-- The Defendant shall serve, but not June 26, 2023
file , opposition papers on or before:
-- The Plaintiff shall serve reply papers July 10, 2023
on or before:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
CAPVISION PRO: Flood Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY FLOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPVISION PRO CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 607111/2023 (N.Y. Sup., May 3, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
Ms. Flood was employed by Capvision as a Research Associate from
July 2020 through April 2021 and a Client Associate from
approximately April 2021 through July 2021 in New York. The
Plaintiff alleges that Capvision failed to pay overtime wages for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek and to provide Flood statutorily
required wage notices and wage statements, and related penalties.
Capvision is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in New
York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
705 8th Street SE, #100
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 830-2016
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
CARGILL INC: Tavares Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL TAVARES,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v.
CARGILL INCORPORATED, an unknown business entity; CARGILL MEAT
SOLUTIONS CORP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 1:18-cv-00792-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:
"All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who
worked for any of the Defendants at their Fresno, California
facility and at any time during the period from four years
preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment."
The Class Period includes the four years preceding the filing of
the initial complaint in this action, to present (i.e. April 20,
2015 - Present.)
The Class Certification is sought on the following claims: Unpaid
Minimum and Overtime Wages. The Defendants allegedly failed to
properly pay Plaintiff and the proposed class for all hours worked
on behalf of Defendants.
As a result of their failure to pay for all time worked, the
Defendants likewise failed to provide required wage statements
pursuant to Labor Code.
Cargill provides agricultural products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VBheFp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
Marissa A. Mayhood, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com
CARNIVAL PLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Cyclone-Hit Cruise
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Ward, writing for South Coast Register, reports that
reports that passengers who were aboard a cruise ship that sailed
into the path of a cyclone have launched a class action seeking
damages and a refund.
P&O's Pacific Aria left Brisbane for a journey through the South
Pacific but encountered severe weather spinning off category five
cyclone Donna in May 2017, according to legal documents filed in
the Federal Court.
The passengers say the journey was extremely rough, no activities
were open aboard the ship and they were not given the option to
delay or cancel their holiday.
Carter Capner Law filed the claim against P&O's parent company
Carnival PLC last week.
The law firm's director, Peter Carter, claimed a cyclone warning
was issued for Vanuatu and New Caledonia's capital Noumea before
the ship's departure but it sailed anyway.
"This was truly a cruise from hell, with many passengers so scared
they confined themselves to their cabin," Mr Carter said in a
statement on Wednesday.
He said passengers reported crockery and meals thrown off
restaurant tables, bottles of wine and spirits falling off shelves,
seawater sloshing down corridors and into some cabins, and the ship
listing for about an hour.
Mr Carter said the conditions were so bad several passengers left
the ship in Noumea and water was coming over both sides of the
vessel onto decks as the vessel left the city.
The lead applicant claims she feared for her own safety and found
the experience frightening.
The vessel did not stop at the intended ports of Lifou in New
Caledonia and Port Vila in Vanuatu.
Passengers are seeking a refund for their fares in addition to
damages for disappointment, discomfort, frustration and distress.
A P&O spokeswoman told AAP that as the matter was before the
courts, it would be inappropriate to comment. [GN]
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Ferguson Sues Over Patients' Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY FERGUSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. and CHSPSC,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00443 (M.D. Tenn., May 3, 2023)
alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, declaratory
judgment, and violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
On February 13, 2023, Defendants disclosed to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that their secure file transfer platform was
accessed by unauthorized parties, compromising the patient PII and
PHI stored therein. Moreover, the Defendants failed protect the
sensitive personally identifying information (PII) or protected
health information (PHI) of their patients. Accordingly, Plaintiff
seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption of
reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard PII and PHI in
Defendants' custody in order to prevent incidents like the Data
Breach from reoccurring in the future, says the suit.
CHS is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business
located at 4000 Meridian Blvd., Franklin, Tennessee. It is one of
the nation's largest healthcare providers, operating 78 hospitals
and more than 1,000 other care sites across 15 states. CHS is the
ultimate parent company of Defendant CHSPSC. Defendant CHSPSC is a
professional services company that provides services to hospitals
and clinics affiliated with CHS. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. McLaughlin, Esq.
901ATTORNEYS, LLC
200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 900
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 671-1551
Facsimile: (901) 671-1571
E-mail: David@901Attorneys.com
- and –
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
CUNEX INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Premiums, Henry Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henderson Henry, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Cunex, Inc.,
Cunex Fleet Service Center, Inc., Enrico Fucci, and Miguel Taveras,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03347 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023) arises
out of the Defendants' violations of the New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Henry was ostensibly employed as a driver and manual
worker at Defendants' logistics and courier service company known
as "CunEx", located at 1055 Stewart Ave, Suite 17 Bethpage, NY and
1 Aerospace Blvd, Bethpage, NY. From approximately June 2022
through and including the present date, Defendants paid Plaintiff a
fixed salary of $180 per day. The Plaintiff was required to work in
excess of 40 hours per week, but never received an overtime premium
of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for those hours,
says the suit.
Cunex, Inc. claims as one of the largest FedEx contractors in the
country today. Founded in 2013 by Individual Defendant Miguel
Taveras, Cunex boasts its fleet of 240 vehicles with nearly 200
employees and growing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Distribution of Karimi Class Settlement Funds Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALI KARIMI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
JOHN CRYAN, AND CHRISTIAN SEWING, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02854-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds.
As set forth in the Ewashko Distribution Declaration, the
administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator, A.B.
Data, Ltd., in accepting and rejecting Claims are approved.
Specifically, the administrative determinations of the Claims
Administrator accepting those Claims set forth in Exhibits E and F
to the Ewashko Distribution Declaration are approved. Likewise, the
administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator rejecting
the Claims set forth in Exhibits D and G of the Ewashko
Distribution Declaration are approved.
Any person asserting claims filed after April 20, 2023 or any
responses to rejected claims after April 20, 2023, the date used to
finalize the administration by A.B. Data, is finally and forever
barred from asserting such claims or responses.
The funds that are currently in the Net Settlement Fund (less any
necessary amounts to be withheld for payment of potential tax
liabilities and related fees and expenses) will be distributed on a
pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants, identified in Exhibits
E and F to the Ewashko Distribution Declaration. The funds will be
distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation
of the Net Settlement Fund set forth in the Notice.
The distribution plan for the Net Settlement Fund as set forth in
the Ewashko Distribution Declaration and accompanying exhibits is
approved. The balance of the Net Settlement Fund will be
distributed to Authorized Claimants. The checks for distribution to
Authorized Claimants will bear the notation "DEPOSIT PROMPTLY; VOID
AND SUBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION IF NOT NEGOTIATED WITHIN 180 DAYS OF
DISTRIBUTION." The Lead Counsel and A.B. Data are authorized to
locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimant who has not cashed
his, her, or its check within said time. Authorized Claimants who
fail to negotiate a distribution check within the time allotted or
consistent with the terms outlined in the Ewashko Distribution
Declaration will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the
Settlement.
If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund by reason of
uncashed checks or otherwise, then, after the Claims Administrator
has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized
Claimants who are entitled to participate in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund cash their distribution checks, any balance
remaining in the Net Settlement Fund six months after the initial
distribution of such funds will be used:
(i) first, to pay any amounts mistakenly omitted from the
initial distribution to Authorized Claimants who would receive at
least a $10- payment;
(ii) second, to pay any additional Class Notice and
Administration Expenses incurred in administering the Settlement;
and
(iii) finally, to make a second distribution to Authorized
Claimants who cashed their checks from the initial distribution and
who would receive at least $10 from such second distribution, after
payment of the estimated costs or fees to be incurred in
administering the Net Settlement Fund, and in making this second
distribution, if such second distribution is economically
feasible.
All persons involved in the review, verification, calculation,
tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of claims
submitted therein, or otherwise involved in the administration or
taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, are
released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of such
involvement, and all Exchange Act Settlement Class Members, whether
or not they are to receive payment from the Net Settlement Fund,
are barred from making any further claim against the Net Settlement
Fund or the released person beyond the amount allocated to them
pursuant to this Order.
A.B. Data is authorized to discard paper copies of claims and all
supporting documents no less than one year after the initial
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. A.B. Data is also
authorized to destroy the electronic copies of the claims and all
supporting documentation no less than one year after all funds have
been distributed.
The Court retains jurisdiction over any further application or
matter which may arise in connection with the Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/txb4q from Leagle.com.
DOCUSIGN INC: Bid to Dismiss Weston Suit Denied in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on April 18, 2023,
Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a
putative securities class action alleging a software company (the
"Company") and several of its officers (the "individual
defendants") violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act"). Weston v. DocuSign, Inc. et al.,
No. 22-cv-00824 (Apr. 18, 2023). Plaintiff claimed that defendants
made false and misleading statements to investors about the
sustainability of the Company's COVID-19 pandemic-driven growth.
The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that at
least some of the alleged material misstatements or omissions were
not protected by the safe-harbor provision of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), and that plaintiff had
sufficiently pled falsity, scienter, and loss causation as it
related to those statements.
According to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the Company's
flagship product is an "electronic signature" or "eSignature"
application that allows users to sign and send documents digitally,
without needing paper copies or "wet” signatures. Plaintiff
alleged that after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for
the eSignature product "skyrocket[ed] to unprecedented levels"
between March and June 2020, with revenue up 27% and billings --
allegedly the "primary metric that the Company used to track
performance and growth" -- up 59% from a year earlier. The Company
allegedly used a "land and expand" business model to grow its
business, whereby the Company would first "land" with a customer --
typically by selling its eSignature product for a specific use --
and then "expand" by selling additional eSignature products or
other products to that customer. Plaintiff filed suit in February
2022, after the Company's stock price had fallen precipitously
since March 2020.
Plaintiff alleged that throughout the pandemic, defendants "assured
investors that the Company would continue on the same growth
trajectory even after the pandemic subsided," but defendants
allegedly "knew and concealed from investors numerous adverse
material facts indicating that this COVID-19-fueled demand was
unsustainable." Specifically, the FAC alleged that the Company knew
that "much of this new business influx was for one-time"
COVID-related uses. The FAC alleged that the Company made numerous
false and misleading statements or omissions in press releases, on
earnings calls, at conferences, at the Company's Analyst Day, and
in tweets between June 4, 2020, and September 8, 2021.
The FAC further alleged that the Company knew of internal warning
signs that the pandemic-related boom would not last. First, the FAC
alleged that between March and June 2020, customers advised the
Company that they did not intend to renew their eSignature
contracts once the pandemic waned and they could return to their
offices. Second, the FAC alleged that near the end of 2020, as
COVID-19 vaccines began to roll out, customer and sales data
tracked through a database called "Salesforce" confirmed those
initial warning signs, which the FAC alleged with statements from
confidential witnesses. Third, the FAC alleged that the Company
knew of -- but failed to disclose -- increased competition from
other companies, further reducing demand for the Company's
eSignature product. Finally, the FAC alleged that statements made
during the Company's earning calls between December 2, 2021, and
June 9, 2022, revealed that the Company was "experiencing
dramatically slowed billings growth as a result of waning demand
for its products as customers began returning to their offices and
resumed in-person signature processes." The "full truth" was
allegedly revealed in the June 9, 2022, earnings call, when one of
the individual defendants stated that much of the demand that the
Company experienced during the pandemic was the result of single
use cases that no longer existed.
In considering defendants' arguments that the FAC failed to allege
any actionable misrepresentation because the challenged statements
were shielded by the PSLRA's safe-harbor provision, were not shown
to be false, and/or amounted to opinions, puffery, or corporate
optimism, the Court first considered whether the statements were
forward-looking. The Court held that some of these statements were
more clearly about "current or past facts," and were not
forward-looking. This included, for example, an individual
defendant's alleged statement that one-time COVID use cases were
"the extreme minority," because he was speaking about the current
impact of such cases on the Company's billings growth. But the
Court determined that certain alleged statements were
forward-looking, such as alleged statements that were more akin to
predictions about customer behavior and served as assumptions
underlying or relating to the Company's future revenue and
earnings.
The Court next considered whether the otherwise forward-looking
statements were "accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements,"
thereby making such statements inactionable under the PSLRA safe
harbor. The Court held that the FAC sufficiently alleged that the
Company had actual knowledge during the pandemic that its
pandemic-related risk disclosures were inadequate because the
purported risks had already come to fruition. The Court noted that
although the safe harbor protects statements that were made without
actual knowledge, the FAC sufficiently set forth allegations that
supported both an inference of falsity and scienter.
The Court also rejected defendants' argument that certain alleged
statements were inactionable opinions, finding that even if
statements about customer demand could arguably constitute
opinions, plaintiff plausibly alleged facts going to the basis of
statements about customer demand, that, when omitted, made any
opinions misleading. The Court further found that, to the extent
any of the alleged statements expressed corporate optimism or
puffery, "even general statements of optimism, when taken in
context, may form a basis for a securities fraud claim when those
statements address specific aspects of a company's operation that
the speaker knows to be performing poorly."
Turning to the issue of scienter, the Court held that the FAC
provided sufficient information to establish the reliability and
personal knowledge of the confidential witnesses, pointing to
allegations describing the witnesses' roles within the Company, how
long they were employed by the Company, the nature of their
responsibilities, and, in some circumstances, their exact titles
and line of reporting. The Court also found that the confidential
witness allegations supported a showing of scienter by the
individual defendants, as it related to their alleged statements
about customer demand, noting that plaintiff plausibly alleged that
the individual defendants had access to and monitored data
indicating the Company's decline in customer demand. The Court also
observed that alleged stock sales by some of the individual
defendants were further indicia of scienter when coupled with the
confidential witness statements. In particular, the Court found
that "[t]he amount and percentage of shares sold, along with the
timing and novelty of those sales, plausibly support that the sales
were 'dramatically out of line' with [the individual defendants']
prior trading practices." The Court also disagreed with
defendants’ argument that it was more reasonable to conclude that
the Company acted in good faith during unprecedented circumstances,
instead holding that "viewed holistically, the statements from
multiple confidential witnesses about the internal information
available to the defendants, which allegedly showed that demand for
[the Company] was lagging, and [the individual defendants'] stock
sales, support an inference of scienter that is 'more than merely
reasonable or permissible.'"
Finally, the Court rejected defendants' argument that plaintiff's
allegations that the Company missed its billings guidance were
insufficient to establish loss causation. Citing Ninth Circuit
precedent, the Court held that plaintiff could "show loss causation
by showing that [the Company's] stock price fell upon the
revelation of an earnings miss," which is what the Court determined
the FAC alleged. The Court further held that it was plausible at
the motion to dismiss stage that the final purported corrective
disclosure revealed that the Company's statements about customer
demand were fraudulent and misleading and caused the Company's
stock price to drop. The Court, therefore, held that the
allegations in the FAC "plausibly show[] loss causation."
Having found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged an underlying
Section 10(b) claim, the Court held that plaintiff's Section 20(a)
claim could also proceed. [GN]
ELMWOOD CENTERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Fuller Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY FULLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Named Plaintiff v. ELMWOOD CENTERS, INC., D/B/A ELMWOOD
COMMUNITIES, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00908 (N.D. Ohio, May 3,
2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Plaintiff Fuller worked for Elmwood Centers as a direct care worker
in the position of licensed practical nurse performing direct care
duties for residents/patients at one of its senior living
facilities known as "Elmwood Assisted Living & Skilled Nursing of
Fremont" located at 1545 Fangboner Road, Fremont, OH from
approximately April, 2018 until April 13, 2023. He regularly worked
more than 40 hours in a workweek, but Elmwood Centers does not pay
him for all the hours he works. Allegedly, Elmwood Centers
automatically deducts 30 minutes per day from these employees’
work time for so-called meal breaks, says the Plaintiff.
Elmwood Centers is an Ohio corporation and may be served with
process by serving its registered agent: Kathy Hunt, 430 N.
Broadway Street, Green Springs, Ohio. It operates and controls at
least three assisted living facilities and one or more group
homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
Toledo, OH 43606
Telephone: (419) 824-4439
Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Settles BIPA Class Action for $505,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
car-rental provider Enterprise will pay about $505,000 to settle a
class action alleging it collected and shared the fingerprints of
employees in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
Plaintiff Dawon A. Wordlaw alleged Enterprise Leasing Company of
Chicago LLC and its parent company, Enterprise Holdings Inc.,
collected her fingerprints when she logged in and out of work and
shared them with third parties without her consent.
Judge Manish S. Shah of the US District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois gave final approval to the deal.
The class includes 715 current and former Enterprise employees.
[GN]
EPIQ CORPORATE: Sex Abuse Survivors' Lawsuit Lacks Standing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Keller, writing for Law360, reports that two clergy sex abuse
survivors who accused Epiq Corporate Restructuring LLC of publicly
exposing their names on a claims website do not have constitutional
standing to sue over the disclosure, the legal services vendor
argued while seeking to dismiss or stay a proposed federal class
action lawsuit. [GN]
FCA US: Court Terminates as Moot Bid to Dismiss Fisher Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN FISHER, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-10426 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew F.
Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, terminates without prejudice as moot
FCA's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class action complaint.
On Feb. 17, 2023, Plaintiffs Brian Fisher, Eric Lee, Jerry
Vanderberg, and Rachel Walkowicz filed the putative class action
against FCA. They allege, among other things, that the "eTorque"
motor systems in their FCA vehicles, which are intended to improve
the Class Vehicles' fuel efficiency, suffer from a dangerous defect
that causes the vehicles' engines to turn off, their transmissions
to shift to "Park", and/or their emergency brakes to engage
unexpectedly. On April 21, 2023, FCA filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
On April 24, 2023, without expressing any view on the merits of the
motion to dismiss, the Court entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint to remedy the
alleged deficiencies in their claims identified by FCA in its
motion to dismiss. It informed the parties that if the Plaintiffs
decided to file a First Amended Complaint, it would terminate FCA's
motion to dismiss without prejudice.
On May 2, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a notice with the Court that
they intend to file a FAC. Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs will
be filing a FAC, Judge Leitman terminates FCA's motion to dismiss
without prejudice as moot. FCA may re-file a motion to dismiss
directed at the FAC if it believes that such a motion is
appropriate after reviewing that pleading.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/6y7be from Leagle.com.
FCTI INC: Checking Account Holders Win Class Status in Polvay Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEROME POLVAY,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v.
FCTI, INC. and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-04315-JSR
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an order
certifying a class of defined as:
"All holders of a checking account at one, or more Banks who
were
assessed more than one fee for a balance inquiry during the
same
visit to a FCIT Atm in the State of New York from May 1, 2019,
to
November 16, 2021."
FCTI is a nationwide ATM solutions provider specializing in
advanced ATM placements and operations for financial institutions
and site owners.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HD2S1E at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in White Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROY WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00410-CNS-MEH (D. Colo.), Judge Charlotte
N. Sweeney of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
grants White's Motion for Class Certification.
White filed suit against GM in February 2021, alleging that several
vehicles sold by the Defendant suffered engine defects.
Specifically, he alleged that he and others similarly situated
purchased or leased one or more model year 2011-2014 GM vehicles,
manufactured on or after Feb. 10, 2011, fitted with GM's defective
Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines.
The Defendant's "Generation IV" engines were placed in several
well-known vehicles, including the Chevrolet Avalanche and GMC
Yukon, as well as the 2011 GMC Sierra that Plaintiff White
purchased. These "Class Vehicles," and their allegedly defective
Generation IV engines, are the subject of the lawsuit and White's
allegations.
According to White, the Generation IV engines suffer a specific and
primary defect: their piston rings fail to keep oil in the
crankcase. This failure results in the Class Vehicles' consumption
of an abnormally high quantity of oil, far exceeding industry
standards for oil consumption, as well as low oil levels,
insufficient lubricity levels, and corresponding internal engine
component damage. Even after the Defendant's installation of the
active fuel management shield, the Generation IV engines continued
to suffer oil consumption problems.
Because of the "oil consumption defect" caused largely by the
Generation IV engine's faulty piston rings, White paid for an
entire engine replacement of his GMC Sierra. Others have incurred
similar costs due to the Class Vehicles' oil consumption defect or
paid more for their Class Vehicles than they would have otherwise
if they had known of the oil consumption defect. The Defendant knew
of the oil consumption defect for years but continued to sell Class
Vehicles without disclosing it.
In his Class Action Complaint, White asserted six claims against
the Defendant, including one under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
on behalf of a nationwide class of individuals who purchased or
leased Class Vehicles. The Defendant moved to dismiss White's Class
Action Complaint in April 2021. In July 2022, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's dismissal motion,
dismissing all but White's claims for breach of express and implied
warranty, and striking his nationwide class allegations. A
discovery stay, implemented in September 2021 pending resolution of
the dismissal motion, was lifted. In October 2022, White filed the
instant class certification motion.
Having considered the class certification motion, related briefing
and factual material, and relevant legal authority, Judge Sweeney
grants White's class certification motion. She says certification
of White's proposed class is appropriate. He has satisfied Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Judge Sweeney is mindful that certifying White's proposed class is
not dispositive of his -- or any class members' -- implied warranty
claim. In determining the propriety of a class action, the question
is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of
action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the
requirements of Rule 23 are met. After conducting its "rigorous
analysis" of the class certification requirements, Judge Sweeney
answers this question affirmatively.
Consistent with her analysis, Judge Sweeney grants White's Motion
for Class Certification. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), White's class as proposed in the Motion for
Class Certification is certified for the implied warranty claim.
White is named as the representative of the class. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), DiCello Levitt LLC and
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. are appointed
as the class counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/n00ht from Leagle.com.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Gender Bias Class Action for $215 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Urvi Dugar, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs Group
Inc (GS.N) agreed to pay $215 million to settle a class action
alleging widespread bias against women in pay and promotions,
ending one of the highest-profile lawsuits claiming unequal
treatment of women on Wall Street.
The settlement disclosed on Monday covers about 2,887 current and
former female vice presidents and associates who worked in
investment banking, investment management and securities. Goldman
denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.
The resolution averts a trial that was scheduled to begin in June
in the nearly 13-year-old case.
"Everybody is feeling very happy and proud of this settlement - we
worked so extremely hard to get here," said Anne Shaver, a partner
at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein representing the plaintiffs.
"It will inspire other people to step up."
The average payout could be about $47,000 after deducting legal
fees and costs, and court approval is required.
"Goldman Sachs is proud of its long record of promoting and
advancing women and remains committed to ensuring a diverse and
inclusive workplace," said Jacqueline Arthur, its head of human
resources.
PANDORA'S BOX
Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Citigroup Inc (C.N) and Morgan
Stanley (MS.N) are among the Wall Street firms that have settled
gender discrimination lawsuits.
In a well-known 1990s case, Smith Barney settled charges that men
harassed women in a space known as the "Boom-Boom Room."
The #MeToo movement against sexual abuse and recent changes in New
York law have made gender-based lawsuits more common, said
Domenique Camacho Moran, a partner at law firm Farrell Fritz, who
was not involved in the Goldman case.
She said that after the settlement, employers should "step back" to
ensure fair practices.
Alison Taylor, a professor at New York University's Stern School of
Business, said it was now "impossible" to keep issues of harassment
and discrimination confidential.
"The Pandora's box is open," she said.
GOLDMAN'S RECORD
Goldman had been sued in 2010, when former executives Cristina
Chen-Oster and Shanna Orlich accused the bank of denying them equal
pay and promotions because of their gender.
"This settlement will help the women I had in mind when I filed the
case," Orlich said in a statement. The settlement also calls for
Goldman to hire independent experts to analyze its gender pay gaps
and performance evaluation processes.
In 2020, the bank said it aimed for 40% of vice presidents to be
women within five years. Twenty-nine percent of its current
partners and managing directors are women.[GN]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss See Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Government Employees Insurance Company, DBA Geico, filed an appeal
from the District Court's Order dated March 30, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled EVERETT SEE and SALVATORE CRISTIANO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO, and GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-547, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
Central Islip.
The suit was removed from the Supreme Court for the State of New
York, Nassau County, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on Feb. 2, 2021.
The suit is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract and violations of Section 349 of the New York General
Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants are
engaged in deceptive representation of insureds' total loss
vehicle, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was involved in a
car wreck and sustained physical damage to his vehicle on September
18, 2020. He made a property-damage claim to the Defendant and his
vehicle was declared to be a total loss and the Defendant purported
to offer him the actual cash value of his loss vehicle. GEICO
represented that the base value of the Plaintiff's totaled vehicle
was increased by $216.00 based on the condition of his loss
vehicle, but in reality, the value of his total loss vehicle was
decreased based on its condition. The issue was the valuation
report provided by CCC Information Services, Inc. to GEICO for the
calculation of benefit payment under the insurance policy. CCC
systemically applies negative condition adjustments, which GEICO
uses to undervalue claimants' total loss claims.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Pamela K. Chen of
the Eastern District of New York adopted the Report and
Recommendation (R&R) on March 30, 2023, issued by Magistrate Judge
James M. Wicks, which recommends denial of the Defendants' motions
and their demand for appraisal.
The R&R found that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the
Defendants engaged in materially misleading conduct because
"Defendants agreed, under the respective insurance policies to pay
Plaintiffs the actual cash value for total loss vehicles." That
means, "a reasonable consumer . . . would expect to receive the
actual cash value for his or her vehicle in the event of a
collision." Accepting Plaintiffs' allegations as true and drawing
all reasonable inferences in their favor, Judge Wicks found that
the "condition adjustments" that CCC Information Systems, Inc.
applied to the comparator vehicles are likely "hidden monetary
adjustments" that reduce the valuation of claimants' loss
vehicles.
In his R&R, Judge Wicks recommended that the Court deny the motion
to dismiss the breach of contract claim. He concluded that the
Plaintiffs' allegations that CCC's valuation process "resulted in
valuations that are less than the actual cash value by a difference
of the negative condition adjustment" were sufficient to plausibly
allege a claim that the Defendants had breached the Policies. In
determining that the Plaintiffs' claim against Defendant Government
Employees should proceed, Judge Wicks found that the Plaintiffs had
sufficiently alleged facts to support a theory that Defendant GEICO
General was acting as Defendant Government Employees' agent.
The appellate case is captioned as See v. Government Employees
Insurance Company, Case No. 23-742, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants Government Employees Insurance Company, DBA
Geico, and GEICO General Insurance Company are represented by:
Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1850 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 285-5038
Plaintiff-Appellee Everett See, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
GREAT WOLF: Fails to Pay Servers' Proper Wages, Hush Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Hush, individually and on behalf and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Great Wolf Services, LLC (Great Lakes
Services, LLC), Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00909 (N.D. Ohio, May
3, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Connie Hush worked for Defendant at the Great Wolfe Lodge
restaurant in Sandusky, OH, from March 2022 through May 2022, as a
server. Allegedly, the Defendant maintained a policy and practice
whereby tipped employees, such as Hush, were required to spend a
substantial amount of time, in excess of 20 percent, performing
non-tip producing side work related to the employees' tipped
occupation. In addition, the Defendant failed to create different
clock-in codes to allow tipped employees to record their time at
the full minimum wage when performing non-tipped work. As a result,
Hush was not compensated at the federally-mandated minimum wage.
Great Wolf Services, LLC operates a chain of resorts under the name
Great Wolf Lodge throughout the US. At its resorts, the company
operates full-service restaurants that employ servers and
bartenders to provide services to customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
GREYHOUND LINES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Eldridge Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN ELDRIDGE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FLIX SE, FLIX NORTH
AMERICA, INC., FIRSTGROUP, PLC, FIRSTGROUP SERVICES, INC., TWENTY
LAKE HOLDINGS LLC, and TWENTY LAKE MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03727 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff Sean Eldrige from on or about
November 17, 2004, until on or about September 29, 2022, when he
was retaliatorily terminated from his position as a baggage lead, a
manual labor position. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff an overtime rate of at least one and a half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week. Among other things, the Defendants failed to provide pay rate
notices and accurate wage statements, required by NYLL, says the
suit.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., is a foreign for-profit corporation,
incorporated in Delaware, with corporate headquarters located at
15110 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas. The company
owned and operated the largest intercity bus service in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacqueline L. Aiello, Esq.
Nicholas P Iannuzzi, Esq.
BOYD RICHARDS PARKER & COLONNELLI, P.L.
1500 Broadway, Suite 505
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 400-0626
HIGHMARK BCBSD: Class Certification in Walker Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER JAMES WALKER,
KIM STERLING, ERNIE FISHER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. HIGHMARK BCBSD HEALTH OPTIONS, INC.,
COTIVITI, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01975-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting the motion
for final certification of the class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and approving the settlement
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
The Court finally appoints Jeremy M. Glapion as Class Counsel, and
the Plaintiffs Christopher Walker, Kim Sterling, and Ernie Fisher
as representatives of the Settlement Class.
The Court further grants the Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Service Awards; Class Counsel is hereby awarded
$616,666.67 in fees and $21,161.52 in Costs.
The Plaintiff Walker is awarded $10,000 for his service to the
class. The Plaintiff Fisher is awarded $2,500 for his service to
the Class and the Plaintiff Sterling is awarded $2,500 for her
service to the Class.
Highmark is a managed care organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VG8iys at no extra charge.[CC]
HONEY POT: Schleicher Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE SCHLEICHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Honey Pot Smoke Shop, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013254 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., May 3, 2023) is an action asserting a class action
claim for monetary and treble damages pursuant to the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made and/or knowingly
allowed the telephonic sales calls and/or to Plaintiff and the
Class members to be made utilizing an automated system for the
selection or dialing of telephone numbers in violation of the FTSA.
The Defendant's calls and/or texts constitute telemarketing because
they were solely made to encourage the future purchase or
investment in property, goods, or services, says the suit.
The Honey Pot Smoke Shop, Inc. maintains its primary place of
business and headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
E-mail: Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
IVY WOODS: Baldwin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Anika Baldwin, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated v. IVY WOODS CENTER FOR LIVING, LLC "Willow
Woods Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center," Case No.
4:23-cv-00919-BYP (N.D. Ohio, May 4, 2023), is brought for a
recovery of unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").
Through a company-wide failure to include a shift differentials and
bonus payments in the calculation of the regular rate of pay, the
Defendant systematically failed to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated, non-exempt employees the proper overtime rate.
The Plaintiff other hourly, non-exempt employees of the Defendant
were paid an overtime premium When they worked more than 40 hours
in a Single workweek. However, the Defendant improperly calculated
the overtime rate it paid based only upon the hourly rate of the
Plaintiff and other hourly, non-exempt employees, while excluding
incentive payments, shift premiums, and other non-discretionary
bonuses it paid to these employees from the regular rate ("Overtime
Calculation Practice"). As a result Of the Defendant's illegal
Overtime Calculation Practice, the Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective Class Members were not paid the proper overtime rate
and/or were denied the full amount of overtime pay to which they
were entitled under law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Ivy Woods as a Nursing Assistant.
Ivy Woods operates a nursing facility known as "Willow Woods
Rehabilitation And Nursing Center" located in Lima, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris P. Wido, Esq.
SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY
25825 Science Park Drive, suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: (216) 291-4744
Fax: (216) 291-5744
Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
whether JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. (NYSE: JKS) ("JinkoSolar" or
the "Company") any of its executive officers, or others violated
securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose
material, adverse information to investors. The investigation
focuses on investors' losses and whether they may be recovered
under federal securities laws.
What if I purchased JinkoSolar common stock? If you purchased
JinkoSolar common stock and suffered significant losses on your
investment, join our investigation now:
Click or paste the following web address into your browser to
submit your losses:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/jinkosolar-holding
Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471
There is no cost or obligation to you.
What is Johnson Fistel investigating? On May 8, 2023, it was
reported in the Florida Times that JinkoSolar was raided by federal
agents. Federal authorities did not disclose the reason for the
search warrant executed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
investigative arm.
What if I have relevant nonpublic information? Individuals with
nonpublic information regarding the company should consider whether
to assist our investigation or take advantage of the SEC
Whistleblower program. Under the SEC program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may, under certain circumstances,
receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, contact Jim Baker
at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@johnsonfistel.com.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, Lead Securities Analyst
Telephone: (619) 814-4471
Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Suit Over Third-Party Tracking Tools
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Giles Bruce, writing for Becker's Healthcare, reports that Oakland,
Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente is facing a proposed class-action
lawsuit over accusations it let tech companies "intercept" private
patient data for advertising purposes.
A California patient, known in the lawsuit as John Doe, filed the
complaint May 5 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. It claims the health system installed code on its
website and patient portal that gave companies including Google,
Bing, Twitter, Adobe and Quantum Metric -- which the suit calls
"third-party wiretappers" -- access to his personal and private
health information.
Kaiser joins a growing list of health systems being sued over their
alleged sharing of patient information with tech companies via
consumer-tracking technology. The complaint asks for damages and
injunctive and declaratory relief.
"Kaiser Permanente is committed to protecting the confidentiality
of our members' and patients' information and takes extensive
measures to comply with all applicable requirements," a health
system spokesperson emailed Becker's. "We have not been served with
the lawsuit and have no further comment at this time. We will
respond to the allegations in a court filing and defend this case
vigorously." [GN]
LEWIS BROS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lewis Bros, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lewis Bros, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03655
(S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lewis Bros., Inc. retails jewelry and accessories through Internet.
The Company offers bracelets, wedding bands, diamonds, rings,
necklaces, and earrings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LOCURA MARINA: Zubiaga Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Elena Santisteban Zubiaga, and other
similarly situated individuals v. LOCURA MARINA INC. and DEBRA
BARRIENTOS, was removed from the Circuit Court in and for Miami
Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on May 2, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-21630-XXXX.
The Defendants were served with this action on April 18, 2023. This
is an action arising under the laws of the United States of
America, the Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result thereof, this
action raises a federal question and this Court has jurisdiction
over such claims.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
17 East Flagler St. Suite 223
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305.358.6800
Fax: 305.358.6808
Email: lowell@kuvin.law
LOYALTY VENTURES: Faces Investors Suit Over Registration Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Wire reports that Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces
that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased Loyalty Ventures Inc. ("Loyalty Ventures" or the
"Company") (OTC: LYLTQ) common stock between November 8, 2021 and
June 7, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Loyalty Ventures
investors have until June 26, 2023 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Loyalty Ventures investments
are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or
by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On June 8, 2022, before the market opened, Loyalty Market announced
that its Air Miles Reward Program segment and its Air Miles
sponsor, Sobeys, were "unable to align on extension terms" and
Sobeys would "exit the program on a region-by-region basis."
On this news, Loyalty Ventures's stock price fell $5.01, or 45.4%,
to close at $6.02 per share on June 8, 2022, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
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; and (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
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Loyalty Ventures common stock, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Reminder for Lead Plaintiff Naming on June 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Globe Newswire reports that 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 Medical Properties Trust,
Inc. ("MPT" or the "Company") between July 15, 2019 and February
22, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
MPT operates as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") that leases
its facilities under long-term leases to providers of healthcare
services, such as operators of general acute care hospitals,
behavioral health facilities, inpatient physical rehabilitation
facilities, long-term acute care hospitals, and freestanding
ER/urgent care facilities.
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. ("Prospect") leases and operates 13
of MPT's facilities. As of December 31, 2021, Prospect was MPT's
third largest tenant, representing 7.3% of its total assets. As a
tenant, Prospect is required to pay all ongoing operating expenses
of the facility and for any desired expenditures.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
Prospect was facing significant pressures affecting the
profitability of its Pennsylvania properties; (2) as a result,
there was a significant risk that Prospect would be unable to meet
its rental obligations owed to MPT; and (3) "given the elongated
timing of the Pennsylvania recovery," the Company was reasonably
likely to record an impairment charge to the real estate value of
the Pennsylvania properties.
On February 23, 2023, before the market opened, MPT issued a press
release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2022 financial
results. Therein, MPT disclosed an impairment of about $171 million
on four properties leased to Prospect as well as a write off of
about $112 million in unbilled rent for the same client.
On this news, MPT's stock price allegedly fell $0.80, or 8.7%, to
close at $11.14 per share on February 23, 2023.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 12, 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 MPT securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Medical
Properties Trust, 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.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Seeks Dismissal of Healthcare Privacy Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Meta
Platforms Inc. told a federal court that its Facebook-pixel
tracking tool didn't violate the healthcare privacy of millions of
people, so a proposed class action should be thrown out.
There's nothing inherently illegal or harmful about the analytics
technology at issue in the consolidated lawsuit, which is
ubiquitous on the internet and used by websites in many industries
to improve online experiences for users, Meta said in a motion to
dismiss filed Monday in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]
MICROGENICS CORP: Partial Dismissal of Steele-Warrick Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Richard Finnegan filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated April 26, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
NADEZDA STEELE-WARRICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROGENICS CORPORATION and THERMO
FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06558, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleges that the
Defendants breached their duty to the Plaintiff and the Class by
failing to ensure that their Indiko Plus urinalysis analyzers
yielded accurate and reliable test results.
The case is a class action on behalf of hundreds of current and
former incarcerated New Yorkers, who were unjustly punished for
false positive drug test results in 2019.
Microgenics Corporation is the company hired by the New York
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) to
provide, install, maintain, and train DOCCS employees on urinalysis
analyzers used to conduct drug testing at all DOCCS facilities.
Microgenics knew that DOCCS would use positive drug tests to
discipline individuals in DOCCS's custody, and that is what DOCCS
did. Relying on the false positive results generated by
Microgenics's urinalysis machines, DOCCS charged and severely
punished hundreds of individuals for drug use when they were
innocent of those charges, according to the complaint. The
punishments DOCCS levied for false positive results were
devastating to Class members, who had done nothing wrong and were
bewildered by the false accusations.
Because of Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members have suffered pain and suffering, mental and emotional
distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of liberty, and monetary
damages. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory and punitive
damages for the injuries they suffered, says the suit.
On April 26, 2023, Judge Frederic Block entered an order holding
that Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege an Eighth Amendment
violation by the DOCCS Defendants. They do, however, plausibly
allege a Substantive Due Process claim against individual
Defendants Anthony Annucci, James O'Gorman, Charles Kelly, Richard
Finnegan and Corey Bedard. Finally, Annucci, OGorman, Kelly and
Finnegan are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of
the litigation. Thus, the Court reaffirms its prior order granting
in part and denying in part the DOCCS Defendants' motions to
dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Steele-Warrick v. Microgenics
Corporation, Case No. 23-743, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant Richard Finnegan is represented by:
Benjamin W. Hill, Esq.
CAPEZZA HILL, LLP
30 South Pearl Street
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 478-6065
Plaintiffs-Appellees Nadezda Steele-Warrick and Darryl Schultz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Eric Abrams, Esq.
600 Fifth Avenue at Rockefeller Center, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 763-5000
MIDWESTERN PET: Agrees to Settle Pet Food Toxins' Suit for $6.375-M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Midwestern Pet Foods agreed to pay
$6.375 million to resolve claims it sold pet food with dangerous
levels of aflatoxin and salmonella contamination. No proof of
purchase is necessary for certain types of claims in the Midwestern
Pet Foods settlement.
The settlement benefits individuals who purchased one or more
recalled pet food products made by Midwestern Pet Foods or Nunn
Milling Co. A full list of included products is available on the
settlement website.
According to the pet food class action lawsuit, Midwestern Pet
Foods sold products contaminated with dangerous levels of aflatoxin
-- a carcinogenic toxin produced by fungi found in corn and other
crops. The food products, which were later recalled, also contained
salmonella bacteria, the plaintiffs contend.
Midwestern Pet Foods sells pet food products under several brand
names, including Sportmix and Earthborn Holistics.
Midwestern Pet Foods hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$6.375 million settlement to resolve the recalled food class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive
compensation for pet injuries and consumer food purchases.
Fully documented pet injury claims will be reimbursed in full, up
to $150,000.
Pet owners who cannot document their pet injuries but instead
declare these injuries can receive $75 for pets that became ill but
didn't die and $150 for pets that died.
Class members whose breeding businesses were affected by pet
injuries can receive additional compensation.
Additional pet injury compensation may be available above the
$150,000 limit if there are residual settlement funds. Smaller
payments may also be increased on a pro rata basis if there are
residual funds. Payments may be increased up to three times their
original value.
Class members can also receive compensation for their purchases of
recalled Midwestern Pet Foods products.
Claimants who provide documentation such as receipts, invoices,
shipping order forms, confirmation emails or other proof of
purchase can receive 100% refunds of their purchase prices.
Class members who do not have proof of purchase can claim up to two
bags of food at a rate of $25 per product for a maximum payment of
$50.
All payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis if the settlement
fund is not sufficient to cover all injury and consumer purchase
claims.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 3, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
21, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Aug. 3, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who purchased one or more recalled pet food products
made by Midwestern Pet Foods or Nunn Milling Co.
A full list of included products is available on the settlement
website.
Potential Award
Up to $150,000 for injuries and up to 100% refunds for purchases
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of pet injuries (vet invoices, medical records, etc.)
and product purchases (receipts, invoices, shipping order forms,
confirmation emails or other proof of purchase).
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
08/03/2023
Case Name
In re: Midwestern Pet Foods Marketing Sales Practices and Product
Liability Litigation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Final Hearing
08/21/2023
Settlement Website
MWPFSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Midwestern Pet Foods Settlement Program
c/o Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 4214
Portland, OR 97208-4214
info@MWPFSettlement.com
888-501-9437
Class Counsel
Rosemary M Rivas
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
Jeffrey S Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
Kenneth A Wexler
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
Defense Counsel
Justin M Penn
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP [GN]
MOTT HAVEN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Counter Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
OCTAVIO SANTOS GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTT HAVEN BAGEL & BARISTA CAFE
LLC (D/B/A MOTT HAVEN BAGEL & BARISTA CAFE), SHAHROOKH BODHANWALA,
and EITY HOSNEARA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03723 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 3, 2023) is brought against the Defendants for Plaintiff's
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
violations of the New York Labor Law including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Santos was employed by the Defendants at Mott Haven Bagel
and Barista from approximately May 1, 2021 until February 16, 2023
as a counter worker. He asserts that he worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant cafe, located
in The Bronx, New York under the name "Mott Haven Bagel & Barista
Cafe."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
NATIONAL GRID: Tyngsboro Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tyngsboro Sports II Solar, LLC, et al., filed an appeal
from the District Court's April 18, 2023 Order entered in the
lawsuit entitled TYNGSBORO SPORTS II SOLAR, LLC, and 201 OAK
PEMBROKE SOLAR LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICES CO.,
INC. and MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-11791, in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.
The Plaintiffs brought this class action against the Defendants on
October 21, 2022 as independent renewable energy generators that
sell energy to Massachusetts Electric Company (National Grid)
pursuant to standardized Interconnection Service Agreements (ISAs).
The ISAs stipulate that plaintiffs are responsible for the costs of
any upgrades or modifications to the power grid that are required
to maintain their interconnections. The upgrades and modifications,
once made, become the property of National Grid.
According to the terms of the tax policy set by its administrative
service provider, National Grid USA Services Co., Inc. (ServCo),
National Grid insists that it is required to pay federal income tax
on the interconnection payments. National Grid consequently
assesses plaintiffs a tax gross-up to offset the income tax. The
Plaintiffs dispute the taxability of the interconnection payments
and seek a declaration that the interconnection payments are not
taxable income (Count I). They also look to recover past tax
gross-ups charged by National Grid (Counts II-IV).
The Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on December 20, 2022.
On April 18, 2023, Judge Richard G. Stearns entered a Memorandum
and Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the
case on jurisdictional grounds.
The appellate case is captioned as TYNGSBORO SPORTS II, LLC; 201
OAK PEMBROKE SOLAR LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NATIONAL GRID USA
SERVICE COMPANY, INC.; MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 23-1391, in the United States Court
of Appeals For the First Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance
form, transcript report/order form, and docketing statement were
due May 12, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TYNGSBORO SPORTS II, LLC; 201 OAK PEMBROKE
SOLAR LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Seth H. Handy, Esq.
Helen D. Anthony, Esq.
HANDY LAW LLC
42 Weybosset Street
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 626-4839
Facsimile: (401) 753-6306
E-mail: seth@handylawllc.com
helen@handylawllc.com
- and -
David E. Kovel, Esq.
John R. Low-Beer, Esq.
Andrew M. McNeela, Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
jlowbeer@yahoo.com
amcneela@kmllp.com
NEVADA PROPERTY: $863K Settlement in Merced Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEON MERCED, an individual; SERTHA EVANS, an
individual; and each of them on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC d/b/a THE
COSMOPOLITAN LAS VEGAS; DOES I through V, inclusive; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-CV-00920-RBF-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants the
Parties' Amended Joint Motion for Final Certification of Collective
Action and Final Approval of Collective Action Settlement.
The Parties' Amended Joint Motion for Final Certification of
Collective Action and Final Approval of Collective Action
Settlement came on for hearing on April 17, 2023.
Having considered the papers and pleadings submitted in support of
the Motion, Judge Boulware grants the Motion based upon the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release between the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant.
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216, he certifies as final, for
purposes of settlement only, a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The class will consist of Plaintiffs
Deon Merced, Sertha Evans, and all Opt-In Plaintiffs who worked as
Slot Guest Service Representatives and/or as Cage Cashiers in the
High Limit Slots cage for Defendant The Cosmopolitan Las Vegas
between March 23, 2018, and Oct. 25, 2020; timely filed valid
opt-in forms, as defined in the Settlement; and filed valid Claims
Forms on or before March 31, 2022, pursuant to the Court's Order
Granting Motion for Approval of Collective Action Settlement.
The Parties' Settlement in the amount of $863,040 is the product of
contested litigation to resolve bona fide disputes over the
availability and amount of wages allegedly withdrawn from the tip
pool over the relevant time period. Judge Boulware finds that the
Settlement is within the range of reasonableness and that this
amount is fair, adequate, and reasonable as to all potential
members of the Class when balanced against the probable outcome of
further litigation, and ultimately relating to liability and
damages issues.
As ordered by the Court, on Dec. 13, 2021, JND Legal Administration
LLC, the Claims Administrator, mailed out Notices of Settlement and
Claims Forms to Class Members. As of March 31, 2022, the Claim
Deadline, the Claims Administrator reported timely receipt of 63
Claim Forms, representing a return rate of 82.90%. No Class Members
objected to the Settlement. The 63 participating Class Members will
be paid their portion of the Net Settlement Fund, estimated to be
$545,784.02.
Consistent with the Parties' Settlement, the remaining Net
Settlement Fund, $62,506.011, will be distributed to cy pres
beneficiary Dress for Success Southern Nevada, an organization that
empowers women to achieve economic independence by providing
professional support, attire, and tools related to employment.
Judge Boulware appoints Deon Merced and Sertha Evans as the Class
Representatives and approves an award of $15,000 each to Merced and
Evans for their services as the Class Representatives. He also
appoints Sean K. Claggett, of Claggett & Sykes Law Firm, as the
Class Counsel.
He finds that the Plaintiffs' request for the Class Counsels' fees
in the amount of $215,760 costs in the amount of $8,000 are fair,
adequate, and reasonable.
Judge Boulware directs the Parties and the Claims Administrator to
effectuate the settlement terms as set forth in the Settlement.
Having found this amount to be reasonable, Judge Boulware directs
the Defendant within seven calendar days of the Settlement
Effective Date to deposit proceeds for the Settlement Fund (less
$30,000 for the Service Awards which have already been paid and the
$62,507.01 for the cy pres beneficiary).
He directs (i) the Claims Administrator to pay the Class Counsel
fees and costs in the amount of $215,760 and $8,000, respectively,
within 30 days of receipt of the settlement proceeds; (iii) the
Claims Administrator to issue payment to the Settlement Class
Members within 30 days of receipt of settlement proceeds; and (iii)
the Net Settlement Funds, in the amount of $62,506.01, be issued to
cy pres beneficiary Dress for Success Southern Nevada in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement and the Order.
The action is dismissed with prejudice.
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Final Order is
available at https://rb.gy/zew5o from Leagle.com.
Sean K. Claggett, Esq., William T. Sykes, Esq., Brian Blankenship,
Esq., CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM, Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for
the Plaintiffs.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Lisa A. McClane, Esq. --
lmcclane@fisherphillips.com -- Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for the
Defendant.
NEWARK, NJ: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Aziz Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MALIKUL AZIZ, RONNIE CRUZ, and RUDAN RAMSAHAI,
individually and on behalf of all of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEWARK, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-10309
(D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey grants the Defendant's motion for
partial summary judgment on its statute of limitations defense.
The Plaintiffs and the other putative class members are Newark
police officers, who, as part of their training, were required to
attend the New Jersey State Police Academy ("NJSPA") in Sea Girt,
New Jersey. This training was attended by 204 recruits from Aug. 7,
2017 through Dec. 1, 2017 (the "2017 Class"), and by 142 recruits
from August 13, 2018 through Dec. 7, 2018 (the "2018 Class").
The Defendant required the Plaintiffs to sign and initial a
Statement of Understanding, setting forth various terms and
conditions of their training while in Sea Girt. One paragraph of
the Statement read, "I understand and acknowledge that I will not
receive any overtime pay while I am at the NJSPA." The Plaintiffs
allege that while at the NJSPA, they were required to work 16-hours
per day (80 hours per week) and were not paid for any overtime
because the waiver in the Statement.
On Aug. 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq. (Count I), and New Jersey Wage Laws (Counts II
and III). They seek to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated and/or
punitive damages, reasonable fees and costs, and an order
prohibiting the Defendant from continuing to maintain its illegal
policy, practice or customs in violation of federal and state wage
and hour laws.
On Feb. 10, 2022, the parties filed a joint letter with a proposed
order for class certification, indicating that the Plaintiffs would
proceed with their claims as a class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2), and referencing only equitable relief. Upon
review, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to submit letters
addressing their basis for proceeding as a Rule 23(b)(2) class and
describing the proposed class notice.
After receiving the Plaintiffs' response, the Court convened a
telephone conference, explaining its concerns and ordering the
Plaintiffs to submit a further letter addressing those concerns.
The Court reviewed the Plaintiffs' letter and denied the proposed
consent order, explaining that the Plaintiffs could not proceed
under Rule 23(b)(2) because the only relief available appeared to
be unpaid overtime wages, thus there was no equitable relief to
serve as an "anchor-remedy" for a Rule 23(b)(2) class.
The parties then filed an updated proposed order, indicating that
the Plaintiffs would proceed as a class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3). Upon review, the Court ordered additional
briefing on the basis for pursuing a FLSA claim under Rule
23(b)(3). After a telephone conference with the Court, the parties
dismissed the New Jersey Wage Laws claims (Counts II and III) and
filed another proposed order, indicating that the Plaintiffs would
proceed with only the FLSA claim (Count I) under the FLSA's
collective-action mechanism, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Court
certified the collective action on May 24, 2022.
On Nov. 10, 2022, the Defendant filed a letter requesting leave to
move for partial summary judgment on two statute of limitations
grounds: (1) that the claims of the 2017 Class members are
time-barred because the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the
Defendant's alleged violation of the FLSA was willful; and (2) that
certain Plaintiffs filed Notices of Consent after the 3-year
statute of limitations period and were therefore time-barred
regardless of the Defendant's willfulness.
The Court denied the Defendant's request without prejudice,
explaining that willfulness is a question of fact for the jury.
Shortly thereafter, the parties submitted a joint status letter in
which the Defendant again requested leave to move for partial
summary judgment on the statute of limitations issue as it
pertained to the Notices of Consent that were filed after the
3-year limitations period. The Court granted leave on this limited
ground.
The Defendant moves for summary judgment on its statute of
limitations defense, arguing that 79 of the 268 opt-in Plaintiffs
are time-barred from recovering under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs
argue that the Court should deny the Defendant's motion because
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the statute
of limitations should be equitably tolled.
Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs have provided no
information about the opt-in Plaintiffs from which a reasonable
jury could find that Defendant's actions were responsible for their
failure to timely file. Hence, the Plaintiffs' request for
equitable tolling on this ground is denied.
Next, Judge Vazquez considers whether the delays in the matter
prevented the Plaintiffs "in some extraordinary way" from asserting
their rights. The Plaintiffs contend that the COVID-19 Pandemic is
an extraordinary event that supports equitable tolling of the FLSA
statute of limitations in its own right.
A review of the record reveals that the Defendant was actively
working with the Plaintiffs to streamline discovery and the
conditional certification of the class, Judge Vazquez finds. In
fact, he finds that the delay in certifying the collective action
stemmed from the Plaintiffs' numerous failed attempts to proceed
with certification on unsuitable legal grounds. He says the
Plaintiffs cannot now benefit from delays caused by their own
actions.
Because the Plaintiffs have not raised a triable issue of material
fact as to equitable tolling, Judge Vazquez need not address the
Plaintiffs' diligence and absence of prejudice arguments.
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Vazquez grants the Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment. An appropriate Order
accompanies his Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Opinion is available at
https://rb.gy/78y5g from Leagle.com.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: 7th Cir. Rejected Laid-Off Workers' Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Northrop Grumman Corp.
defeated an appeal by laid-off workers who say they were improperly
denied severance, when the Seventh Circuit ruled May 8, 2023 that
the benefit denials were a valid exercise of discretion.
The appeals court rejected the workers' lawsuit in a short opinion,
saying the merits of their claims "do not require extended
discussion." Northrop's severance plan "makes the receipt of
severance benefits contingent on receipt of a HR memo, which
plaintiffs and the other class members did not get," the court
said. [GN]
PARETEUM CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York enters Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice in the case, IN RE PARETEUM SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-09767-AKH-GWG (S.D.N.Y.).
The matter came before the Court for hearing on the application of
the Settling Parties for approval of the Settlement set forth in
the Stipulations of Settlement dated July 14, 2022, and Sept. 7,
2022, and the Amended Stipulations of Settlement dated Oct. 25,
2022.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Hellerstein approves the Settlement and finds that said Settlement
is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate to, and in the best
interests of the Lead Plaintiffs, the Released Plaintiffs' Parties,
and each of the Settlement Class Members. The Settlement will be
consummated in accordance with its terms and provisions. The
Settling Parties are directed to perform the Stipulations. The
limited Objection of the Liquidation Trustee for the Teum
Liquidation Trust is overruled.
The Action and all claims contained therein, as well as all the
Settled Claims, are dismissed with prejudice as against each and
all of the Released Defendants' Parties, including Victor Bozzo,
Denis McCarthy, Edward O'Donnell, Robert H. Turner, and Squar
Milner LLP. The Lead Plaintiff, the Released Plaintiffs' Parties,
and the Settlement Class will not make applications against any of
the Released Defendants' Parties, and the Released Defendants will
not make applications against the Lead Plaintiff or the Released
Plaintiffs' Parties for fees, costs, or sanctions pursuant to Rule
11, Rule 37, Rule 45 or any other court rule or statute, with
respect to any claims or defenses in the Action or to any aspect of
the institution, prosecution, or defense of it.
Upon the Effective Date, the Lead Plaintiff, the Released
Plaintiffs' Parties, and each of the Settlement Class Members will
be deemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment will have,
fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged
all Released Claims as against the Released Defendants' Parties,
whether or not such Settlement Class Member executes and delivers a
Claim Form or participates in the Settlement Fund.
The releases will not apply to the one Settlement Class Member who
submitted a valid and timely exclusion, Mr. Dennis Lally.
Upon the Effective Date Judgment Reduction: Any final verdict or
judgment that may be obtained by or on behalf of the Settlement
Class or a Settlement Class Member against any person or entity
subject to the Bar Order will be reduced by the greater of: (a) an
amount that corresponds to the percentage of responsibility of the
Released Defendants' Parties for common damages; or (b) the amount
paid by or on behalf of the Released Defendants' Parties to the
Settlement Class or Settlement Class Member for common damages.
Neither any objection to the Court's approval of the Plan of
Allocation submitted by the Lead Counsel nor to any portion of the
Order regarding the Attorneys' Fee and Expense Application will in
any way disturb or affect the finality of this Judgment.
Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of
the Settlement; (b) disposition of the Settlement Fund; and (c) all
Settling Parties hereto for the purpose of construing, enforcing,
and administering the Stipulations and the Judgment.
After completion of the processing of all claims by the Claims
Administrator, the Escrow Agent will disburse the Net Settlement
Fund in accordance with the Stipulations and Plan of Allocation
without further order of the Court.
Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Benitez finds and concludes that
the requested fee award is reasonable and awards attorneys' fees to
the Lead Counsel of 30% of the Settlement Fund ($1,695,000), plus
accrued interest, plus reimbursement of expenses to the Lead
Counsel in the amount of $422,214.12, plus accrued interest, both
to be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Stipulation,
after an initial distribution is made from the Settlement Fund to
Authorized Claimants. Out of the Lead Counsel's attorneys' fee
award, the Counsel for Loskot is awarded $70,000 in attorneys'
fees, plus accrued interest. Plaintiff Sabby will pay or cause to
be paid an additional $30,000 to the Counsel for Loskot, plus
accrued interest.
Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Benitez finds and concludes that
the Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice is in all respects
fair and reasonable and he approves the Plan of Allocation.
The Action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice as to the
Released Defendants' Parties. There is no just reason for delay in
the entry of the Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the
Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://rb.gy/7g4iy from Leagle.com.
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Kang Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on April 27, 2023,
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a
proposed securities class action suit against a financial
technology company (the "Company") and four executives, including
its CEO and CFO, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5(b).
Huei-Ting Kang v. PayPal Holdings Inc., No. 3:21-cv-06468 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 27, 2023). The Court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice for failure to plead falsity and failure to plead a
strong inference of scienter. The Court had previously dismissed
plaintiffs' prior complaint without prejudice, in a decision
covered here.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, which offers products and
services for consumers and merchants to send and receive digital
payments, misled investors about its compliance with regulatory
obligations, including its compliance with a consent order (the
"Consent Order") entered into with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") in 2015. According to plaintiffs,
the Consent Order, which resolved claims that the Company enrolled
students at for-profit colleges in the Company's credit product
without their knowledge, prohibited the Company from enrolling
customers in its credit product without their affirmative consent.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false statements about its
compliance with the Consent Order such as statements that the
Company "continue[d] to cooperate and engage with the CFPB and work
to ensure compliance with the Consent Order." Plaintiffs also
alleged that the Company's executives falsely stated that they took
allegations that for-profit educational institutions were
misrepresenting the Company's credit product "very seriously."
According to plaintiffs, the Company's stock price dropped after
the Company disclosed that it was under investigation by the SEC
and CFPB for potential compliance failures.
Although plaintiffs attempted to buttress the allegations in their
complaint with evidence from a number of confidential witnesses
("CWs"), the Court did not find the additional facts to be
persuasive. First, the Court held that the Company "had no
obligation or requirement to elaborate on any alleged
non-compliance because it had not yet been found to be
noncompliant." Second, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to
plausibly plead that the Company actually violated a regulatory
obligation. The Court noted that the CWs only "recall[ed]
unsubstantiated and vague customer complaints, not actual
violations." And, although plaintiffs alleged that some third-party
merchants misrepresented the Company's credit product, "they never
allege[d] that [the Company] did so." Moreover, with respect to the
Company's affirmative statements about its compliance with
regulatory obligations, the Court held these statements to be "the
kind of corporate puffery that are rarely (if ever) actionably
misleading."
With respect to scienter, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument
that Company executives had knowledge of the alleged compliance
failures, again pointing to the inadequacy of the CWs' allegations.
Specifically, the Court noted that "no CW attest[ed] to having
first-hand knowledge of [the executives] knowing about a specific
regulatory violation; instead, [the] allegations only show that
[the executives] were aware of unsubstantiated and unspecified
customer complaints."
Because plaintiffs failed to cure the deficiencies identified in
the Court's previous dismissal order, the Court held that further
amendments would be futile and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with
prejudice. [GN]
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP on May 9 disclosed that on April 27, 2023,
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a
proposed securities class action suit against a financial
technology company (the "Company") and four executives, including
its CEO and CFO, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5(b).
Huei-Ting Kang v. PayPal Holdings Inc., No. 3:21-cv-06468 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 27, 2023). The Court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice for failure to plead falsity and failure to plead a
strong inference of scienter. The Court had previously dismissed
plaintiffs' prior complaint without prejudice, in a decision
covered here.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, which offers products and
services for consumers and merchants to send and receive digital
payments, misled investors about its compliance with regulatory
obligations, including its compliance with a consent order (the
"Consent Order") entered into with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") in 2015. According to plaintiffs,
the Consent Order, which resolved claims that the Company enrolled
students at for-profit colleges in the Company's credit product
without their knowledge, prohibited the Company from enrolling
customers in its credit product without their affirmative consent.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false statements about its
compliance with the Consent Order such as statements that the
Company "continue[d] to cooperate and engage with the CFPB and work
to ensure compliance with the Consent Order." Plaintiffs also
alleged that the Company's executives falsely stated that they took
allegations that for-profit educational institutions were
misrepresenting the Company's credit product "very seriously."
According to plaintiffs, the Company's stock price dropped after
the Company disclosed that it was under investigation by the SEC
and CFPB for potential compliance failures.
Although plaintiffs attempted to buttress the allegations in their
complaint with evidence from a number of confidential witnesses
("CWs"), the Court did not find the additional facts to be
persuasive. First, the Court held that the Company "had no
obligation or requirement to elaborate on any alleged
non-compliance because it had not yet been found to be
noncompliant." Second, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to
plausibly plead that the Company actually violated a regulatory
obligation. The Court noted that the CWs only "recall[ed]
unsubstantiated and vague customer complaints, not actual
violations." And, although plaintiffs alleged that some third-party
merchants misrepresented the Company's credit product, "they never
allege[d] that [the Company] did so." Moreover, with respect to the
Company's affirmative statements about its compliance with
regulatory obligations, the Court held these statements to be "the
kind of corporate puffery that are rarely (if ever) actionably
misleading."
With respect to scienter, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument
that Company executives had knowledge of the alleged compliance
failures, again pointing to the inadequacy of the CWs' allegations.
Specifically, the Court noted that "no CW attest[ed] to having
first-hand knowledge of [the executives] knowing about a specific
regulatory violation; instead, [the] allegations only show that
[the executives] were aware of unsubstantiated and unspecified
customer complaints."
Because plaintiffs failed to cure the deficiencies identified in
the Court's previous dismissal order, the Court held that further
amendments would be futile and dismissed plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice. [GN]
PPS MSO NY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hercules Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
EMARA HERCULES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PPS MSO NY, INC and DR. RAYMOND H.
RUFENBLANCHETTE, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-03355 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023) arises out of the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a Special Assistant to
the Director of Governmental Affairs and Community Partnerships,
while performing other miscellaneous duties from in or around
December 17, 2021 until in or around February 2022. The Defendants
allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff Emara Hercules the legally
prescribed minimum wage for her hours worked from in or around
December 2021 until in or around February 2022, a blatant violation
of the minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and the NYLL.
In addition, the Defendants also failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL
and the FLSA, says the Plaintiff.
PPS MSO NY, INC is a corporation organized under the laws of New
York with a principal executive office at 14932 83rd Street, Howard
Beach, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janelle J. Romero, Esq.
GEN ESQ LAW PLLC
515 Madison Avenue #8140
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 255-5531
RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Jail Diversion Program Class Action Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Ehrlick, writing for Daily Montanan, reports that a federal
magistrate has ruled that a class action lawsuit against Ravalli
County's jail diversion program can proceed, with indigent citizens
saying the county is running a scheme that leaves clients who are
unable to pay hundreds of dollars a month sitting in jail, instead
of out on bail.
In a court ruling in January, Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto
narrowed the lawsuit and said that while many Ravalli County
officials, including Sheriff Stephen Holton, could not be held
liable for the diversion program, she also certified that the
indigent plaintiffs' case against the county's program could
proceed as a class-action.
The case, which was filed in 2021, claims that in addition to
receiving a bail amount, many indigent residents have to sign up
for a jail diversion, which can require monitoring for alcohol or
drugs and check-ins with supervisors. The former inmates say they
have to pay hundreds of dollars a month, and if they don't they're
sent back to jail. They also argue that the fees they pay make it
unable for them to secure housing and transportation.
Meanwhile, county officials say they are merely providing
supervisory services based on previous behavior or for public
safety. They also contend that often those awaiting trial re-enter
the jail based on other violations, such as drugs or alcohol; and
no one is detained because of inability to pay for the jail
diversion program.
DeSoto said that a trial or discovery is an appropriate way to
tease out the facts of the case, but for now, the plaintiffs have
proven enough to continue the case as a class action against
Ravalli County.
"Because indigent pretrial arrestees may be incarcerated if they
cannot afford pretrial fees, plaintiffs allege that (Ravalli
County) treats similarly situated pretrial arrestees differently
based on indigency, and in doing so, engage in wealth-based
discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal
protection clause," the suit said. Furthermore, it said that
jailing them for an inability to pay "constitutes false
imprisonment."
The plaintiffs also say that even after they post bail, which is a
constitutional right in Montana in most cases, the county will not
release them until they sign contracts agreeing to pay the fees and
agree to the fee schedule regardless of their ability to pay. They
also contend they have no means of objecting to or challenging the
fees.
"Whether pretrial arrestees can, as the county seemingly suggests,
request a waiver or reduction in jail diversion program fees during
the bond hearing, or by moving to modify the conditions of their
release or alter the conditions of bail is not clear," DeSoto
wrote. "Even considering the bail statutes . . . plaintiffs have
adequately pled procedural due process violations based on the
county's alleged failure to provide adequate notice of the jail
diversion program fees and a reasonable opportunity to contest
those fees."
However, county and state judges, who were also named as part of
the lawsuit, said that they don't revoke an arrestee's bond just
for failure to pay.
However, DeSoto dismissed part of the lawsuit that included
proposing a class of arrestees who are non-indigent as a possible
group of people harmed, saying that they are not similarly situated
and that attorneys for the class action failed to make an adequate
argument that their claims should be included.
According to the lawsuit, more than 800 individuals have been
placed into the jail diversion program, and it has an indigency
rate of 83%. [GN]
SALCEDO EXPRESS: De La Cruz Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
GREGORIO DE LA CRUZ and RAUL MARTE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SALCEDO EXPRESS INC.
and MAGGIE SANAAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03716 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 3, 2023) is an action seeking equitable and legal relief for
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and the Internal Revenue Code.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay Plaintiffs
proper minimum and overtime wages; pay spread of hours wages;
timely pay wages; provide payroll notices; furnish wage statements;
and accurately report to the Internal Revenue Service all wages
paid to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs De La Cruz and Marte were employed by the Defendants as
drivers from January 2010 until May 19, 2021 and from January 2018
until January 2021, respectively.
Salcedo Express Inc. is a freight forwarding service provider based
in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katherine Morales, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com
SLOANE STECKER: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Haynes Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE HAYNES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SLOANE STECKER PHYSICAL THERAPY, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03360 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023) arises
out of the Defendant's violations of the New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Nicole Haynes worked for Defendant as a physical therapy
aid technician in Defendant's Lincoln Center, New York location
from about February 2022 to September 2022. The Defendant
classified Plaintiff as non-exempt from the overtime pay
requirements of the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff spent more than
25% of her time on physical tasks and was entitled to payment of
her wages within seven calendar days after the end of the workweek,
as per NYLL. Throughout her employment, however, Defendant paid
Plaintiff every two weeks, says the suit.
Sloane Stecker Physical Therapy, P.C. is a New York professional
service corporation with its principal place of business in
Yonkers, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
447 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Loren Donnell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com
SMART BRIDGE: Faces Tano Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
CESAR-TANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMART BRIDGE CONSULTING LLC, D/B/A QUEEN
WARRIORS, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013246 (Fla. Cir., 17th
Judicial, Broward Cty., May 3, 2023) is an action asserting a class
action claim for monetary and treble damages pursuant to the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made and/or knowingly
allowed the telephonic sales calls and/or to Plaintiff and the
Class members to be made utilizing an automated system for the
selection or dialing of telephone numbers in violation of the FTSA.
The Defendant's calls and/or texts constitute telemarketing because
they were solely made to encourage the future purchase or
investment in property, goods, or services, says the suit.
Smart Bridge Consulting LLC maintains its primary place of business
and headquarters in Orlando, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
E-mail: Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Li Suit Over Inflated Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
HANG LI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., TOM
GENTILE III, and MARK J. SUCHINSKI, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-03722 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023) is a class action on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Spirit securities between April 8, 2020 and
April 13, 2023, arising out of the Defendants' violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Defendant is a non-Original Equipment Manufacturer that serves
markets for commercial airplanes, military platforms, and
business/regional jets. The Company's core products include
fuselages, integrated wings and wing components, pylons, and
nacelles. Spirit's largest customer is Boeing Co. Spirit and Boeing
have long-term supply agreements under which Spirit provides
products for several Boeing aircrafts, including the B737. Among
other provisions, the supply agreements cover the life of the
aircraft programs. On April 13, 2023, after the market closed,
Boeing announced that it would halt deliveries of its 737 MAX
aircraft due to a supplier quality problem. According to an article
by Barron's, Boeing issued a statement stating that "the issue will
likely affect a significant number of undelivered 737 MAX
airplanes." The same day, Bloomberg identified Spirit as the
supplier of the faulty part.
Several media outlets reported the details of the quality problem.
On this news, Spirit's stock price fell $7.38, or 20.7%, to close
at $28.22 per share on April 14, 2023. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Among
other things, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to
disclose investors that Spirit lacked effective production quality
controls.
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of
Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Wichita,
KS. Spirit's class A common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol "SPR." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
STANDFORD INTERNET: Hines Alleges First Amendment Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
JILL HINES and JIM HOFT, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALEX STAMOS, RENEE DIRESTA,
STANFORD INTERNET OBSERVATORY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND
STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
KATE STARBIRD, in her official and individual capacities, GRAPHIKA,
CAMILLE FRANÇOIS, ATLANTIC COUNCIL, ATLANTIC COUNCIL'S DIGITAL
FORENSIC RESEARCH LAB, and GRAHAM BROOKIE, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00571-TAD-KDM (W.D. La., May 2, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States, common-law doctrines of tortious interference
and breach of duty, and other applicable laws.
The Defendants had and have a clear duty to Plaintiffs and Class
members not to interfere unlawfully with their freedom, rights, and
ability to speak, write, listen, read, and communicate freely on
social media with others, including their fundamental rights to
freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association,
and freedom to read and listen to the speech of others, and their
fundamental rights to be free from censorship and suppression of
social-media speech on the basis of invidious discrimination based
on race, religion, religious beliefs, sex, minority status,
ethnicity, language group, national origin, and disfavored
viewpoints. However, the Defendants and those acting in concert
with them breached and continue to breach this duty by unlawfully
and without justification interfering with those rights and
interests of Plaintiffs and Class members, and procuring and
inducing the censorship and suppression of speech on social media
on the basis of viewpoint and discriminatory animus, says the
suit.
Stanford Internet Observatory is a program of Stanford University's
Cyber Policy Center, a joint initiative of the Freeman Spogli
Institute for International Studies and Stanford Law School.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gene P. Hamilton, Esq.
Reed D. Rubinstein, Esq.
Nicholas R. Barry, Esq.
Michael Ding, Esq.
Juli Z. Haller, Esq.
James K. Rogers, Esq.
Andrew J. Block, Esq.
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL
611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #231
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 964-3721
E-mail: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org
reed.rubinstein@aflegal.org
nicholas.bary@aflegal.org
michael.ding@aflegal.org
juli.haller@aflegal.org
james.rogers@aflegal.org
andrew.block@aflegal.org
- and –
D. John Sauer, Esq.
Justin D. Smith, Esq.
JAMES OTIS LAW GROUP, LLC
13321 North Outer Forty Road, Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63017
Telephone: (314) 562-0031
E-mail: John.Sauer@james-otis.com
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: ED to Rescind Flawed Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pramila Jayapal on May 9 disclosed that Congressional Progressive
Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), House Appropriations
Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03), and House
Committee on Veterans Affairs Ranking Member Mark Takano (CA-39)
today released the following statement once again calling on the
Department of Education to rescind its flawed guidance that allows
for-profit online program management (OPM) companies to deceive
students for financial gain:
"A class action lawsuit filed against the University of Southern
California (USC) for its partnership with for-profit OPM company 2U
included troubling new complaints that the program deliberately
deceived its students by claiming its online social work program
was academically the same as USC's well-known on-campus program.
Instead, students were charged sky-high tuition for an inferior
online program outsourced almost entirely to for-profit OPM 2U.
"This is the second class action lawsuit filed against USC and 2U,
a partnership that exists thanks to 2011 guidance establishing a
loophole to the Higher Education Act's incentive compensation ban
for for-profit OPM recruiters. The flawed guidance allows
for-profit OPMs like 2U to partner with colleges to aggressively
recruit students into high-cost, low-value degree programs that
fail to provide promised jobs. These for-profit OPMs split federal
student loan revenue with colleges in exchange for aggressive
recruitment services and outsourced educational programming.
"It is past time for the Department to rescind its flawed 2011
guidance to prevent institutions and for-profit companies like 2U
from preying on students for financial gain. We expect the
Department to take swift action and prioritize the concerns of
students and taxpayers over revenue concerns of schools and
for-profit companies."
This statement follows a letter Representatives Jayapal, DeLauro,
and Takano recently sent to the Department of Education with this
recommendation. [GN]
VALLEY TOWING: Agrees to Settle Overcharged Fees Suit for $60,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Law of Yahoo! Life reports that a controversial tow company
has agreed to pay $60,000 to settle a class action suit that
accused the business of overcharging people for certified mail and
city fees.
Valley Towing in Methuen reached an agreement with plaintiff
Matthew Kady last month. The class action settlement includes as
many as 8,744 drivers whose vehicles were towed by Valley Towing
without their consent, either as a trespass or police-ordered tow,
after Aug. 6, 2014, and was assessed a certified mail or city fee,
documents show.
Under the terms of the settlement, Valley Towing and its owner
Ronald Parrino admitted no wrongdoing.
"The Settlement Agreement resolves the allegations that Defendant
charged and collected impermissible fees . . . in violation of
Massachusetts towing regulations. Defendant disputes the
allegations and continues to deny any wrongdoing," the filing
said.
Parrino's attorneys did not respond to requests for comment. Kady
declined an interview request on the advice of his attorney.
"To see this magnitude of a settlement and that many people getting
a refund, it just validates everything we've been saying all
along," Chris Nesbitt said. Nesbitt has been complaining about
Valley Towing ever since 2016, when he accused the company of
selling his car to a salvage yard without his knowledge following a
crash.
"This is awesome to see this many people are going to be getting
refund checks," Nesbitt said. "I should be getting a little piece
of the pie. It's not going to be a lot of money, but it proves the
point. It's more principle now."
Boston 25 News first reported on consumer complaints against Valley
Towing in 2018. The Department of Public Utilities performed an
audit of Valley Towing invoices that same year. The audit found 29
out of 752 tow slips were not in compliance with state regulations,
resulting in $1,080 in refunds, according to a department
spokesperson. The City of Lawrence later discontinued its
relationship with Valley Towing following DPU's audit. The Methuen
Police Dept. suspended its relationship with the business in Jan.
2022.
Debo Brown accused Valley Towing of crushing his Ford Expedition
without his knowledge in 2008.
"I think [the settlement] is a good start but I don't think it
should be the endpoint," Brown said. "How was this even allowed to
happen for so long? Why did it take so many years for people to
acknowledge that what we're saying has merit." [GN]
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Petrone Appeals Ruling in Labor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Philip Petrone filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and Order and Judgment dated Jan. 10, 2023 and
Memorandum and Order dated April 14, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled PHILIP PETRONE, et al., Plaintiffs v. WERNER ENTERPRISES,
INC., and DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 8:11CV401,
8:12CV307, in the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska, Omaha.
The class action, filed on Sept. 14, 2011, arises from claims by
commercial truck drivers who assert that they were not paid proper
amounts while working for Werner and Drivers as part of the
Defendants' Student Driver Program. Somewhat more specifically, in
a Second Amended Complaint, Petrone seeks unpaid wages for "unpaid
rest breaks," and "unpaid sleeper berth time," on behalf of the
class. He asserts violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Nebraska Wage and Hour Act, and the Nebraska Wage Payment
Collection Act, as well as claims for unjust enrichment, breach of
implied contract, and breach of contract.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Brian C. Buescher
of the District of Nebraska entered an Order on Jan. 10, 2023:
a. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial; and
b. entering Judgment in favor of the Defendants and against
the Plaintiffs on all claims.
After consideration of the opinions of the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, the parties' supplemental briefs, and the record, Judge
Buescher concluded that exclusion of the Plaintiffs' damages
expert's untimely opinion is appropriate pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1);
that appointment of an expert pursuant to Rule 706 is not
appropriate; and that the Plaintiffs' case must now be dismissed
with prejudice because Plaintiffs cannot prove damages without
expert testimony.
On April 14, 2023, Judge Buescher entered anew a Memorandum and
Order that Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and to
Amend/Reopen Judgment and for Defendants to Reimburse Plaintiffs
the Vacated Sanction is granted to the extent that Judge Lyle E.
Strom's award of $61,222.14 to Defendants as a sanction pursuant to
Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without legal
authority is set aside, and Defendants are required to return that
monetary sanction. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Deadline to
File Notice of Appeal was also granted.
The appellate case is captioned as Philip Petrone, et al. v. Werner
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1884, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript is due on or before June 7, 2023;
-- Appendix is due on June 20, 2023;
-- BRIEF APPELLANTS, Philip Petrone, et al., due June 20, 2023;
and
-- Appellees' brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellants.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Philip Petrone, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by:
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ & SWIDLER
1101 Kings Highway, N. Suite 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
- and -
Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq.
Thomas N. Sweeney, Esq.
MESSA & ASSOCIATES
123 S. 22nd Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 568-3500
- and -
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ & SWIDLER
Nine Tanner Street, Suite 101
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Defendants-Appellees Werner Enterprises, Inc., doing business as
Werner Trucking, et al., are represented by:
Patrick Joseph Barrett, Esq.
Patrick S. Cooper, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Culhane, Esq.
Joseph Edward Jones, Esq.
FRASER & STRYKER
500 Energy Plaza
409 S. 17th Street
Omaha, NE 68102-2663
Telephone: (402) 341-6000
XTREME MFG: Class Settlement in Gonzalez Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RUDY GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XTREME MANUFACTURING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-1704 JLT SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the Settlement and the Plaintiff's motion for
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and service payment.
Gonzalez asserts Xtreme failed to comply with California's wage and
hour laws as provided in the California Labor Code, Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Business and Professions Code. He was
employed by Xtreme as a machinist in the company's facility located
in Selma, California, beginning in April 2019. He asserts he was
classified as a non-exempt employee, and as a result he was
entitled to be paid for every hour worked and overtime as
appropriate. However, Gonzalez alleges that Xtreme failed to pay
Gonzalez and its other non-exempt employees for all hours they
worked.
In his First Amended Complaint, Gonzalez identified the following
causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wage, (2) failure to
pay overtime, (3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to
provide rest periods, (5) failure to reimburse for all business
expenses, (6) failure to pay all wages due and owing at the end of
employment, (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, (8) unlawful business practices, (9) civil penalties
pursuant to California's Private Attorney General Act, (10) failure
to timely provide payroll records, and (11) failure to timely
provide personnel records. He asserted the First through Eighth
Causes of Action were brought "on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated," with narrowed subclasses defined to address
the alleged violations. Xtreme filed its Answer on March 15, 2021.
The parties engaged in numerous substantive discussions -- both
directly and with the assistance of Lou Marlin, Esq. -- in the
intervening two months. As a result of the continued discussions,
the parties reached an agreement to resolve the matter in principle
prior to the scheduled mediation date. The parties executed the
"Joint Stipulation of Class and Representative Action Settlement
Agreement" in June 2022.
Gonzalez filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was granted on Oct. 25, 2022. The Court appointed
Rudy Gonzalez as the Class Representative and authorized his
request for an incentive payment up to $5,000 subject to a petition
and review. In addition, it appointed the firm of Mayall Hurley
P.C. as the Class Counsel. The Court preliminarily granted the
Class Counsel's request for fees not to exceed 33 1/3% and costs to
be determined, noting the requests were also subject to review at
the final approval stage. Finally, the Court appointed Simpluris,
Inc. as the Settlement Administrator, and authorized costs up to
$5,500 for the administration.
The Court approved the Class Notice that conveyed this information
for the Class Members on Nov. 8, 2022. On Dec. 5, 2022, the
Settlement Administrator mailed the Class Notice to 218 Class
Members. The Settlement Administrator reports only two Notice
Packets were undeliverable, which resulted in a successful mail
rate of over 99%. No Class Member disputed the number of work weeks
identified in their Notice Packets for purposes of calculating each
settlement share. Further, no objections to the agreement terms
were received by either the Settlement Administrator or the Court.
On Nov. 30, 2020, Gonzalez filed motions for final approval of the
settlement, attorneys' fees and costs, a service award for Gonzalez
as the Class Representative, and costs of settlement
administration. Xtreme did not oppose either of the pending
motions.
Pursuant to the "Joint Stipulation of Class and Representative
Action Settlement Agreement," the parties agree to a gross
settlement amount of $290,000 for the class defined as follows:
"all current and former non-exempt California employees of Xtreme
who worked at least one shift from Dec. 4, 2016 to March 1, 2022."
The Settlement includes an "escalator clause," under which the
gross settlement amount will be increased if the number of Class
Members increases by more than 10% over the 219 members estimated
at the time of execution or if the verified number of workweeks for
the class members increases by more than 5% over the estimated
19,679 workweeks included in the class period. The Defendant agrees
to pay the gross settlement amount to the Settlement Administrator
after final approval of the Settlement.
The gross settlement fund will cover payments to class members with
additional compensation to Gonzalez as the class representative. In
addition, the Settlement provides for payments to the Class Counsel
for attorneys' fees and expenses, to the Settlement Administrator,
and the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency.
Specifically, the Settlement provides for the following payments
from the gross settlement amount:
a. The Class Representative will receive an incentive award up
to $5,000;
b. The Class counsel will receive up to $96,666.67 for
attorneys' fees, which equals 33 1/3 % of the gross settlement, and
litigation expenses up to $14,000;
c. The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency shall
receive $7,500 from the total PAGA payment of $10,000; and
d. The Settlement Administrator will receive up to $5,500 for
fees and expenses.
After these payments, the remaining money, which is currently
estimated to be $158,888.33, will be distributed to the class
members. If the Court approves payments from the fund that are less
than the amounts designated -- including lesser amounts for the
class representative, attorneys, the LWDA, or the settlement
administrator -- the remainder will be retained in the Net
Settlement Amount for distribution to the Class Members. Gonzalez
reports that if the Court approves each of the proposed payments
from the gross fund -- including the maximum attorney fees and
class representative enhancement award under the Settlement -- the
average settlement share is expected to be $733.65.
The appointed Settlement Administrator will distribute payment by
mailing checks to all participating Class Members and Aggrieved
Employees. Checks must be cashed within 180 days of the mailing. If
any check remains uncashed after the 180-period, the money does not
revert to Xtreme. Rather, the Administrator will void the checks,
and transmit the funds to the State of California's Controller,
Unclaimed Property Division for further handling on behalf of the
Class Member.
The Settlement provides that the Plaintiff and the class members,
other than those who elect not to participate in the Settlement,
release Xtreme from claims arising in the relevant period.
Evelin Reyes, a case manager for the Settlement Administrator,
reports that no Class Member disputed the number of work weeks
identified in their notice, which was given for purposes of
calculating each settlement share. She also reports the Settlement
Administrator did not receive any requests for exclusion or
objections from the Class Members. Likewise, the Court did not
receive any objections to the Settlement.
Gonzalez seeks final approval of a class settlement reached in the
action. In addition, he seeks attorneys' fees and costs from the
settlement fund, costs for settlement administration, and a service
payment for the class representative. Xtreme does not oppose these
requests, and no class member submitted objections to the
settlement terms.
Judge Thurston found the matters suitable for decision without oral
arguments pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the hearing for final
approval was vacated.
Judge Thurston finds that the class settlement is fair, adequate,
and reasonable. The factors set forth under Rule 23 and Ninth
Circuit precedent weigh in favor of final approval of the
settlement agreement.
Accordingly, Judge Thurston grants the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the Settlement. She grants certification of the
Settlement Class, and certifies the class is defined as follows:
All current and former non-exempt California employees of Xtreme
who worked at least one shift from Dec. 4, 2016 to March 1, 2022.
The PAGA award of $10,000 from the Gross Settlement Amount --
including payment of $7,500 to California's Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, with the remainder distributed to aggrieved
employees -- is approved.
Judge Thurston grants (i) the request for a Class Representative
service payment for Gonzalez in the amount of $5,000; (ii) the
Class Counsel's motion for fees in the amount of 33 1/3% of the
gross settlement fund in the total amount of $96,666.67; (iii) the
Class Counsel's request for costs in the amount of $12,897.03; and
(iv) the Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $5,500,
to be paid from the gross settlement fund.
She dismisses the action with prejudice, with each side to bear its
own costs and attorneys' fees except as otherwise provided by the
Settlement and ordered by the Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the action.
The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications
arising out of or in connection with the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/wgz5c from Leagle.com.
[*] BakerHostetler Issues Insurance Class Action Update for 2023 Q1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Drocton, Esq., and Mark Johnson, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in
an article for JDSupra, disclosed that this year began like the
last one ended, with lots of activity. Total loss class actions
kept going around the country, and labor depreciation class actions
experienced ups and downs, depending on one's viewpoint. New class
actions involving sales tax depreciation, appraisal and privacy
claims for data shared with vendors made an entrance, as did
additional Washington health care reimbursement rate class actions.
And we saw appellate action in some previously reported class
actions alleging claims based on uninsured/underinsured motorist
coverage, COVID-19 premium rebates and how property space for
coverage limits is calculated.
A copy of the full report is available at:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/insurance-class-action-update-2023-q1-7343775/
[GN]
[*] Owen Sound May Join Class Action Over Opioid Crisis in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hermiz, writing for Bayshore Broadcasting, reports that Owen
Sound is taking a look at potentially joining in a class action
lawsuit against manufacturers and distributors of opioid products.
The city received a letter from law firm Napoli Shkolnik Canada
inviting Owen Sound to participate in a class action lawsuit that
"seeks to recover damages incurred to abate the opioid crisis that
has affected communities throughout Canada."
The letter from the firm says the primary goal of the class action
is to secure compensation "from opioid manufacturers and
distributors who have played a significant role in the
proliferation of this devastating epidemic."
Napoli Shkolnik Canada says it aims to establish a fund for opioid
abatement programs that are specifically designed for and managed
by Canadian municipalities.
Owen Sound council directed staff at Monday night's meeting to
complete a questionnaire from the firm, and to look at further
information regarding any class action regarding opioids.
"It's not binding the corporation to participate in the class
action, it's simply completing the questionnaire," says Owen Sound
City Manager Tim Simmonds. "And then hopefully giving us access to
information that comes about through their class action on how that
moves forward."
According to the law firm, more than 34,400 people died in Canada
between January 2016 and September 2022 from opioids. More than
$4-billion of prescription opioids were sold in Canada between
2010-17, they say.
Locally, there's been 11 emergency department visits related to
opioids in Grey Bruce in the first few months of 2023. Public
Health says there were 101 last year, which was down from 131 in
2021.
Suspected drug-related deaths also declined in Grey Bruce last
year. The Health Unit says there were 34 in 2022, down from 46 in
2021 and 40 in 2020. [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 ***