/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230523.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 23, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 103
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Montgomery Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
444 SOUTH BROADWAY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Suit Says
ACME FLOOR: Ruggles Sues Over Floor Refinishers' Unpaid Wages
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Agrees to Pay BOGO Class Suit for $107M
ALPLA INC: Fails to Pay Packers' OT Wages Under FLSA, Durr Alleges
ALTICE USA: Goff Sues Over Nondisclosure of Fees and Charges
APRENDE INC: Wigfall Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of Pham Class Suit
ATLANTIKOS LTD: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Student Loan Scheme
AVOCADO MATTRESS: Faces Class Suit Over Products' False Ads
BANK OF AMERICA: Charges Illegal Processing Fees, Higginbotham Says
BARE WAXING & SKIN: Culley Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
BEAUTY SPY LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BENTLEY CASA: Bubon Suit Removed to W.D. New York
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Retail Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
BLUE DIAMOND: Henderson Sues Over Mislabeled Snack Almonds
BP PLC: Summary Judgment Bid Granted; Wunstell's Claims Dismissed
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Denial of Evans' Class Certification Bid Affirmed
BROADMARK REALTY: Morgan Sues Over Securities Law Violations
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Young's Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice
CARDINAL HEALTH: $109MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 11
CEREBRAL INC: Suit Removed to E.D. New York
CHELSEA PINES: Chavez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COLUMBUS FAMILY: Class of Health Aides Certified in Morrison Suit
COTY INC: June 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CREATIVE MARKETING: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CRUNCHBASE INC: Faces Suit Over Commercial Use of Personal Info
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Ports Suit Removed to N.D. California
CVS HEALTH: Bid to Remand Been Suit to St. Louis Cir. Court Denied
EAD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Lucente Suit Over Tip Misappropriation
EAGLE TRUCKLINE: Fails to Pay Driver's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
ECOVACS ROBOTICS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Robot Vacuums
EMPIRE 250 GAS: Yoruk Sues Over Underpayment of Wages
EN ROUTE JEWELRY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FERRARA CANDY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Cookies
FIVE KEYS SCHOOLS: Wooten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GAMESTOP INC: Coulter Suit Removed to E.D. California
GENESYS TECHNOLOGY: Taucher Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Pomerantz, Lowey to Serve Co-Lead Class Counsel
GSK PLC: Court Dismissed Proposed Zantac Drug Suit in Canada
HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE: Bussey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: $12.5M Prelim. Deal Agreed in Events Suit
HYATT HOTELS: Housekeepers Sue Over Worker Protection Violations
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Faces Okaro Suit Over 15.1% Share Price Drop
IG MARKETS: Investors Sue Over Unfair Sell of Financial Products
INDIANA: Show Cause Order Issued in K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board
INMATE SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Inmates' Suit for $625,000
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Trustee Wants Judge to Block Insurance Suit
INTERJET SA: Mexico's Consumer Watchdog Wins Class Action Suit
INTERTAPE POLYMER: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Evans Alleges
IOWA: Gov. Sued for Cutting Off Pandemic Unemployment Benefits
JACK HULLAND: Settlement Reached in Students' Isolation Suit
JPJ ELECTRONICS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
LIFEAID BEVERAGE: Scheibe Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Howard Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
MAMCO INC: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. California
MARINA BAY RESIDENCES: Abouelkhier Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
MASTERCRAFT PAINTING: Nicolas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MATCO TOOLS: Faces Baggs Suit Over Erroneous Collection Letters
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Maadanian Class Suit
METZ CULINARY: Brinson Suit Removed to W.D. New York
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: June 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MOBILE FIDELITY: Wins Settlement Approval Over Vinyl Fraud Suit
MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Seeks Approval of Class Action Settlement
NATERA INC: Misclassifies Patient Coordinators, Visajel Suit Says
NATIONAL EWP INC: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California
NATIONAL VISION: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Moore Suit Alleges
NATIONSBENEFITS HOLDINGS: Sued Over Clients Unprotected Health Info
NEW SCHOOL: Meng Files Suit in S.D. New York
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Artis Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Benn Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Kerr Alleges
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: James Sue Over Clients' Unprotected Health Info
NLJ LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hollins Suit Alleges
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
OCWEN LOAN: Orre Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Suit
ONE BROOKLYN: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Vickers Says
ONLY LITTLE ONCE: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OPTIMA TAX RELIEF: Melito Files Suit in C.D. California
PANDORA MEDIA: Settles Class Action Over Sirius Merger for $3.5-B
PARKER & BAILEY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PERFECT KETO GROUP: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
PERFECT KETO: Scheibe Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements
PET SUPERMARKET: Dodges Lawsuit Over 'Free Dog Food' Promo Texts
PHH MORTGAGE: Willingham Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PORK KING: Court Narrows Claims in Chalas Suit Under ADA & NYCHRL
PREMIUMCAPITALFUND.COM: Vallesillo Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
QUEENSLAND: Flood Victims' Payouts Delayed, Claims Unfinalised
REJECT SHOP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Dickson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RPNT ACUTE: Fails to Pay Nurses' OT Wages Under FLSA, Pittman Says
S.Y. ORGANIC FARM: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Consolidates Cogent and Thomas Class Suits
SAINT AGNES MEDICAL: Suit Removed to E.D. California
SITEL OPERATING: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Pherigo Alleges
SIX FLATS: OFPRS Class Suit Trial to Start February 3, 2025
SOCIAL FINANCE: Castiglia Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
SOUTH AFRICA: Police Service Faces Class Action Over Illegal Guns
SOUTH AFRICA: Police Sued Over Theft, Supply of Guns to Criminals
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 3
ST. CHARLES HEALTH: Hit With Class-Action Lawsuit Over Meal Breaks
STARS JEWELRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morocho Suit Alleges
SVB FINANCIAL: Robbins LLP Discloses Securities Class Action
TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lee Sues Over Inadequate Security Practices
TECHNOLOGY CREDIT: Davis Suit Dismissed Under First-to-File Rule
TELEPHONE AND DATA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 3
TELEVISION TOWER: Faces Class Suit Over Fallen Lead-Laden Paint
TELEVISION TOWER: Sued Over Properties' Lead Paint Contamination
TESLA INC: Santiago Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
TESLA INC: Software Updates Depleted Cars' Batteries, Suit Claims
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Gamez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRADER JOE'S: Tarantino Sues Over Dangerous Metals in Products
TS INNOVATION: Kilari Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit
TWITTER INC: Remand of Morgan Suit to Spokane Super. Court Denied
TWITTER INC: Wins Bids for Arbitration & to Dismiss Borodaenko Suit
U.S. STEEL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over December 2018 Fire
UNITED HELPERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Groulx Alleges
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued Over False Online Course Ad
US XPRESS: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 10
VARIABLE ANNUITY: $32.15 Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 5
VERLOOP LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Onn Tablet Touchscreen
WALT DISNEY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 11
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Appeal Filed in Sunshine Children's Suit
WHITE CASTLE: Ill. Supreme Ct. Ruling in BIPA Class Suit Discussed
WONWON GROUP: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
YOUTUBE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Briefing
ZENNI OPTICAL: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
ZOOM VIDEO: Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled for June 12
*********
3M COMPANY: Montgomery Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Montgomery as surviving spouse of William Paul Montgomery,
deceased, and others similar situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.;
DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-01908-RMG (D.S.C., May 5, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") and/or their chemical
precursors. PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF containing PFAS and/or their
chemical precursors, and/or designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and/or sold the fluorosurfactants and/or
perfluorinated chemicals ("PFCs") contained in AFFF (collectively,
"AFFF/Component Products") with knowledge that their products
contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFASs, which would expose
end users of the products to the risks associated with PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' AFFF/Component Products were used by the Plaintiff
in their intended manner, without significant change in the
products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF/Component Products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF/Component Products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF/Component Products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff Sally Montgomery is an adult resident of the State of
California and is the surviving spouse of William Paul Montgomery
who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
444 SOUTH BROADWAY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRECENCIANO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 444 SOUTH BROADWAY PIZZA INC., a New York
corporation, and EFREN LEZAMA SALAZAR, an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 7:23-cv-03846 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants to perform activities as a
delivery driver in or around the last week of April 2022, through
April 3, 2023 wherein his job included delivering meals to
customers, cleaning, and any other task or job that he was assigned
at any given time. The Plaintiff always worked approximately 79
hours per week. However, the Defendants allegedly failed pay
Plaintiff any overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in each
workweek. In addition, the Defendants also failed to pay him spread
of hours pay for days on which his workday lasted 10 or more hours,
says the Plaintiff.
444 South Broadway Pizza Inc. is a New York corporation that owns
and operates a restaurant known as Lezama's Pizzeria, which is
located at 444 S. Broadway, Yonkers, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 279-1554
Facsimile: (516) 213-0339
E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com
- and -
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
ACME FLOOR: Ruggles Sues Over Floor Refinishers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Ruggles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Acme Floor Company, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02211 (D.
Kan., May 11, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's policies and
practices have resulted in the Defendant's failure to pay its
hourly floor refinishing employees for all of their time work and
for overtime wages due, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff and the floor refinishing employees
have spent time for the Defendant's benefit on various tasks, such
as meeting with sales and administrative staff to understand the
nature of refinishing projects, loading tools and supplies into
company vehicles, performing maintenance on company equipment, and
otherwise performing work-related duties, all without being fully
compensated for such time.
Accordingly, although the Plaintiff both "clocked in" and "clocked
out" by writing on a time-sheet the times he arrived and left
Defendant's shop, the Plaintiff was not compensated according to
the time written on the time sheet. Instead, the Plaintiff was
compensated only for his time beginning when the Van departed
Defendant's shop and concluding when the Van arrived back at
Defendant's shop. Even if the Plaintiff were paid for the full time
that he actually worked, the Defendant also arbitrarily and
unilaterally manipulated and lowered the rate at which Plaintiff
was paid without notifying the Plaintiff, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff was to be paid the rate of $25 per hour. On more than
one occasion, however, the Defendant unilaterally and arbitrarily
decided to pay the Plaintiff at a lower hourly rate, sometimes as
low as $7.25 per hour, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a floor refinisher.
Acme is a wood flooring company that specializes in pre-finished
wood floors, hand-scraped wood floors, rift-and-quartered wood
floors, and other wood flooring products. It also offers hardwood
floor refinishing and restoration services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Edgar, Esq.
Ryan J. Loehr, Esq.
EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 440
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 531-0033
E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
rjl@edgarlawfirm.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Agrees to Pay BOGO Class Suit for $107M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Oatman of Meat+Poultry reports that Safeway and its parent
company, Albertson's Cos., have agreed to pay a settlement of $107
million against a complaint that the companies falsely advertised
buy-one-get-one-free (BOGO) promotions.
Safeway customers Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart alleged the
retailers overcharged them and other customers for meat products
under the deception of a free item.
The products in question include petite beef sirloin; boneless pork
chops; boneless chicken; boneless, skinless chicken breasts;
chicken legs; beef bottom round; and beef eye of round that were
sold within one year before the date of the complaint filed in July
2016.
One example of a BOGO promotion that the lawsuit listed was
boneless pork chops sold at a retail price of $4.49 per pound,
which were then sold at $12.99 per pound under the BOGO sale.
"When Albertson's and Safeway stores offer meat products under
these promotions, they raise the unit prices of the original meat
product above the regular retail price," the complaint said. "Thus,
consumers are actually paying for the meat that is sold as 'free'
in these special sales."
Safeway and Albertson's denied any wrongdoing but agreed to pay the
settlement.
Customers who participated in the BOGO sales between May 4, 2015,
and Sept. 7, 2016, are entitled to recover statutory damages. The
lawsuit estimates each class member will receive an equal share of
approximately $200.
The deadline to submit a claim form is July 10. A final approval
hearing for the settlement is scheduled for the same day. [GN]
ALPLA INC: Fails to Pay Packers' OT Wages Under FLSA, Durr Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMIDA DURR, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
ALPLA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00966 (N.D. Ohio, May 11, 2023) sues
the Defendant for failure to pay employees overtime wages and
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Defendant's companywide practice and/or policy of not including
Additional Renumeration in the regular-rate-of-pay calculations
resulted in the underpayment of overtime wages in workweeks that
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated FLSA Collective Members
worked overtime, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated production employees regularly
worked more than 40 hours per workweek, but they were not paid
one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked over 40 as a result of the Defendant's policy and/or
practice, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt employee of the
Defendant in the position of Packer and Lead Packer from 2007 to
October 2022.
ALPLA produces "packaging systems, bottles, caps, and
injection-moulded parts for a wide range of industries" and owns
and operates numerous production facilities/plants throughout the
country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
ALTICE USA: Goff Sues Over Nondisclosure of Fees and Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Goff, Nathan Rollyson, and Russell Totten, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Altice
USA, Cebridge Acquisition, LLC, Cequel III Communications, I, LLC,
and Cequel III Communications, II, LLC, d/b/a Optimum F.K.A.
Suddenlink, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00380 (S.D.W. Va., May 8,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are engaged in unfair or
deceptive practices by adding and charging them with network
enhancement fees as well as business and occupation tax fees
without clearly disclosing these charges to them.
Altice USA; Cebridge Acquisition, LLC; Cequel III Communications,
I, LLC; and Cequel III Communications, II, LLC d/b/a Optimum F.K.A.
Suddenlink are corporations having their principal offices in a
state other than West Virginia and which do business in West
Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq.
Jed Nolan, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN, LC
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25526
Telephone: (304) 562-7111
E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com
jed@kleinsheridan.com
- and -
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
Jack Bunn, Esq.
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
- and -
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 274-9331
APRENDE INC: Wigfall Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aprende, Inc. The
case is styled as Tyeasha Wigfall, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Aprende, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-21698-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Aprende Institute -- https://aprende.com/ -- is the online
education platform for vocational skills training in the US
hispanic market and LATAM.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of Pham Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN PHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant v. ARLO
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. CHIRAG
PATEL, Plaintiff and Appellant v. ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents. ATHANASIOS PERROS, Plaintiff and
Appellant v. ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. H049577 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California for the Sixth District affirms the trial court's order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the action and entering
judgment of dismissal.
The Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. Section 77a et seq.) permits
plaintiffs to file actions thereunder in state court and prohibits
defendants from removing such actions to federal court. Arlo
Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with a federal forum
provision (FFP) in its corporate charter. The FFP requires
shareholders to bring federal claims under the 1933 Act in federal
court unless Arlo consents to a different forum. In this action,
Plaintiffs John Pham, Chirag Patel, and Athanasios Perros
challenged the provision by pursuing 1933 Act claims in state court
and opposing Arlo's forum non conveniens motion.
Arlo sells network-connected home security cameras, monitoring
systems, and monitoring services. Prior to its initial public
offering (IPO), Arlo was a subsidiary of NETGEAR. Through its IPO,
which occurred in August 2018, Arlo became an independent company.
Prior to the IPO, Arlo adopted Article XIV.B to its Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation. It publicly disclosed its
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation as Exhibit 3.1 to
a registration statement it filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission about one month before the IPO.
In early 2019, the Plaintiffs filed separate class action
complaints in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging that Arlo
violated the 1933 Act in connection with the IPO. The trial court
consolidated the Plaintiffs' actions with several other
then-pending putative class actions. In May 2019, the Plaintiffs
joined in the filing of a consolidated complaint asserting 1933 Act
claims.
In June 2019, on defense motion, the trial court stayed the case in
deference to a federal putative class action asserting federal
statutory claims arising out of Arlo's IPO and common stock
purchases in the following months, including 1933 Act claims. The
trial court stated that "if anything remains to be adjudicated in
this case" after the federal action was completed, then "the stay
should be lifted so this Court can address the remaining claims."
The federal litigation yielded a class action settlement. The
Plaintiffs preserved their claims by opting out of the settlement.
On May 5, 2021, the trial court issued a case management order
authorizing the Plaintiffs to file an amended pleading on June 4,
2021, and requiring a responsive pleading, such as a demurrer or
motion to dismiss, to be filed by July 6, 2021. It directed the
parties to meet and confer on a briefing schedule and hearing date
for the anticipated motion.
In mid-June 2021, after the Plaintiffs timely filed the operative
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint for Violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, the defense counsel initiated the meet and
confer process regarding the hearing date and briefing schedule for
their forthcoming motion to dismiss pursuant to the FFP, which they
intended to file within the week. It then proposed three hearing
dates in July 2021.
In the ensuing exchange, the defense counsel argued in favor of a
July hearing, asserting that the statute of repose expires in early
August, so it is certainly in your clients' interest to have this
issue decided before then. The Plaintiffs' counsel nonetheless
maintained that the motions should be heard in September 2021. The
defense counsel agreed to have their motions heard in September but
"advised that if, in opposing their FFP motion, the Plaintiffs take
the position that no alternative federal forum is available, then
the defense counsel will alert the Court to the fact that the
Plaintiffs declined to tee up this motion earlier.
The trial court heard the Defendants' motion to dismiss the action
pursuant to the FFP in September 2021, more than three years after
Arlo's IPO. The parties agreed that, at the time of the hearing,
the Plaintiffs were barred by at least a statute of repose from
refiling their claims in federal court if the trial court dismissed
them. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment of
dismissal. The Plaintiffs timely appealed.
First, the Plaintiffs contend that the 1933 Act grants them the
unwaivable right to choose between federal and state courts for
resolving their disputes. But that is not what the statute says,
the Court of Appeals finds. Moreover, it says the Plaintiffs'
construction of the statute is foreclosed by United States Supreme
Court precedent. Accordingly, it rejects Plaintiffs' contention.
Next, the Plaintiffs contend that Delaware's statutory scheme, as
interpreted in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi (Del. 2020) 227 A.3d 102
(Salzberg), violates the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause
of the United States Constitution. In Salzberg, the Delaware
Supreme Court held that FFP's are facially valid under Delaware
law.
Following the persuasive analysis in Wong v. Restoration Robotics,
Inc. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 48, the Court of Appeals rejects both
arguments. It opines that the Plaintiffs' extrapolation from the
Supremacy Clause would compel Delaware to invalidate contractual
agreements that would require 1933 Act claims to be brought in
federal court unless it permits litigation of "internal corporate
claims" of Delaware corporations under DGCL section 115 outside of
the Delaware state courts. Moreover, Delaware's permissive approach
to FFP's bears no resemblance to Illinois's direct regulation of
tender offers.
The Plaintiffs then appropriately do not dispute that the operative
FFP is valid under Delaware law, but argue that the Court of
Appeals should decide the FFP's validity under California law
instead.
The Court of Appeals join Restoration Robotics in holding that
Delaware law applies. It opines that the adoption of an FFP may be
an internal affair, even if the claims regulated by an FFP may not
be. The validity of Arlo's certificate of incorporation involves
the type of internal affairs as to which California courts
ordinarily apply the law of the state of incorporation -- in this
case, Delaware. The Plaintiffs have not identified any reason to
deviate from the ordinary practice.
Because the Plaintiffs do not contest the validity of Arlo's
certificate of incorporation under Delaware law, the Court of
Appeals turns to whether California law renders the otherwise valid
FFP unenforceable. It identifies no error in the trial court's
determination that the FFP was within the Plaintiffs' reasonable
expectations. Also, on the undisputed facts, it says the Plaintiffs
did not demonstrate that the FFP is unconscionable. Last, it
identifies no error in the trial court's determination that it was
reasonable to enforce the FFP in this case notwithstanding
defendants' delay in seeking enforcement.
In sum, the Court of Appeals agrees with the First District's
determination in Restoration Robotics that FFP's are valid under
Delaware law and the United States Constitution and may be
enforceable under California law. Moreover, it affirms the trial
court's determination that it was appropriate to enforce the FFP on
the particular facts of the case, even though the federal forum was
no longer available when the trial court decided Arlo's motion.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment. The
Defendants are awarded their costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Opinion is available at
https://rb.gy/xda77 from Leagle.com.
ATLANTIKOS LTD: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
GORAN JOKIC and JETON SHOSHI, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. ATLANTIKOS LTD. (d/b/a ATLANTIK-OS), and KIM
PAPAS, Case No. 2:23-cv-03567 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2023) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, confiscated
tips spread-of-hours pay, and statutory penalties, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly confiscated
approximately 25% of the tips Mr. Shoshi received for their own
benefit, and allowed "food runners" (who do not spend at least 80%
of their time dealing directly with customers, and are therefore
ineligible to participate in a tip pool) to receive a portion of
the tips. The Defendants owe Mr. Shoshi, the "tip credit"
deductions they took from his regular hourly rate as compensatory
damages. The Defendants further owe Mr. Shoshi the gratuities that
were unlawfully stolen by management and given to food runners. The
Defendants also allegedly failed to pay Mr. Shoshi a premium rate
for the overtime hours he worked for Atlantikos, the suit claims.
Mr. Shoshi worked more than 10 hours per day virtually every day of
his employment with the defendants. Nevertheless, the defendants
never made Spread of Hours payments to him, and owe him additional
damages for this omission, the suit adds.
The Plaintiffs seeks to prosecute their FLSA claims as a collective
action, on behalf of all non-exempt persons currently or formerly
employed by the Defendants, including all employees who were
employed by Defendants for manual positions including waiters,
busboys, runners, and other "wait staff", as well as bartenders,
maintenance personnel, administrative staff, cooks, and other
kitchen workers, and any other similarly situated current and
former employees holding comparable positions, at any time on or
after the date that is three years before the filing of the
Complaint in this case.
Mr. Shoshi was hired by the Defendant in the spring of 2014, and he
worked for the Defendants from May through September of that year
as well as 2015-2017, 2020, and 2022.
Atlantikos is a restaurant located in the Royal Atlantic Hotel in
Montauk New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian L. Greben, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
316 Great Neck Road
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 304-5357
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Student Loan Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Cassidy, writing for The Guardian, reports that recipients
of a dumped welfare scheme that enticed low-income students to
trade away their right to welfare have cause to mount a class
action, a senior legal expert says.
The Australian government is still chasing $2bn of debt from more
than 140,000 former students who signed up to the student financial
supplement scheme (SFSS).
Operating for a decade from 1993, it enticed tertiary students to
take out "low-cost" loans by giving up benefits including youth
allowance, Austudy, Abstudy and the pensioner education
supplement.
Every dollar of welfare a student gave up entitled them to $2 in a
SFSS loan, which could be used to help cover expenses while
studying. Minors were also able to take out loans.
The Coalition dumped the scheme at the end of 2003, acknowledging
it was saddling students with high levels of debt, was
"administratively cumbersome and poorly targeted" and effectively
hit people with hidden interest rate costs through forgone
welfare.
Andrew Grech, a partner at Gordon Legal, says a class action could
be mounted if the implications of the loans were misrepresented to
individuals at the time they signed up.
"It might be arguable the arrangements were unconscionable conduct
because it wasn't clearly disclosed to them at the outset they
could end up . . . dramatically financially worse off," he said.
"It's very problematic for the commonwealth and it's purportedly
induced people to enter into these arrangements designed to be for
their benefit which instead have caused in many cases enormous
hardship and detriment.
"If people relied on these representations made to them and
suffered detriment and financial loss, they'd certainly have an
arguable cause of action against the commonwealth, by individual
claims or banded together in a class action."
Recipients -- many of them now in their 40s and 50s -- are still
struggling to pay off the debts they racked up. More than 100
people in a social media group for recipients who say they were
deceived by the scheme have expressed interest in signing up to a
class action.
It was "sheer desperation" that led to Deb Woodbridge taking out a
SFSS loan. She was among many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students receiving Abstudy support who were encouraged to
capitalise on the scheme.
"They said sign up to it, it'll make life easier," she said. "When
we saw the paperwork it said it was interest free . . . I traded my
entitlement, where did that go?
"So many vulnerable people signed up to them . . . Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people, people with disabilities, vulnerable
children. If that's not predatory I don't know what is."
Woodbridge borrowed a total of $17,500, taking out five $3,500
payments until the scheme was scrapped.
She began paying it back after meeting the minimum threshold in
2008. By then, her debt had more than doubled to $43,000 - indexed
in line with the consumer price index (CPI).
She has repaid more than $35,000 since, and still has $17,200 left
as the debt swells with inflation. The latest quarterly CPI figures
showed Australians with student debt are facing the highest
increase in decades when indexation is added on 1 June.
Woodbridge paid off her Hecs in 2014 and, despite working full-time
in higher education for 15 years, she still does not know if she
will ever pay off her SFSS.
Since the repayment threshold was raised for SFSS loans in 2019,
$200 comes out of her pay every fortnight, the equivalent of $5,000
a year.
"I've paid double what I borrowed and with the upcoming increase in
indexation it's never going away," she said.
"I feel like I've been conned and so does everyone else. I got
knocked back for a $10,000 car loan, you can't get home loans."
Woodbridge wants to launch a class action to have the debts
abolished. She points to Vet Fee Help loans that were scrapped in
2019 due to findings of inappropriate conduct.
"It's within their power and it's completely unfair," she says.
"Labor set up the scheme, it's incumbent on them to fix it."
A former student from an advocacy and legal background, who wishes
to remain anonymous, took out four loans from 1995 onwards
totalling $14,425 and now has $20,026 owing.
The graduate says the loans people entered into "don't meet basic
tenets of contract law".
"The social security payment is absolutely inalienable . . . you
can't legislate away a contracted right," he said.
"Minors without guardians were signing it, people in desperate need
with no literature of what it could grow into. It's criminal and
the government is making a profit."
The social services minister, Amanda Rishworth, said it was
"important to remember" SFSS loans weren't required to be repaid
until a person reached the minimum threshold.
"SFSS repayments are a set percentage based on your income," she
said.
"They don't go up unless your salary does and as with other student
loans . . . [they] are indexed annually by CPI. No interest is
applied."
The education minister, Jason Clare, was approached for
comment.[GN]
AVOCADO MATTRESS: Faces Class Suit Over Products' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
homesandgardens.com reports that Avocado Mattress advertises its
products as 'natural', 'organic', and 'free from synthetic and
non-toxic materials'. However, a proposed class action in
California alleges that these claims are untrue.
After lab testing, the plaintiffs claim that Avocado's latex
mattresses, pillows and toppers contain harmful substances. Avocado
is accused of using synthetic, toxic chemicals to create its
products, which would contravene the claims in its promotional
materials.
Plaintiffs Akeem Pina and Richard Roberts argue that these latex
products have been 'knowingly misrepresented' in a violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. It's still early in the
proceedings, but if you own one of these mattresses or are keen to
find out more, here's everything we know so far about the
allegations. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Charges Illegal Processing Fees, Higginbotham Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA L. HIGGINBOTHAM, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., DEFENDANT,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00375 (S.D. W.Va., May 8, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
Allegedly, the Defendant impermissibly profits from the homeowners
it purports to service by charging and collecting illegal payment
processing fees when borrowers make their monthly mortgage payments
by telephone or online. In addition, the Defendant routinely
violates West Virginia debt collection law and breaches the uniform
terms of borrowers' mortgages by charging and collecting illegal
processing fees, such Pay-to-Pay fees, which are not agreed to in
the uniform deed of trust, says the suit.
Bank of America, N.A is a corporation having its principal
executive offices at Bank of America Corporate Center, 100 North
Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina, and which does business in
West Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
Jack Bunn, Esq.
Denali Hedrick, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
- and -
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1622 Locust St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 274-9331
BARE WAXING & SKIN: Culley Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Culley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BARE WAXING & SKIN CARE CENTER, LLC, Case No.
CACE-23-013373 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 8,
2023), is brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA"), as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages.
Beginning on November of 2021, the Defendant began spamming the
hPlaintiff with unsolicited texts to the Plaintiffs cellular
telephone number. 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. The
Defendant's calls and/or text(s) failed to disclose the name of the
individual caller and/or the entity on whose behalf the call was
made, and/or a telephone number or address at which the person or
entity may be contacted as required pursuant to the FTSA. At no
point in time did the Plaintiff provide Defendant with the
Plaintiff's express written invitation/consent to be contacted by
the Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."
The Defendant is a corporation, incorporated in the State of
Florida and a "telephone solicitor" and directs, markets, and
provides business activities throughout the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
Email: SPAM-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attomevsoftheiniured.com
BEAUTY SPY LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Beauty Spy LLC.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The
Beauty Spy LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03867 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Beauty Spy LLC -- https://thebeautyspy.com/ -- is a direct
connection to the latest in Kbeauty and beyond.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BENTLEY CASA: Bubon Suit Removed to W.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tina Bubon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BENTLEY CASA DE RAMANA, LLC and STEVEN
V. RASO, Case No. 23-877 was removed from the Superior Court for
Middlesex County, Massachusetts, to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 5, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-10994.
The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay one and a half times
the regular rate of pay to the Plaintiff during the term of her
employment.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Maura McLaughlin, Esq.
Catherine M. Scott, Esq.
MORGAN, BROWN & JOY, LLP
200 State Street, 11th Floor
Boston, MA 02109-2605
Phone: (617) 523-6666
Email: mmclaughlin@morganbrown.com
cscott@morganbrown.com
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Retail Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
RETAIL WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE UNION LOCAL 338 RETIREMENT FUND,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. BEYOND
MEAT, INC., ETHAN WALDEN BROWN, MARK J. NELSON, and PHILLIP E.
HARDIN, Case No. 2:23-cv-03602 (C.D. Cal., May 11, 2023) is a
securities class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Beyond
Meat common stock between May 5, 2020 and October 13, 2022,
inclusive, arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.
The case arises from Defendants' material misrepresentations and
omissions concerning the Company’s ability to produce plant-based
meats at scale to the specifications of its key customers, who the
Company refers to as "partners."
Throughout the Class Period, Beyond Meat misled investors by
boasting about the success of its product tests with its
large-scale partnerships, including prominent food retailers like
McDonalds, Starbucks, KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell. Certain Beyond
Meat executives profited enormously from the scheme by selling
hundreds of thousands of shares of their personally held Company
stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. For
instance, Defendant Nelson sold 440,000 shares of Beyond Meat stock
during the Class Period for over $58.3 million in proceeds, the
Plaintiff claims.
The truth began to emerge on October 22, 2021, when Beyond Meat
announced that the Company was reducing its third quarter net
revenues outlook by up to $34 million, or 25%. As part of the
announcement, Beyond Meat also revealed that the Company’s
expenses and inventories were continuing to rise. As a result of
these alleged disclosures, the price of Beyond Meat stock declined
by $12.82 per share, or nearly 12%, from $108.62 per share to
$95.80 per share.
Then, on November 10, 2021, Beyond Meat announced a $1.8 million
write-off of unsold inventory. As a result of this disclosure, the
price of Beyond Meat stock declined by $12.55 per share, or nearly
13%, from $94.48 per share to $81.93 per share.
However, Beyond Meat continued to assure investors of the success
of its partnerships. For example, on November 10, 2021, Defendant
Brown claimed that the Company "overcame numerous technical
challenges" and blamed its poor financial results on the Covid-19
pandemic.
On October 14, 2022, Beyond Meat announced the departure of several
top executives, including the Company's Chief Operating Officer,
Chief Growth Officer, and Chief Financial Officer. As a result of
these disclosures, the price of Beyond Meat stock declined by $1.43
per share, or over 9.6%, from $14.78 per share to $13.35 per share.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the resulting decline in the market value of Beyond Meat’s
stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Plaintiff Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338
Retirement Fund is a pension system providing retirement benefits
to New York and New Jersey employees working in various industries,
including retail grocers, agriculture, healthcare, transportation,
cannabis, and non-profit organizations.
Beyond Meat is a Los Angeles-based producer of plant-based meat
Substitutes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3470
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
BLUE DIAMOND: Henderson Sues Over Mislabeled Snack Almonds
----------------------------------------------------------
Seth Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Diamond Growers, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00289-MMH-PRL (M.D. Fla., May 8, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's misleading representations for its Blue Diamond brand's
Habanero BBQ flavor snack almonds.
Plaintiff Henderson alleges that the representations are misleading
because the labeling omits the use of artificial flavoring,
specifically the DL-Malic Acid, to simulate, resemble and reinforce
the taste of habanero chili peppers.
Blue Diamond Growers is a California agricultural cooperative with
a principal place of business in Sacramento, California. It is
considered as the largest cooperative of almond growers in the
world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BP PLC: Summary Judgment Bid Granted; Wunstell's Claims Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN WUNSTELL, ET AL. v. BP, PLC ET AL., SECTION "H,"
Civil Action No. 10-2543 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
grants the Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony of Dr. Judd Shellito filed by Defendants BP America
Production Co., BP Exploration & Production, Inc., and BP p.l.c.
The case is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant). These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana
before Judge Carl Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved
the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of this Court. This case was eventually reassigned to
Section H.
Wunstell worked in the oil spill response as a captain in the
Vessels of Opportunity program. He captained his vessel to assist
in controlled burns of the crude oil floating on the surface of the
water in the Gulf of Mexico. During the burns, his boat was
tethered to a burn and other burn teams were working in the waters
around him. The Plaintiff alleges that dispersants were also
sprayed from the air onto his vessel during the clean-up. During
his time on the burn team, he alleges that he became seriously ill
and was airlifted from his vessel in the Gulf of Mexico to West
Jefferson Hospital by helicopter. He experienced trouble breathing,
chest pain, increased heart rate, headaches, nausea, sore throat,
body aches, abdominal pain, eye pain, and rashes. When he arrived
at the hospital, he alleges that medical personnel in hazmat suits
stripped and hosed him off.
The Plaintiff has brought negligence claims under general maritime
law against BP for the damages he sustained while working as part
of the burn team. Specifically, he alleges that the exposure to
toxins and fumes caused bronchitis and rhinitis. He also alleges
mental damages as result of the experience, including
post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and
somatic symptom disorder.
Now before the Court are two motions filed by BP. BP seeks to
exclude the Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Shellito, and moves for summary
judgment dismissal of his claims against it.
BP moves to exclude the opinion and testimony of the Plaintiff's
causation expert, Dr. Shellito. Dr. Shellito, a pulmonologist, is
the Plaintiff's only expert on the causation of his physical
injuries. He opines that the Plaintiff suffered from irritant
rhinitis and bronchitis because of oil and dispersant exposure. BP
argues that Dr. Shellito's opinions on both general and specific
causation are unreliable and inadmissible.
Judge Milazzo agrees. She finds that Dr. Shellito does not identify
a level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause rhinitis
and bronchitis. In addition, Dr. Shellito fails to provide a
reliable opinion on specific causation. Accordingly, Dr. Shellito's
causation opinions to be unreliable, and BP's Motion to Exclude his
causation testimony is granted.
Having excluded the Plaintiff's only expert on the causation of his
physical injuries, Judge Milazzo finds that she must also grant
BP's Motion for Summary Judgment. Because the Plaintiff cannot
present expert testimony on general causation cannot, he cannot
prove that he suffered bronchitis and rhinitis because of his
involvement in the clean-up of the oil spill. In addition, because
Plaintiff cannot prove his physical injury, he also cannot succeed
on his claims for mental damages. Finally, Judge Milazzo rejects
the Plaintiff's argument that he can succeed on a claim for mental
damages under a "zone-of-danger" theory.
For the foregoing reasons, BP's Motions are granted. The
Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://rb.gy/pvmk4 from Leagle.com.
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Denial of Evans' Class Certification Bid Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSCOE EVANS, an individual on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BRIGHAM YOUNG
UNIVERSITY, a Utah corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
22-4050 (10th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirms the district court's order denying class
certification.
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted life for people around the world.
College students were no exception. When the pandemic hit in March
2020, universities across the country shut down their campuses, and
students finished their classes online. Named Plaintiff Roscoe
Evans was one of these affected students. After Brigham Young
University (BYU) moved the last month of its Winter 2020 semester
online because of the pandemic, Evans brought a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who paid tuition or fees to attend
in-person classes at BYU.
Evans registered for Winter 2020 semester classes at BYU. As part
of class registration, Evans paid $2,895 in tuition and fees. The
payment came from various sources, including his personal
contributions, family contributions, and a federal direct
subsidized loan. Tuition at BYU ranged from $2,800 to $5,900 per
semester for undergraduate students and $430 to $860 per credit
hour for graduate students. The tuition was the same whether a
student enrolled in in-person or online classes.
Evans also signed a Financial Responsibility Declaration (FRD),
which stated that he "accepted full responsibility to pay all
tuition, fees, and other associated costs assessed as a result of
his registration and/or receipt of services." BYU required all
enrolled students to sign the FRD for each school year that they
attended classes. Had Evans not signed the FRD, he could not have
registered for classes or used campus services.
The Winter 2020 semester started on Jan. 6, 2020. Two months later,
on March 6, 2020, the Utah Governor declared a "State of Emergency"
to prepare for the likely arrival of the COVID-19 virus in Utah.
Soon after -- in response to the pandemic -- BYU moved all
in-person classes online. From March 13, 2020, until the semester's
end on April 15, 2020,2 BYU conducted classes by online
instruction. BYU also closed many campus facilities, including its
health center and fitness centers, and canceled attendance at
in-person events such as sporting matches and commencement. Evans
alleges that as a result, all students could not use campus
facilities and receive the in-person instruction that they expected
when they paid tuition for the Winter 2020 semester.
The University did not refund any portion of the students' tuition
or fees. It continued online instruction through the rest of 2020.
Despite the partially online education, Evans completed his classes
for the Winter 2020 semester and obtained his bachelor's degree in
computer science from BYU at the end of the Winter 2021 semester.
In response to the unexpected switch to online education, Evans
brought a class-action lawsuit against BYU under the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A). He alleged two
grounds for relief: breach of contract and unjust enrichment. He
stated that BYU had breached its contract with students by failing
to provide an in-person and on-campus live education during
semesters that moved to online classes because of COVID-19. Once
students had paid their tuition and fees, they expected in-person
and on-campus educational services, but they did not receive the
full benefit of the promised in-person education.
Evans alleged that BYU had been unjustly enriched when it retained
all tuition payments. He and the class paid tuition and fees with
the expressed understanding that such costs included the in-person
classes, services, opportunities, and experiences that BYU had
previously marketed, promoted, or made available prior to Covid-19.
But BYU retained the benefits of the amount of tuition and fees
that Plaintiffs have provided -- without providing the benefits
that Plaintiffs are owed.
After BYU responded to the complaint, Evans moved for class
certification. Evans asked the district court to certify the
following class: All persons who paid tuition and/or the Mandatory
Fees to attend in-person class(es) during the Winter 2020
term/semester affected by COVID-19 at BYU and had their class(es)
moved to online only learning.
Evans argued that the proposed class met all four requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Specifically, he assured the
district court that the proposed class met Rule 23(a)(1)'s
numerosity requirement because about 33,000 students were enrolled
at BYU for the 2019-2020 school year.
BYU opposed class certification, in part because it could not
ascertain the identity of "all persons who paid tuition" in the
proposed class definition. It pointed out that it receives tuition
payments for students from a variety of sources, including family
members, individual students, loans, grants, and scholarships.
Because BYU lacked records showing who paid the tuition for
individual students, it contended that it could not identify the
class members. And since the class was unascertainable, BYU
contended that the proposed class did not satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)'s
numerosity requirement.
The district court held a hearing on the motion for class
certification. After the hearing, the court issued a written order
denying Evans' motion for class certification. It denied class
certification because the class wasn't ascertainable. Evans'
proposed class left the district court unable to discern who
actually paid a student's tuition and whether the payor did so for
the purpose of attending in-person classes.
Evans now appeals the district court's order denying class
certification. The Court of Appeals has interlocutory appellate
jurisdiction to review an order granting or denying class-action
certification. A separate panel granted Evans' Rule 23(f) Petition
for Permission to Appeal, so the Tenth Circuit reviews the district
court's order.
Evans argues that the district court's numerosity analysis was
flawed for two reasons: (1) the court "critically misread" the word
"paid" in the class definition to require individualized inquiry,
and (2) the court should have found that the proposed class was
ascertainable under Third and Seventh Circuit standards.
The Tenth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it found that individualized inquiries were
necessary to determine who actually paid tuition. It says the
district court need not identify a legal principle for reading the
plain language of "persons who paid tuition" to include third-party
payors. Because the district court's Rule 23 analysis was free from
legal errors, and because it was rational for the district court to
read "persons who paid tuition" to include third-party payors,
there is no abuse of discretion.
The Tenth Circuit further holds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by finding that the proposed class was
unascertainable by out-of-circuit standards. It says the district
court's ruling that it was unascertainable who was part of this
class (absent individualized inquiry into the source of each
student's tuition payment) was not an abuse of discretion. Evans'
attempt to rewrite his class definition on appeal -- by explaining
what it actually meant -- is unpersuasive.
Even if the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court's
reading of the proposed class definition or its finding that the
proposed class was unascertainable, it would not justify reversal
for abuse of discretion. The district court did not abuse its
discretion by ruling that the class was not administratively
feasible to identify.
The Tenth Circuit rules that the district court acted within its
discretionary bounds when it denied Evans' motion for class
certification. It does not disturb its ruling. It affirms the
district court's order denying class certification. It also grants
Evans' unopposed motion to seal volume 2 of the appendix.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order & Judgment is
available at https://rb.gy/7cf3a from Leagle.com.
BROADMARK REALTY: Morgan Sues Over Securities Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MORGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BROADMARK REALTY CAPITAL INC., JEFFREY B.
PYATT, KEVIN M. LUEBBERS, STEPHEN G. HAGGERTY, DANIEL J. HIRSCH,
DAVID A. KARP, NORMA J. LAWRENCE, and PINKIE D. MAYFIELD,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03850 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2023) arises
out of the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a9.
The Defendants allegedly failed to adequately disclose material
information concerning, among other things: the Broadmark Realty
Capital's and Ready Capital's financial projections; and the data
and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support
the fairness opinion provided by the Broadmark's financial advisor
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC. Moreover, such failure constitutes a
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as
Broadmark stockholders need such information in order to make a
fully informed decision in connection with the proposed merger with
Ready Capital Corporation, says the suit.
Broadmark is a Maryland corporation, with its principal executive
offices located at 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle,
Washington. Founded in 2010, Broadmark operates as a commercial
real estate finance company in the US. Broadmark's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"BRMK." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC
33 Flying Point Road, Suite 131
Southampton, NY 11968
Telephone: (631) 204-6187
E-mail: racocelli@acocellilaw.com
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Young's Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE YOUNG, ET AL. v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Civil Action No. 22-5331 (W.D. La.), Judge Donald E. Walter of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Shreveport Division, grants Caesars's first motion to dismiss and
denies as moot its second motion to dismiss.
Caesars is the ultimate parent company of various subsidiaries
which own and/or operate numerous casinos around the country.
Horseshoe Entertainment, a subsidiary of Caesars, owns and operates
Horseshoe Bossier City Hotel and Casino in Bossier City,
Louisiana.
Young alleges that at Caesars's casinos, patrons may gamble using
electronic gaming systems. When playing slot machines, a patron
pays for credits and if he stops gambling with remaining credits on
the slot machine, the machine generates a gaming voucher that
reflects the amount owed to the patron. Patrons insert the gaming
vouchers into cash-out kiosks to be paid their balance.
Young alleges that in many non-Caesars casinos, cash-out kiosks pay
patrons in exact change, but at some of Caesars's casinos,
including Horseshoe Bossier, the Kiosk rounds down to the nearest
dollar and pays that amount in cash. He argues that by dispensing
less change than the amount owed to patrons, Caesars has been
keeping the change off of hundreds of thousands if not millions of
Gaming Vouchers, essentially robbing its customers a few cents at a
time, on millions of transactions.
Young claims that on several occasions in 2021, he played the slot
machines at Horseshoe Bossier, and that when he went to cash out,
the kiosk short-changed him by rounding down to the nearest dollar.
He filed suit in the Court on Sept. 23, 2022, claiming that
Caesars's failure to give patrons exact change when they cash out
constitutes breach of contract, conversion, and alternatively,
unjust enrichment.
Young's lawsuit seeks to represent all visitors to a casino owned
or operated by Caesars between Sept. 23, 2012 and present who were
deprived of their change by Caesars].
On Dec. 28, 2022, Caesars filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. On Jan. 18, 2023, Young filed his
First Amended Complaint in lieu of an opposition brief in which he
raised an alternative ground for subject matter jurisdiction and
added factual allegations. On Feb. 1, 2023, Caesars filed a motion
to dismiss Young's Amended Complaint, in which it argues that
Young's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
In its first motion to dismiss, Caesars argues that the Court
should dismiss Young's claims for three reasons. First, its argues
that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
Young's claims because Young does not meet the amount in
controversy required by diversity jurisdiction, which is Young's
only asserted ground for subject matter jurisdiction. Second, it
argues that even if the Court may exercise subject matter
jurisdiction over Young's claims, Caesars is not the proper
defendant for the suit because its subsidiary, not itself, owns
Horseshoe Bossier. Finally, Caesars argues that even if it may be
held liable for the acts of its subsidiary, the Court should
dismiss Young's claims because Young fails to establish the
requisite elements for conversion, breach of contract, or unjust
enrichment.
In response to Caesars's first motion to dismiss, Young filed an
Amended Complaint which alleges alternative grounds for subject
matter jurisdiction -- diversity jurisdiction specifically over a
class action lawsuit. Additionally, he filed an opposition brief in
response to Caesars's second motion to dismiss in which he argues
that Caesars is the proper defendant for this suit. Young
acknowledges that while a parent company is generally not liable
for the acts of its subsidiary, the Court may pierce the corporate
veil in order to impose onto Caesars liability for Horseshoe
Entertainment's actions. He argues that Caesars' subsidiaries are
completely controlled by Caesars, share common board members with
it, and that the companies do not observe corporate formalities,
all of which allow the Court to pierce the corporate veil. Young
also insists that his factual allegations are sufficient to allege
the requisite elements for conversion, breach of contract, and
unjust enrichment.
Judge Walter holds that the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over Young's claims. Although Young appears to meet
Section 1332(a) and (d)'s diversity of citizenship requirements, he
finds that Young does not meet the requisite amount in controversy
under either section. Young's allegations are insufficient to
allege that he alone suffered $75,000 in damages, exclusive of
interest and costs, such that the Court may exercise diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332(a). Nor do Young's
allegations allow this Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction
under Section 1332(d).
Hence, Young fails to establish that the amount in controversy in
the case exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs.
Accordingly, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the matter, Judge Walter dismisses Young's claims without
prejudice.
Out of an abundance of caution, even if the Court had subject
matter jurisdiction, Judge Walter holds that he would dismiss
Young's claims because Caesars cannot be held liable for Horseshoe
Entertainment's alleged conduct. It is well established that
generally, a parent company may not be held liable for the acts of
its subsidiaries. Young fails to allege anything more than a
parent/subsidiary relationship. There are no facts which plausibly
support a finding that Horseshoe Entertainment and Caesars
constitute the same corporate identity, nor does Young allege any
facts that could plausibly indicate corporate fraud, injustice, or
unfairness.
Finally, Judge Walter holds that Young's request for amendment is
insufficient. Young's bare request without any indication of the
particular grounds on which the amendment is sought does not
constitute a motion within the contemplation of Rule 15(a).
Accordingly, Young's request for amendment is denied.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Walter grants Caesars's first
motion to dismiss and dismisses Young's claims without prejudice.
He denies Caesars's second motion to dismiss as moot. He also
denies Young's request for amendment.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Memorandum Ruling is
available at https://rb.gy/qjt6a from Leagle.com.
CARDINAL HEALTH: $109MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued the following statement
regarding the Cardinal Health Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LOUISIANA SHERIFFS' PENSION &
RELIEF FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
No. 2:19-cv-03347
CLASS ACTION
District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CARDINAL HEALTH,
INC. ("CARDINAL HEALTH" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD BETWEEN MARCH 2, 2015 AND MAY 2, 2018, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE
ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY, AND ARE NOT OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS ("SETTLEMENT CLASS" OR "SETTLEMENT CLASS
MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
September 11, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., before Judge Edmund A. Sargus,
Jr., at the United States District Court, Southern District of
Ohio, in Courtroom 311 of the Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse,
85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio 43215, to determine whether:
(1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the
above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $109,000,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) for
purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Litigation should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class; (3)
the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (4) to award Lead Counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined
in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below) and to award Lead Plaintiff
reimbursement of its time and expenses pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§78u-4(a)(4) in connection with its representation of the
Settlement Class, and, if so, in what amounts; and (5) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
The Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or
telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Settlement Class Members
to appear remotely at the hearing, without further written notice
to the Settlement Class. In order to determine whether the date and
time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement
Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is
important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement
website, www.CardinalHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making
any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at
the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.CardinalHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court
requires or allows Settlement Class Members to participate in the
Settlement Hearing by remote means, the information for accessing
the hearing will be posted to the Settlement website.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CARDINAL HEALTH COMMON STOCK
BETWEEN MARCH 2, 2015 AND MAY 2, 2018, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than
July 24, 2023) or electronically (no later than July 24, 2023).
Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by July 24, 2023 will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cardinal Health common stock
between March 2, 2015 and May 2, 2018, inclusive, and do not
validly and timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class in
accordance with the requirements set by the Court, you will be
bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the
Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or
not you submit a Proof of Claim.
The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice), and other Settlement documents, may be
accessed online at www.CardinalHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com, or
by writing to:
Cardinal Health Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301135
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS RECEIVED BY AUGUST
21, 2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF
THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE
$109,000,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $850,000
AND AN AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF NOT TO EXCEED $35,000 IN CONNECTION
WITH ITS REPRESENTATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS
MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL SO THAT THEY ARE RECEIVED BY AUGUST 21, 2023,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: APRIL 4, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.CardinalHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com.
CEREBRAL INC: Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe I, John Doe II, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Cerebral, Inc., Case No.
CGC-23-605585 was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
May 8, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-02239-JST to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Cerebral -- https://cerebral.com/ -- offers online therapy, mental
health assessments and expert care on your schedule.[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 -
Ari Nathan Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Avenue, Ste 600
Tacoma, WA 98402
Phone: (559) 917-4917
Email: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexis Bastian Cruz, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: acruz@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com
CHELSEA PINES: Chavez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Pines, Inc.
The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Chelsea Pines, Inc. as assignee of
Chelsea Pines Inn, Case No. 1:23-cv-03433 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Chelsea Pines Inn -- https://www.chelseapinesinn.com/ -- is a
bed and breakfast hosting guests in Chelsea and the Meatpacking
District.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
COLUMBUS FAMILY: Class of Health Aides Certified in Morrison Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY MORRISON, Plaintiff v. COLUMBUS FAMILY HEALTH
CARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-3460 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in
part the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification,
Court-Ordered Corrective Notice, and Court-Authorized Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.
The Defendant is a corporate entity that is in the business of
providing home healthcare services. Operating out of Columbus,
Ohio, it employed the Plaintiff as a home health aide from October
2010 to September 2022. At all times relevant to the action, the
Defendant compensated the Plaintiff on an hourly basis, and she
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
In her role as a home health aide, the Defendant required the
Plaintiff to drive to clients' homes to provide home health
services. This often required her to travel to and from multiple
different clients within a single shift. The Defendant, however,
did not pay the Plaintiff for her time traveling between clients'
homes within a single shift.
The Plaintiff understands that other home health aides, numbering
approximately 50 at any given time, also did not receive
compensation for their travel time between clients' homes within a
single shift. She learned of this allegedly company-wide pay
practice through her personal experience as a home health aide and
as a supervisor of home health aides from 2014 to 2020. As a
supervisor, she was actively involved in managing the schedules of
home health aides, and she often had to answer their questions
concerning why the Defendant did not pay them for their time spent
traveling between clients' homes during a single shift. The
Plaintiff alleges that she brought up this issue to her manager,
but her manager refused to address her complaint.
The Plaintiff commenced the action against the Defendant on Sept.
20, 2022. The Complaint alleges the Defendant violated: (1) the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.,
and (2) the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Revised Code
Section 4111, et seq.
Approximately one month after the Plaintiff filed the instant
action, her counsel learned that the Defendant had offered payments
to putative class members to compensate them for unpaid overtime,
including unpaid travel time as alleged in the Plaintiff's
Complaint, in exchange for a waiver and release of these claims. On
Nov. 2, 2022, the Plaintiff's counsel received an email from the
Defendant's counsel containing 20 executed "Settlement Agreement
and Release of Claims" from putative class members, all of whom
accepted payment of a sum of money in exchange for a purported
release of claims against the Defendant.
On Nov. 22, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking
conditional certification of the following FLSA collective: All
current and former Home Health Aides employed by Defendant between
Sept. 20, 2019 and the date of conditional certification, who
worked at least 40 hours in any workweek in which they traveled
between clients' homes in a single shift.
In addition, the Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order
requiring the Defendant to send a corrective notice to putative
class members who have received purported settlement payments from
the Defendant. Finally, she requests that the Court approves her
proposed procedure for sending notice of the FLSA claims to the
proposed collective.
The Defendant opposes certification arguing that the Plaintiff has
failed to meet her burden to establish a similarly situated class.
First, based on the facts highlighted in the Plaintiff's Motion and
Reply, Judge Sargus finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently
demonstrated that she is similarly situated to the putative class.
He agrees with the Plaintiff that she has put forth sufficient
evidence to meet the fairly lenient standard for conditional
certification.
And even if a plaintiff's declaration does not explicitly identify
members of the putative class, as the Defendant argues, Judge
Sargus opines that conditional certification may still be
appropriate. He says the content of the Plaintiff's declarations is
sufficient to carry her modest burden of allowing the Court to
reasonably infer the existence of other employees who were
subjected to the same allegedly unlawful pay practices while
employed by the Defendant.
Next, Judge Sargus (i) permits the Plaintiff to issue notice via
U.S. Mail and email; (ii) finds that the 60-day period appropriate
because the Defendant does not object to the 60-day opt-in period,
and because the proposed opt-in period is within the standard range
for collective action notices; (iii) orders the Defendant to
identify each such person by full name, last known address, all
known email addresses, and dates of employment within 14 days of
the entry of his Order; and (iv) does not permit the Plaintiff to
send a reminder notice in light of having approved two forms of
notice, and in the interest of unnecessarily stirring up litigation
or improperly suggesting the Court's endorsement.
Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff's proposed corrective notice
and in the absence of any objection to the language contained
therein, Judge Sargus agrees that a corrective notice is
appropriate. He orders the Defendant to provide a written
corrective notice to all putative collective action members who
have executed an Agreement. First, the Defendant has failed to shed
any light on a number of issues that trouble the Court concerning
these executed Agreements. Second, the language of the Agreement is
likely to have a chilling effect on the willingness of collective
action members to participate in the action.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Sargus grants in part and denies
in par the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification,
Court-Ordered Corrective Notice, and Court-Authorized Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.
He conditionally certifies the following class of opt-in
plaintiffs: All current and former Home Health Aides employed by
Defendant between Sept. 20, 2019 and the date of conditional
certification, who worked at least 40 hours in any workweek in
which they traveled between clients' homes in a single shift.
Additionally, Judge Sargus orders the Defendant to produce, within
14 days from the date of his Opinion and Order, a list in
electronic and importable format of the names, last known physical
addresses, email addresses, and dates of employment of all
potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiff is authorized to send
the proposed notice to all potential opt-in plaintiffs by U.S. mail
and email. All potential opt-in plaintiffs will be provided 60 days
from the date of mailing the notice and opt-in consent forms to opt
into the lawsuit.
Judge Sargus also orders the Defendant to issue the Plaintiff's
proposed corrective notice to all potential opt-in plaintiffs who
have received purported settlement payments from it.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/6c3lt from Leagle.com.
COTY INC: June 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE COTY INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION
Consolidated
C.A. No. 2019-0336-LWW
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS AND DERIVATIVE ACTION,
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS AND DERIVATIVE ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
The Delaware Court of Chancery authorized this Notice.
This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
Notice of Pendency of Class and Derivative Action: Please be
advised that your rights will be affected by the above-captioned
stockholder class and derivative action (the "Action") pending in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") if you
(i) are currently a record or beneficial owner of share(s) of Coty
Inc. ("Coty" or the "Company") common stock (NYSE: "COTY") (a
"Current Stockholder"), or (ii) were a record holder or beneficial
owner of share(s) of Coty common stock issued and outstanding as of
February 11, 2019, whose share(s) were accepted for purchase on
April 30, 2019 in connection with a Tender Offer (defined in
paragraph 4 below) or remained outstanding after April 30, 2019 (a
"Class Member").
Notice of Settlement: Please also be advised that (i) co-lead
plaintiffs Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund, Charles Waddell,
and John Bicanich (collectively, "Co-Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf
of themselves and the Classes (defined in paragraph 29 below), (ii)
Defendants Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer, Sabine Chalmers, and
Pierre Laubies (collectively, the "Director Defendants"), (iii)
Defendants Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Peter Harf, and Anna-Lena
Kamenetzky (collectively, the "JAB Director Defendants"), (iv)
Defendants JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage
Holdco B.V.1 (collectively, the "JAB Entity Defendants," and with
the Director Defendants and JAB Director Defendants, the
"Defendants"), and (v) Nominal Defendant Coty (collectively with
Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants, the "Parties") have reached a
proposed settlement for $35,000,000 in cash and the implementation
of certain corporate governance terms described below (the
"Settlement"). The full terms of the Settlement are set forth in a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the
"Stipulation") filed with the Court on March 29, 2023. The proposed
Settlement, if approved, will resolve all claims against the
Defendants in the Action, including claims brought derivatively on
Coty's behalf.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. This Notice
explains how Current Stockholders and Class Members will be
affected by the Settlement.
1 After the Action was filed Cottage Holdco B.V. was renamed JAB
Beauty B.V., and JAB Cosmetics B.V. was merged with and into JAB
Holdings B.V.
The following table provides a brief summary of the rights you have
as a Current Stockholder and/or Class Member and the relevant
deadlines.
2 Any capitalized terms used in this Notice that are not otherwise
defined in this Notice shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
the Stipulation (defined above). A copy of the Stipulation is
available at www.CotyStockholderLitigation.com.
Questions? Call 877-390-3347, email
info@CotyStockholderLitigation.com, or visit
www.CotyStockholderLitigation.com.
CURRENT STOCKHOLDERS' AND/OR CLASS MEMBERS'
LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE SETTLEMENT:
ONLY ELIGIBLE CLASS MEMBERS RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM THE SETTLEMENT.
CLASS MEMBERS DO NOT NEED TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM.
If you are an Eligible Class Member, you may be eligible to receive
a pro rata distribution from the Settlement proceeds. Eligible
Class Members do not need to submit a claim form in order to
receive a distribution from the Settlement, if approved by the
Court. Your distribution from the Settlement will be paid to you
directly. See paragraphs 43-46 below for further discussion.
OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN OBJECTION SO THAT
IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAY 29, 2023.
If you are a Current Stockholder or Class Member and would like to
object to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
or Co-Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, you may write to the Court and explain the reasons for
your objection.
ATTEND A HEARING ON JUNE 13, 2023 AT 11:00 A.M., AND FILE A NOTICE
OF INTENTION TO APPEAR SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAY 29,
2023.
The Settlement Hearing will be held on June 13, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.,
before The Honorable Lori W. Will, Vice Chancellor, in person at
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County,
Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, to, among other things: (i) determine
whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions
provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate
to the Classes, and should be approved by the Court; (ii) determine
whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D
to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Action with
prejudice as against the Defendants; (iii) determine whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and
reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (iv) determine
whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel for a Fee and Expense
Award should be approved; (v) hear and rule on any objections to
the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the
application by Co-Lead Counsel for a Fee and Expense Award; and
(vi) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before
the Court in connection with the Settlement.
Filing a written objection and notice of intention to appear that
is received by May 29, 2023, allows you to speak in Court, at the
discretion of the Court, about your objection. In the Court's
discretion, the June 13, 2023 hearing may be conducted by telephone
or video conference. If you submit a written objection, you may
(but you do not have to) attend the hearing and, at the discretion
of the Court, speak to the Court about your objection.
Any Current Stockholder or Class Member may object to the
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses
("Objector"); provided, however, that no Objector shall be heard or
entitled to object unless, on or before May 29, 2023, such person
(1) files their written objection, together with copies of all
other papers and briefs supporting the objection specified in
paragraph 55 below, with the Register in Chancery at the address
set forth below; (2) serves such papers (electronically by File &
ServeXpress, by hand, by first-class U.S. Mail, or by express
service) on Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel at the
addresses set forth below; and (3) emails a copy of the written
objection to mrichardson@labaton.com,
jgorris@friedlandergorris.com, dtejtel@fotpllc.com,
lauren.aguiar@skadden.com, paul.lockwood@skadden.com,
jducayet@sidley.com, dicamillo@rlf.com,
kshannon@potteranderson.com, and penerio@hegh.law.
REGISTER IN CHANCERY
Register in Chancery
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
New Castle County
Leonard L. Williams Justice Center
500 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
Mark Richardson
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(888) 219-6877
Jeffrey M. Gorris
FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
1201 N. Market St., Suite 2200
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 573-3500
David F.E. Tejtel
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
(888) 529-1108
DEFENDANTS' AND COTY'S COUNSEL
Lauren E. Aguiar
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
(212) 735-3000
Paul J. Lockwood
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 636
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 651-3000
Counsel for Defendants Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Peter Harf,
Anna-Lena Kamenetzky, JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and
Cottage Holdco B.V.
Jim Ducayet
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 853-7000
Raymond J. DiCamillo
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
One Rodney Square
920 North King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 651-7700
Counsel for Defendants Sabine Chalmers, Erhard Schoewel, and Robert
Singer
Kevin R. Shannon
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
1313 N. Market Street
Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 984-6000
Counsel for Defendant Pierre Laubies
Patricia L. Enerio
HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP
300 Delaware Ave., Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 472-7300
Counsel for Nominal Defendant Coty Inc.
CREATIVE MARKETING: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Marketing,
Inc. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Creative Marketing,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03857 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Creative Marketing, Inc. doing business as CMC Promos --
http://www.creativemc.com/-- is in the management, scientific, and
technical consulting services, professional, scientific, and
technical services, marketing consulting services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CRUNCHBASE INC: Faces Suit Over Commercial Use of Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Crunchbase
Inc. misappropriated people's names, photographs, and personal
information to promote its services in violation of the Ohio Right
of Publicity Statute, a new proposed federal class action said.
Robert Casar and Michael Fink alleged that Crunchbase used their
personal identifying information without their consent to encourage
visitors to its business-search platform to purchase subscriptions
allowing full access to profiles of companies and employees.
The company's "intelligent prospecting" platform provides the
profiles for use by salespeople in finding and closing deals,
according to a complaint filed in the US District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio. [GN]
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Ports Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Anthony Ports, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., a California corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a
Missouri corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-23-605522 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on May 5, 2023, and assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-02218.
On March 30, 2023, the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
against the Defendants wherein he alleges the following causes of
action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest
Breaks; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;
Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; and Violation of
Business and Professions Code Section.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP
4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90807
Phone: (213) 452-0510
Facsimile: (213) 452-0514
Email: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com
CVS HEALTH: Bid to Remand Been Suit to St. Louis Cir. Court Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLA BEEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22CV964 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward
Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
Case to State Court.
Plaintiff Been filed the putative class action proceeding against
Defendants in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
alleging breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act ("MMPA"). She asserts that the Defendants sold over-the-counter
"CVS Health" flu and cough medicine falsely advertised as
"Non-Drowsy" (the "Products"), despite containing dextromethorphan
hydrobromide ("DXM"), a substance scientifically proven to cause
drowsiness.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, restitution, attorney's
fees, rescission, and "such further relief as the Court deems just,
including injunctive relief," and all profits, benefits, and other
compensation obtained by the Defendants through the inequitable
conduct, on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated
Missouri citizens who purchased the Products over a five-year
period in Missouri.
Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. timely removed the matter to federal
court, invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The
Plaintiff filed the instant motion, requesting the case be remanded
to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. In support of
her motion to remand, she argues that the minimum amount in
controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $5
million necessary to establish jurisdiction under CAFA.
Judge Autrey finds that CAFA jurisdiction is not defeated by the
Plaintiff's precertification stipulation of damages because she
cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class
is certified.
Judge Autrey also finds that the Plaintiff fails to show that it is
legally impossible for her and the putative class to recover more
than $5 million. He says the Plaintiff makes no attempt to identify
the actual percentage she will seek to recover, but asserts that
hypothetically, the percentage could be ten percent or lower.
However, she ignores her allegations in her Petition where she
seeks to recover a full refund and disgorgement for all profits,
benefits, and other compensation obtained by the Defendant through
this inequitable conduct.
Judge Autrey concludes that Defendant CVS Pharmacy demonstrated by
a "preponderance of the evidence" that the amount in controversy is
met, and the Plaintiff did not establish to a "legal certainty"
that the claim is for less than the requisite amount. He finds
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) exists
in the matter and denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Opinion, Memorandum &
Order is available at https://rb.gy/cudk7 from Leagle.com.
EAD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Lucente Suit Over Tip Misappropriation
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS LUCENTE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and ALVIN SUMIGCAY, individually, v. EAD ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC, MUSE PAINTBAR, LLC, and MUSE TRIBECA, LLC,, Case No.
2:23-cv-03560 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2023) alleges that the Defendants'
tip pool distribution policy violates the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law and appropriate rules and regulations.
The Defendants employed Alexis Lucente, those individuals similarly
situated to her, and Alvin Sumigcay, as servers/classroom
facilitators at New York studios. These servers set up for and
clean after the events, serve food and drinks to customers, while
also facilitating the events. At the end of each event, the
Defendants routinely receive gratuities from customers.
The Defendants unlawfully kept tips received by their employees,
including by allowing managers or supervisors to keep a portion of
the Plaintiffs' and FLSA Collective's tips. The Defendants also
failed to furnish Servers with accurate statements of wages listing
all tips earned. Specifically, Defendants excluded cash tips
provided to Servers from their wage statements, the Plaintiff
alleges.
As a consequence of the willful underpayment of wages, the
Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective have incurred
damages thereby and the Defendants are indebted to them in the
amount of the unpaid tipped wages, together with interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs in an amount to be
determined at trial, added the suit.
Plaintiff Lucente began her employment as a Server with Defendants
in February 2016 and remains employed. Plaintiff Sumigcay began
working for the Defendants in October 2018 as a Server in
Defendants' Great Neck, New York location. In October 2019, the
Defendants changed Sumigcay's worksite to Garden City, New York.
EAD Entertainment operates a chain of event/art classspaces,
referred to as "studios," where customers paint in a social group,
while being served food and drink.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
Benjamin A. Goldstein, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
bgoldstein@kesslermatura.com
EAGLE TRUCKLINE: Fails to Pay Driver's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RAJAT KUMAR, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
EAGLE TRUCKLINE LLC, SIMAR GILL, and GURKIRAT GILL, Case No.
1:23-cv-02581 (D.N.J., May 11, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid earned
wages and unpaid overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and all
similarly situated current and former truck drivers and helpers.
Accordingly, Mr. Kumar estimates that he spent 66 hours per week,
driving about 4,500 miles for the Defendants. However, over the
course of his employment, the Defendants never paid him overtime
for the hours that he worked more than eight (8) hours per day.
Besides, unpaid overtime wages from the beginning of his employment
with the Defendants, Mr. Kumar was also not paid for any of his
work that he did for the last four weeks of his employment with the
Defendants, the lawsuit alleges.
Mr. Kumar was employed by the Defendants from February 6, 2022, to
July 15, 2022 as a truck driver for Eagle Truckline.
Eagle Truckline is in the business of providing truck
transportation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
ECOVACS ROBOTICS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Robot Vacuums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit alleges Ecovacs Robotics, Inc. has
concealed from consumers a defect that can cause its Deebot robot
vacuums to fail prematurely.
The 37-page lawsuit says that despite the in-home tech company's
quality guarantees, Deebot vacuums are equipped with a defective,
easily damaged motor that was built from second-rate materials and
lacks a sufficient barrier to prevent dirt, dust and hair from
penetrating the motor's inner mechanism. Failure of the Deebot
vacuum motor is signaled by four beeps and an error code message
reading "main brush malfunction," the Ecovacs lawsuit describes.
Due to this apparent defect, a crucial component of the pricey
robot vacuum is "certain to fail," causing the device to become
"wholly inoperable" long before the end of its expected lifespan,
the case argues.
"Absent a functioning motor, the [Deebot vacuums] are incapable of
use and are worthless," the lawsuit summarizes.
Industry standards dictate that for a robot vacuum to last for its
generally expected four- to six-year lifespan, its motor must be
protected from the accumulation of dirt, dust and hair, the filing
stresses. Manufacturers can accomplish this by positioning a
vacuum's motor in a suitable spot and/or using a protective casing
and sturdy materials, the lawsuit says.
The suit contends that the Deebot products at issue -- listed below
-- lack these critical features because Ecovacs has chosen to cut
corners on durability at the expense of consumers.
"Ecovacs chose to manufacture the products using outdated and
defective technology in an effort to save costs and force consumers
into purchasing a replacement unit," the case charges, claiming the
products are unfit for their purpose of automatically vacuuming
floors without human intervention.
"Save yourself the $ and buy something else," consumer review
suggests
Per the complaint, Ecovacs represents itself as an experienced
manufacturer "at the forefront of innovation in smart home
robotics." The company markets its Deebot vacuums as "versatile
robot[s] for deep cleaning," and equipped with a "V-shaped main
brush" to "sweep[], lift[] and vacuum[] in a single pass for more
lifting of dirt and dust especially on carpets," the suit says.
According to the lawsuit, however, hundreds of customers have taken
to the internet to complain about their malfunctioning Deebot
vacuums and futile attempts to seek redress with Ecovacs, posting
complaints to which the company regularly responds.
Per the suit, consumers have posted on Ecovacs' website and
third-party retailer sites like Amazon.com and Walmart.com, calling
the robot vacuums "dud[s]" that "[didn't] even last a year."
ClassAction.org previously helped with this investigation.
One buyer complained on Amazon.com that their product "had
malfunction after malfunction and now it has stopped working for
good," the case shares. Another individual bought three Deebot
vacuums and claimed that each had "died within a year," the filing
says.
Similarly, a consumer who posted a complaint on Walmart.com
reported that their "Deebot stopped working a week after the return
window ended," the lawsuit relays. As the suit tells it, the buyer
contacted Ecovacs about the problem and, in the post, contended
that "[the Ecovacs support agents] were not much help. Save
yourself the $ and buy something else."
Notably, in its responses to online complaints about the defect,
Ecovacs has often provided troubleshooting tips and hinted that
"any issues are the fault of the user and result from improper
use," the case shares.
The plaintiff, a California resident who bought a Deebot N79 vacuum
in November 2021, claims to have heard the device beep four times
before it died only two months after purchasing it. When the man
called customer service, the Ecovacs agents "continuously
transferred [him] from one rep to the next until the call dropped,"
and the plaintiff was unable to file a warranty claim, the filing
states.
The suit reports that after a futile -- and expensive -- attempt to
fix the product at a local vacuum repair shop, the plaintiff was
forced to buy a replacement robot vacuum from another manufacturer
for $399.
Ecovacs has long known about the defect, filing claims
The lawsuit alleges that Ecovacs "has always known" about the
defect -- thanks in part to its own internal testing, scores of
customer complaints, repair records and warranty claims -- yet has
made no significant modifications to remedy the problem, much less
warn consumers before they purchase a Deebot product.
As the suit tells it, the company has "routinely" denied no-cost
repairs to malfunctioning devices, even if a vacuum is still
covered by the one-year warranty. Rather than fulfill its warranty
obligations, Ecovacs instead informs buyers in search of repairs
that the defect is not covered, or provides them with "equally
defective" replacements or parts that only fix the problem
temporarily, the case shares.
The company has similarly refused to repair Deebot vacuums that
malfunction after their warranty has expired, and Ecovacs has
failed to issue a recall or reimburse consumers for out-of-pocket
expenses, the complaint adds.
The filing charges that the company's "knowing fraud" with regard
to its sale of inherently defective Deebot vacuums has resulted in
substantial repair and replacement costs for many frustrated
consumers.
Which Deebot robot vacuums are mentioned in the lawsuit?
The complaint states that all Deebot models are afflicted by the
apparent motor defect, including, without limitation, the N79,
N79S, N79SE, 901, 920, T10, X1 Omni, X1 Turbo, N8 Pro, N8 Pro+,
500, Ozmo N7, T8, T8 AIVI, Ozmo T8, U2, U2 Pro, 600, Ozmo 960, 710,
711, 711S and 500 models.
Who's covered by the lawsuit?
The case looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased a robot vacuum in the Deebot product line.
I have a Deebot robot vacuum. What do I do to join the lawsuit?
Nothing! Typically, you don't need to do anything to join or add
your name to a class action lawsuit when it's first filed. The time
to act is if and when the lawsuit reaches a settlement, at which
time the people covered by the deal -- known as class members --
may be notified directly by email or regular mail with instructions
on what to do next.
Remember, it often takes months or even years for a class action
lawsuit to be resolved.
If you own a Deebot vacuum, have in the past, or simply want to
stay in the loop on class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign
up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN]
EMPIRE 250 GAS: Yoruk Sues Over Underpayment of Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Faruk Yoruk, and similarly situated employees v. EMPIRE 250 GAS
INC., SUNRISE GAS SERVICE STATION INC., KINGS PETROL INC, UTICA GAS
INC, IHSAN RASSOUL ABDUL, QIN TSUI, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-5,
personally and individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-03415 (E.D.N.Y., May
5, 2023), is brought arising out of the Defendants' willful and
systemic wage violations, resulting in deliberate underpayment of
wages to Plaintiff in violation of the federal and state wage laws
and to recover unpaid wages owed to him pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants willfully violated the FLSA
and NYLL by failing to pay the minimum wage, failing to pay
overtime premium pay; failing to provide meal break; failing to pay
spread-of-hour pay; failing to provide the Notice of
Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday under N.Y. Lab. Law; failing
to provide an accurate wage statement under N.Y. Lab. Law; and to
recover penalties for wage notice violations; misappropriated tips;
liquidated damages; interest; and attorneys' fees and costs, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee as a cashier of the gas stations
owned and operated by the Defendants.
The Defendants owned and operated gas stations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emre Polat, Esq.
EMRE POLAT, PLLC
EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, New York 10006
Phone: (212) 480-4500
EN ROUTE JEWELRY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against En Route Jewelry,
LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. En Route Jewelry, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03747-PGG (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
En Route Jewelry -- https://enroutejewelry.com/ -- is the best
online jewelry store with a focus on romantic jewelry.[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
FERRARA CANDY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Cookies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem at madisonrecord.com reports that an Illinois woman has
filed a class action lawsuit against the Ferrara Candy Co.,
claiming the company markets its cookies as being made with "real
Madagascar Vanilla" when the product actually contains imitation
vanilla.
Plaintiff Angela Stumpf filed a class action lawsuit in the St.
Clair County Circuit Court against Ferrara Candy Co., citing
violations of the state's Consumer Fraud Act and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
The lawsuit alleges Ferrara Candy Co. owns the Keebler brand under
which it sells Pecan Sandies Shortbread Cookies "explicitly" and
"misleadingly" advertised as being "made with real Madagascar
Vanilla" on the front of the packaging. Stumpf alleges the cookies
are not "made with real Madagascar vanilla" or real vanilla of any
kind, but actually contains only "vanilla flavoring."
Stumpf claims she bought the product, believing it to contain
actual Madagascar vanilla. She adds that had she known the product
contained imitation vanilla, she would have not purchased the
cookies at all or paid a lower price.
According to the lawsuit, Ferrara deceptively and fraudulently
misrepresented the products in violation of the state's Consumer
Fraud Act and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Stumpf is demanding a jury trial to seek damages for herself and
everyone in her proposed class action lawsuit, plus court costs,
attorney fees and any other relief the court deems proper. She is
represented in this case by attorneys Matthew H. Armstrong, David
C. Nelson, Robert L. King, and Stuart L. Cochran.
St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 23LA0396 [GN]
FIVE KEYS SCHOOLS: Wooten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Keys Schools and
Programs, et al. The case is styled as Rainie S. Wooten, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. Five Keys Schools and
Programs, Does 1 To 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606322 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 5, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Five Keys -- https://www.fivekeyscharter.org/ -- is a nationally
recognized non-profit education management corporation that
operates accredited charter schools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
GAMESTOP INC: Coulter Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alyssa Coulter, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. GAMESTOP INC., a Minnesota
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV00760 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Butte, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on May 8, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 2:23-cv-00851-MCE-DMC.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for: failure to pay all
overtime wages; meal period violations; rest period violations;
failure to pay all sick pay wages; wage statement violations; late
payment of wages; waiting time penalties; and violations of
Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
elizabeth.rhodes@ogletree.com
GENESYS TECHNOLOGY: Taucher Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genesys Technology
N.V. The case is styled as Leah Taucher, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Genesys Technology N.V. doing
business as: Jumba Bet, Case No. 4:23-cv-00060-JHM (W.D. Ky., May
5, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Genesys Technology N.V. doing business as Jumba Bet --
https://www.jumbabet.com/ -- offers 72 video slots and 17 classic
slots.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bartley K. Hagerman, Esq.
Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
MEHR FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
201 W. Short Street, Suite 800
Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: (859) 225-3731
Fax: (859) 225-3830
Email: bkh@austinmehr.com
pgf@austinmehr.com
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Pomerantz, Lowey to Serve Co-Lead Class Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosie Manins, writing for Law360, reports that attorneys from
Pomerantz LLP and Lowey Dannenberg PC will serve as co-lead counsel
for the proposed class plaintiffs in an investor case against
Atlanta-based payments technology giant Global Payments Inc., a
Georgia federal judge has decided. [GN]
GSK PLC: Court Dismissed Proposed Zantac Drug Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
theglobeandmail.com reports that the British Columbia Supreme Court
dismissed a proposed class action in Canada against heartburn drug
Zantac over increased cancer risk, drug maker GSK Plc said.
First approved in 1983, Zantac became the world's bestselling
medicine in 1988 and one of the first drugs to top $1-billion in
annual sales.
Originally marketed by a forerunner of GSK, it was later sold
successively to Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and finally Sanofi.
All four drug makers, citing scientific consensus, have repeatedly
asserted that Zantac does not cause cancer, ahead of a forthcoming
U.S. trial for GSK.
"GSK will continue to vigorously defend proposed class actions by
ranitidine users that have been filed in Ontario and Quebec as well
as individual actions filed by ranitidine users in Canada," the
British company said in a statement, adding it welcomed the
decision. [GN]
HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE: Bussey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HealthCompare
Insurance Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as James
Bussey, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
HealthCompare Insurance Services, Inc., Digital Thrive, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02033-ELR (N.D. Ga., May 5, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
HealthCompare Insurance Services, Inc. --
https://ifp.healthcompare.com/ -- offers to find health
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
Building 15, Suite 120
3575 Piedmont Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 513-6651
Fax: (404) 549-4654
Email: shkoval@aol.com
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: $12.5M Prelim. Deal Agreed in Events Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hank Schultz of Natural Product Insider reports that network
marketing giant Herbalife has agreed to pay out $12.5 million in a
preliminary settlement of a class action suit that alleged the
company was inducing distributors to sign up for events that cost
$600 or more a year to attend.
Herbalife agrees to pay but does not admit guilt
The company has not admitted guilt in the settlement but has set
aside the required funds to make payments to members of the class,
as detailed in a recent earnings report. The hearing on the final
settlement is set for Oct. 19, 2023.
"We still assert that the suit has no merit and are fully confident
that we would have prevailed, but the potential cost and
distraction of prolonged litigation on the company and its
management team meant that this settlement agreement was in the
best interests of the company as it allows us to focus on the
future growth of the company," a Herbalife spokesperson said in an
emailed statement.
The original suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Florida
on behalf of eight original plaintiffs. The cases of four of the
plaintiffs were transferred to the Central District of California,
where the final settlement agreement was recorded on April 6,
2023.
Of the $12.5 settlement, $7.5 million—or about 60%—will be
allocated to pay out settlements to individuals who apply. The rest
goes to paying the legal team and other fees.
Complaint alleged RICO violation
The key elements of the case are the "alleged misrepresentations
made by Herbalife to its distributors regarding the financial
benefits to them that would result from attending its 'Circle of
Success' events," according to language of an amended complaint.
The case rested in part on alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO), a law that
was originally put into place to help prosecute organized crime
cases. The law has been applied in several different kinds of cases
in the intervening decades, however, including a 2018 suit filed
against class action law firm Newport Trial Group.
According to the complaint, the distributors were told that "If you
go to all the events, you qualify for everything -- you will get
rich."
However, the way the events were structured, the people who really
benefited were a cadre of about 100 top-level distributors who
allegedly were paid fees for appearing at the events.
Fees for events added up quickly
The complaint alleged two of the plaintiffs spent as much as
$20,000 on attending events between 2011 and 2015. Another
plaintiff claimed to have forked over $3,500 attending events as
well as purchasing $10,000 worth of products to qualify for higher
compensation and recognition levels.
An additional plaintiff alleged she was chosen to be part of the
"event production team." This required her not only to work at the
events but to spend more than $10,000 in attendance and travel
fees.
In addition to the cost of attending events, the complaint alleged
Herbalife had structured its business plan in such a way that
distributors were "locked in a cycle of mandatory monthly
purchases."
Herbalife subsequently agreed to more transparency on income
potential
In 2016, Herbalife agreed to pay a $200 million fine to the Federal
Trade Commission to settle a complaint that the company was
operating an illegal pyramid scheme.
As part of the settlement, Herbalife agreed to restructure its
compensation plan to place greater emphasis on sales of finished
products to consumers and to lessen the degree to which the
recruitment of new "downline" distributors was rewarded.
As part of that agreement, Herbalife was required to be more
transparent about what distributors could reasonably expect to
earn.
A chart on the Herbalife website published in August 2022 showed
just half of the company's distributors in 2021—other than those
in their first year—earned more than $241 in a typical month,
before expenses. Only 10% of these experienced distributors earned
$3,925 in a month.
Half of first-year distributors earned more than $190 in a month.
The most successful experienced Herbalife distributors are
typically known as the President's Team members. These Herbalife
stars earned more than $18,176 in a month, the chart shows, but
they are in the top 1% and typically spent five to 11 years to
ascend to the President's Team. [GN]
HYATT HOTELS: Housekeepers Sue Over Worker Protection Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
wehotimes.com reports that a room attendant at the Andaz West
Hollywood, a Hyatt property, filed a class-action lawsuit against
the hotel alleging violations of the West Hollywood Hotel Worker
Protection Ordinance ("Ordinance"), which the West Hollywood City
Council signed into law in August 2021. While similar ordinances
have passed in Los Angeles, Seattle, Oakland, Santa Monica,
Emeryville, Glendale, Long Beach, and recently Irvine, this is the
first lawsuit to be brought under the West Hollywood "Housekeepers'
Bill of Rights" law. The workers are represented by Lauren
Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law.
The Ordinance protects West Hollywood hotel employees against the
risk of sexual assault by implementing panic buttons and other
measures, and it guarantees room attendants fair compensation when
their workload exceeds proscribed limits.
The lawsuit, which was filed in California state court, alleges
that even though the relevant portions of the Ordinance went into
effect on January 1, 2022, Hyatt failed to pay the plaintiff and
other room attendants premium pay as required by the Ordinance when
their heavy housekeeping workloads exceeded the set limits. The
complaint also alleges that Hyatt failed to provide workers with
notice of their rights under the Ordinance, failed to maintain
proper records about workloads, and failed to permit the workers'
representative to inspect records.
Plaintiff Morena Hernandez, who has worked as a room attendant at
the Andaz for more than 25 years, said, "My coworkers and I fought
hard for this ordinance. I remember staying at West Hollywood City
Hall until the City Council passed this law at three in the
morning, and we cried tears of joy. But we weren't done fighting
for our rights. Now, our goal is for Hyatt and other West Hollywood
hotels to respect the law–and respect us as workers."
Recent SEC reports show that the CEO of Hyatt, Mark Hoplamazian,
earned $16.6 million in 2022.
The class action suit is being championed by UNITE HERE Local 11, a
labor union representing over 32,000 hospitality workers in
Southern California and Arizona who work in hotels, restaurants,
universities, convention centers, and airports [GN]
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Faces Okaro Suit Over 15.1% Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSANEME OKARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ICAHN ENTERPRISES L.P., CARL C. ICAHN, DAVID WILLETTS,
TED PAPAPOSTOLOU, KEITH COZZA, and SUNGHWAN CHO, Case No.
1:23-cv-21773 (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2023) is a class action on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Icahn
securities between August 2, 2018 and May 9, 2023, inclusive
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On May 2, 2023, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging
that Icahn Enterprises' "last reported indicative year-end [net
asset value] of $5.6 billion is inflated by at least 22%." The
report also claimed that the Company operates a "ponzi-like
economic structure" and "has been using money taken in from new
investors to pay out dividends to old investors." On this news,
Icahn Enterprises’ share price fell $10.06 per share, or 20%, to
close at $40.36 per share on May 2, 2023.
Then, on May 10, 2023, before the market opened, Icahn Enterprises
filed its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the period
ended March 31, 2023. Therein, the Company stated that the U.S.
Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York contacted
Icahn Enterprises on May 3, 2023, seeking production of information
relating to the Company, certain of its affiliates' "corporate
governance, capitalization, securities offerings, dividends,
valuation, marketing materials, due diligence and other materials."
The Company claimed it is "cooperating with the request" and is
"providing documents in response to the voluntary request for
information." On this news, Icahn Enterprises' share price fell
$5.75 per share, or 15.1%, to close at $32.22 per share on May 10,
2023, the suit says.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly 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:
(1) that Icahn Enterprises was inflating its net asset value;
(2) that the Company was using money taken in from new
investors
to pay out dividends to old investors;
(3) that, as a result, the Company would become the subject of
criminal and/or regulatory scrutiny; and
(4) that as a result of the foregoing, the Defendant's positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
Icahn Enterprises is a master limited partnership holding company
owning subsidiaries engaged in the following operating businesses:
Investment, Energy, Automotive, Food Packaging, Real Estate, Home
Fashion and Pharma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
601 21st Street, Suite 300
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Telephone: 772-231-9600
E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.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
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
IG MARKETS: Investors Sue Over Unfair Sell of Financial Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that one of the
world's largest providers of highly complex financial betting
products has been hit with a class action on behalf of 20,000
Australian investors who have allegedly lost hundreds of millions
of dollars.
IG Markets, a group listed in London with a large business in
Australia, is alleged to have sold high risk financial products to
inexperienced investors. The case is being brought by law firm
Piper Alderman and is funded by Omni Bridgeway in the Federal
Court.
The class action alleges IG Markets failed to adequately assess
investors' objectives, financial situations and did not adequately
disclose the risks to its customers. The case applies to anyone who
acquired contracts for difference from IG Markets over the past six
years.
A spokesperson for IG said the company would be defending the
action.
"At IG, our focus is on providing our clients with a world-leading
trading experience," the spokesperson said. "We are differentiated
by our strong commitment to our clients and our technology,
education and information resources that support our clients
through their trading journey. This has and continues to be at the
heart of our proposition."
Contracts for difference have been described by a Federal Court
judge previously as "financial heroin hits". They allow investors
to make short-term bets on movements in share prices or commodity
prices. They also allow the purchaser to use leverage, basically a
debt with the betting house, to amplifying their winnings. However,
the products are also designed so that if an investor's bet is
wrong, the investor can be forced to pay the trading house many
times the amount they initially punted on the price movement.
Part of the case relies on changes that IG Markets made to its
disclosures to customers before and after new rules the corporate
watchdog put in place in March 2021 regarding trading the
products.
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission moved to
drastically reduce the amount of leverage available to retail
customers on each product. Before the changes, customers in
Australia were able to magnify their bet on the movement in the
price of a company's shares or a commodity by as much as 500
times.
ASIC's changes brought Australian laws into line with international
jurisdictions such as the UK and countries in Europe. Contracts for
difference are banned in the US.
An ASIC review in 2019 found 72 per cent of retail clients who
traded the products lost money. Piper Alderman claims that ASIC
data suggests losses for IG Markets' clients could be as much as
$800 million over the six-year period.
"There is evidence that highly leverage CFDs should never have been
marketed to everyday Australian investors who had little or no
experience in trading such complex products," Piper Alderman
partner Kate Sambrook said.
"The class action seeks to provide a remedy and recover these
losses for retail investors who should never have been exposed to
trading in such complex, high-risk products." [GN]
INDIANA: Show Cause Order Issued in K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, K. C. et al., Plaintiffs v. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF
THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA, in their official
capacities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00595-JPH-KMB
(S.D. Ind.), Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, orders
the Plaintiffs to show cause why briefing on their motion for class
certification should not be stayed.
In conjunction with their motion for a preliminary injunction, the
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify three classes and two
subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The
Defendants have filed a motion to stay briefing on that motion
until the Court rules on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
Judge Hanlon holds that neither side addresses whether class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) is the
appropriate procedure for the Plaintiffs to obtain the scope of
preliminary injunctive relief they request. Put differently, the
parties don't address why the Court would not be able to use its
equitable power to issue appropriately tailored preliminary
injunctive relief, should the Court conclude that the Plaintiffs
have shown they are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
Relatedly, the Plaintiffs have not identified any Seventh Circuit
authority explaining why Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
provides the appropriate procedure for applying a preliminary
injunction to nonparties.
Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any preliminary injunctive
relief remains to be determined. Similarly, Judge Martinez's Order
does not address the appropriate scope of preliminary injunctive
relief, should the Court find any relief warranted. Those issues
are the subject of the parties' ongoing briefing. His Order
addresses only the proper procedure that may be used to implement
any preliminary injunctive relief that the Court may award upon
full consideration of the parties' briefs, evidentiary materials,
and the parties' presentations at the June 14, 2023, hearing.
For these reasons, the Plaintiffs will show cause why briefing on
their motion for class certification should not be stayed because
the Court's equitable power would provide the more appropriate
procedure for the relief they seek.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/0ih0c from Leagle.com.
INMATE SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Inmates' Suit for $625,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Inmate Services agreed to pay
$625,000 to resolve claims it subjected inmates to brutal
conditions during transportation.
The settlement benefits individuals who were transported by Inmate
Services after Feb. 11, 2016, whose entire trip or any leg of the
trip exceeded 24 continuous hours.
A class action lawsuit against Inmate Services claims that the
company routinely transports prisoners and pre-trial detainees in
"cruel and unusual" conditions. Transport allegedly lasted days and
involved sitting on crowded metal benches while manacled and denied
inmates of sleep, food, water and access to bathrooms.
Inmate Services is a prisoner transport company that transports
prisoners and detainees by ground or air.
Inmate Services hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$625,000 settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash
payment based on the amount of time they were transported for.
Settlement payments will be distributed as follows:
24 to 48 hours of transport: $250
48 to 72 hours of transport: $450
72 to 96 hours of transport: $900
96 to 120 hours of transport: $1,400
120 to 144 hours of transport: $2,500
144 or more hours of transport: $4,000
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 30, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
4, 2023.
The deadline to file a claim with the settlement is June 30, 2023.
Claims may be submitted through the mail.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who were transported by Inmate Services after Feb. 11,
2016, whose entire trip or any leg of the trip exceeded 24
continuous hours
Potential Award
$4,000
Proof of Purchase
N/A
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
06/30/2023
Case Name
Stearns, et al. v. Inmate Services Corp., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00100-KGB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas
Final Hearing
08/04/2023
Settlement Website
InmateTransportSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Inmate Transport Settlement Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. – 7530
PO Box 2599
Faribault MN 55021-9599
Class Counsel
Mark E Merin
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E MERIN
Defense Counsel
Mark Mayfield
WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL PA [GN]
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Trustee Wants Judge to Block Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that Insys Therapeutics'
liquidation trust asked a Delaware bankruptcy judge on May 12 to
block an Arizona lawsuit over insurance coverage for claims against
the opioid drugmaker's ex-officers and directors, saying the suit
is barred by both bankruptcy precedent and Insys' Chapter 11 plan.
[GN]
INTERJET SA: Mexico's Consumer Watchdog Wins Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Riviera Maya News reports that the Federal Consumer Attorney's
Office (Profeco) has won a class action lawsuit against Interjet.
The lawsuit was filed for complaints received during 2018 to 2020
for various reasons, such as flight cancellations, missed flights
and connections and delays, among others.
According to a press release by Profeco, other complaints against
ABC Aerolíneas, Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable, commercially
known as Interjet, were unilateral improper charges, itinerary
change without prior notice and refusal to provide the service.
After exhausting all the procedural stages, on October 3, 2022, a
final judgment was issued ordering the airline to pay damages to
the consumers affected by the breach of the contract for the
provision of passenger air transportation services plus 20% as a
bonus on the cost of the ticket, as well as 9% of the legal
interest on the amounts generated.
The amount claimed with the bonus amounts to $144,020,781.33 pesos.
The class action suit involved 7,317 consumers represented by
Profeco through the Legal Sub-Prosecutor's Office. [GN]
INTERTAPE POLYMER: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Evans Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTERTAPE POLYMER CORP., a/k/a INTERTAPE POLYMER GROUP,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 8:23-cv-01042-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla.,
May 11, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief as
appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law.
Mr. Evans and those similarly situated have regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those
hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's shift
differentials as required by the FLSA. The Defendant paid the
Plaintiff, and its other hourly employees, additional
non-discretionary remuneration that Defendant failed to include in
the regular rate calculation, the lawsuit claims.
The Defendant also allegedly maintained an unlawful time-rounding
policy that did not comply with 29 C.F.R. section 785.48(b) because
the policy did not "average out so that the employees [we]re fully
compensated for all the time they actually work," and instead
"result[ed], over a period of time, in a failure to compensate the
employees properly for all the time they have actually worked."
Mr. Evans is an adult resident of Marysville, Michigan and is a
current employee of Intertape Polymer Corp. He has been employed
with Defendant for approximately 10 years.
Intertape Polymer is a packaging products and systems company based
in Florida, with 22 manufacturing locations in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.
6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
Fort Myers, FL 33912
Telephone: (239) 332-1650
E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com
- and -
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
jthompson@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
IOWA: Gov. Sued for Cutting Off Pandemic Unemployment Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Kauffman, writing for Iowa Capital Dispatch, reports that a
potential class-action lawsuit claims Governor Kim Reynolds'
refusal to pay pandemic-related jobless assistance to 30,000 Iowans
was unlawful and deprived those individuals of "life-sustaining
benefits."
Lawyers for Karla Smith of Pleasantville and Holly Bladel of
Clinton have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa claiming the two women and thousands of
other Iowans were illegally denied unemployment benefits in 2021
due to the actions of Reynolds and Iowa Workforce Development
Director Beth Townsend.
The lawsuit alleges Reynolds and Townsend violated Iowa's
Employment Security law, which requires the state to "cooperate
with the United States Department of Labor to the fullest extent"
and make available to Iowans "all advantages available under the
provisions of the Social Security Act that relate to unemployment
compensation."
Lawyers for Smith and Bladel are also seeking class-action status
in the case in an effort to recover damages for thousands of Iowans
who may have been harmed by Reynolds' decision.
The state has yet to file a response to the lawsuit.
Iowa was one of at least 25 states, all led by Republican
governors, that chose to terminate federal, pandemic-related
unemployment assistance before the programs expired in 2021. The
states did so largely in response to labor shortages, claiming the
enhanced benefits were encouraging people to remain unemployed
rather than return to the workforce.
At the time, the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee warned that
the states that pulling out of the unemployment programs stood to
lose up to $13 billion in economic activity by refusing the
infusion of federal money.
LAWSUIT: REFUSAL OF MONEY VIOLATED STATE LAW
In March 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress
passed the passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security
-- better known as the CARES Act -- to address mass layoffs,
business closures and soaring unemployment.
The act provided enhanced unemployment benefits, provided for cash
payments to be made to qualified recipients, extended the period of
eligibility for benefits, and allowed for benefits to be paid to
people who wouldn't otherwise have been eligible.
Iowa then entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of
Labor to provide the state's residents with Pandemic Emergency
Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), Federal Pandemic Unemployment
Compensation (FPUC) and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)
benefits, effective March 29, 2020.
Iowans later received letters from Iowa Workforce Development
stating they would be eligible for the benefits through September
4, 2021. However, in a May 10, 2021, memorandum, Townsend
recommended that Reynolds terminate Iowa's participation in the
federal programs effective June 12, 2021.
The next day, Reynolds officially adopted the recommendation and
announced that IWD, which administers many elements of Iowa's
unemployment programs, would be withdrawing from participation in
the federal, pandemic-related unemployment programs, despite the
fact that they were entirely funded by the federal government.
Iowa's participation in the programs was terminated on June 12,
three months before the programs were set to expire.
The lawsuit alleges Reynolds' "refusal to ensure continued access
to federal pandemic-related unemployment benefits" deprived
approximately 30,000 Iowans, including the two named plaintiffs, of
"life-sustaining benefits" to which they were entitled. The lawsuit
also notes that the number of Iowans affected by Reynolds' decision
may exceed 55,000.
The governor's decision to prematurely terminate Iowa's involvement
in the programs "violated clear legislative mandates and
constituted an unlawful exercise of executive authority," the
lawsuit claims.
The plaintiffs allege Iowa's Employment Security Law specifically
requires the state to provide citizens with "all advantages
available under the provisions of the Social Security Act that
relate to unemployment compensation," which directly contradicts
Townsend's published claim that "Iowa can elect to participate in
some federal programs and not others."
PLAINTIFFS' BENEFITS WERE CUT OFF IN JUNE 2021
Smith, who worked at Casey's General Store when the pandemic hit,
alleges that in mid-March 2020, her doctor told her a preexisting
lung condition made it dangerous for her to continue working in a
retail setting that had yet to install Plexiglas dividers at
workstations and didn't require face masks.
Smith alleges she quit her job to self-quarantine and began
collecting PEUC benefits of $408 per week in addition to FPUC
benefits to pay for food, housing, and other monthly expenses.
Reynolds' and Townsend's decision to terminate Iowa's involvement
in the federal programs left Smith without a critical source of
income just as the Delta variant surged, the lawsuit claims.
Bladel worked for a restaurant and gas station but was replaced
after seeking time off to care for an elderly relative who was
immunocompromised and at risk for COVID-19. She then began
collecting PUA and FPUC benefits until Iowa terminated its
involvement in the programs.
The lawsuit alleges the federal Social Security Act through which
the unemployment programs are administered requires that the
states' administration of benefit programs "be reasonably
calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when
due."
According to the plaintiffs, the federal government pays the full
cost of PUA, PEUC, and FPUC benefits, and alleges the U.S.
Department of Labor had instructed the states that unemployment
benefits provided under the CARES Act were nondiscretionary and
must be promptly paid to any individual who was determined to be
eligible.
The lawsuit goes on to allege that Iowans were not given a hearing
or opportunity to contest the termination of their benefits. In
fact, the lawsuit alleges, the form letter received by some
beneficiaries specifically instructed them not to call IWD unless
they needed assistance filing claims.
The lawsuit accuses the governor and Townsend of the
unconstitutional taking of benefits the plaintiffs were eligible to
receive, the denial of due process, and the violation of Iowa's
Employment Security Law.
The plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to declare Reynolds'
actions unlawful and order the benefits to be paid. [GN]
JACK HULLAND: Settlement Reached in Students' Isolation Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Elliot at yukon-news.com reports that a settlement has been
reached letting the Jack Hulland Elementary School council off the
hook in the class-action lawsuit representing certain students who
were at the school between 2002 and 2022. The lawsuit claims
isolation rooms, holds and restraints were used at the school. The
action against the Yukon government has not been settled and is
still proceeding.
On May 2, the Yukon Supreme Court passed a ruling allowing the
settlement agreement with the school council while allowing it to
proceed against the territorial government. A written decision
published by the court states that the school council consents to
the order and the government also agrees with the relief sought.
The decision states that in exchange for the dismissal of the
action against it, the school council will provide documents and
other information for the plaintiffs to use in their continuing
claim against the Yukon government.
Prior to this, Chief Justice Suzanne Duncan had to rule on the
adequacy and fairness of the settlement and its application to the
school council.
The judge found the definition of the class the lawsuit will apply
to is objectively reasonable.
The class is defined: "All students and former students at Jack
Hulland Elementary School who were subject to holds and restraints
and/or who were locked in a room and/or placed in seclusion between
Jan. 1, 2002 and June 30, 2022."
Duncan also found appropriate causes of action and common issues
apply to the class and that there are no conflicting issues and
that all class members will benefit from it.
The judge's decision notes that partial settlements of this kind
have been encouraged by past court decisions but also notes that
they must not hamper the other parties' ability to defend the
action.
The court heard the settlement was reached in good faith and its
terms support this.
Duncan also ruled that the plaintiffs would be well served in
taking the settlement rather than proceeding to litigation because
they are unlikely to be able to recover much in the way of damages
from the council even if they are successful. The council's chair
attested that the council's asset limit is $50,000 and it has no
insurance policy.
"The school council has relevant documents and information that
will assist the plaintiffs in assessing and prosecuting their
claims. The settlement agreement includes cooperation clauses that
require the school council to produce relevant non-privileged
documents to the litigation in their possession within a certain
time period, along with an ongoing obligation to continue to
produce additionally discovered relevant documents," Duncan
decided.
"This class action will be certified against the school council for
the purpose of the settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and
the school council. I approve the settlement agreement as adequate,
fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class."
The chief justice called the settlement reached a compromise
solution that will advance access to justice and the efficient
resolution of the claims without prejudicing any party and thanked
all the lawyers involved for their efforts.
The class-action is set to proceed against the Yukon government
with the opportunity for class members to opt out and pursue an
individual claim or no claim at all deferred to a later date.[GN]
JPJ ELECTRONICS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sylvia Garcia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JPJ Electronics, LLC, Doe Defendants 1
through 10, Case No. 23STCV06975 was removed from the Superior
Court, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 5, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03463 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
JPJ Electronic Communications, Inc. -- https://jpje.com/ -- offers
a broad range of radio and communication technologies for first
responders and public safety members.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacob Michael Harper, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: jharper@dwt.com
LIFEAID BEVERAGE: Scheibe Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEAID BEVERAGE LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00840 (S.D. Cal.,
May 8, 2023) arises from the Defendant's misbranding and false
advertising of its FITAID and FOCUSAID Beverages and its FITAID,
FOCUSAID, IMMUNITYAID, and PARTYAID Powder Stick Packs in violation
of the California Business and Professions Code and the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the front label of these beverage
products prominently state they contain "Naturally Flavored" with
attention drawn to the claim through depictions of fruits.
Likewise, the back labels of the powder products, as well as each
individually wrapped powder stick pack, state that they contain "No
Artificial Flavors" and are "Made Only With the Good Stuff".
Plaintiff Scheibe alleges that these natural flavoring claims are
false. He asserts that those products are flavored using an
artificial flavoring, DL malic acid, that is derived from
petrochemicals.
LifeAid Beverage LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business and headquarters in Santa Cruz,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Howard Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Amanda Howard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lindt & Sprungli (USA), Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00243 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on May 8, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03484-RPK-PK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Lindt & Sprungli (USA) Inc. -- http://www.lindtusa.com/--
manufactures and sells chocolates. The company offers truffles,
boxed chocolates, bars, milk chocolates, dark chocolates, white
chocolates, and blends.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
CHARLES M. THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2142 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 939-6400
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES PC
60 Cuttermill Rd, Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
MAMCO INC: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alejandro A. Morales, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. MAMCO, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive., Case No. CVRI2301490 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on May 8, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-00823-SSS-SHK.
The Complaint asserts six statutory causes of action against the
Defendant: Failure To Pay Wages For All Hours Worked At Minimum
Wage In Violation Of Labor Code Sections 1194 And 1197; Failure To
Authorize Or Permit Meal Periods In Violation Of Labor Code
Sections 512 And 226.7; Failure To Authorize Or Permit Rest Periods
In Violation Of Labor Code Section 226.7; Failure To Provide
Complete And Accurate Wage Statements In Violation Of Labor Code
Section 2269; Failure To Timely Pay All Earned Wages And Final
Paychecks Due At Time Of Separation Of Employment In Violation Of
Labor Code Sections 201, 202, And 203; Unfair Business Practices,
In Violation Of Business And Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joel P. Glaser, Esq.
Felicia A. Starr, Esq.
SKANE MILLS LLP
1055 West 7th Street, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 452-1200
Fax (213) 452-1201
Email: jglaser@skanemills.com
fstarr@skanemills.com
MARINA BAY RESIDENCES: Abouelkhier Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marina Bay
Residences, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dany Abouelkhier on
behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated v. Marina Bay
Residences, LLC, Bozzuto Management Company, Delaney Barrett, Case
No. 2382CV00389 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., May 5, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases."
Marina Bay Residences, LLC -- https://www.marinabayresidences.com/
-- provides construction services. The Company constructs single
and multiple houses and residential buildings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Nelligan, Esq.
Jonathan David Sweet, Esq.
KECHES LAW GROUP
2 Granite Ave., Suite 400
Milton, MA 02186
MASTERCRAFT PAINTING: Nicolas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mastercraft Painting
Inc. The case is styled as Sebastian Nicolas, on behalf of other
similarly situated v. Mastercraft Painting Inc., Does 1-50, Case
No. 23CV001218 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 8, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
MasterCraft Painting -- https://mastercraftpainting.net/ -- is now
river city reconstruction & painting.[BN]
MATCO TOOLS: Faces Baggs Suit Over Erroneous Collection Letters
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL BAGGS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:23-cv-00852 (C.D. Cal., May 11, 2023) alleges
that within the year preceding the filing of this Complaint, the
Defendant attempted to collect debts from him and other consumers
and debtors by systematically sending them mail based collection
correspondence that charged these consumers and debtors an
inextricably large amount of interest and falsely mischaracterizing
the amount owed, in violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Defendant's acts and omissions were intentional, and resulted
from the Defendant's desire to mislead debtors and consumers into
making payments on amounts that they did not owe, thereby allowing
the Defendant to unfairly and unlawfully gain money from consumers
and provide nothing in return. The Defendant does not present
consumers with a written copy of the correct terms of the purchase
prior to purchase, in order to conceal the deception that is at
issue in this case, the Plaintiff says.
Around September of 2022, the Plaintiff started receiving
collection letters and nonstop harassing phone calls from the
Defendant. Additionally, the Defendant threatened to sue the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff signed up with the Defendant to purchase
tools through the Defendant's sales representative. The Plaintiff
began making payments through Snap-On, a company that gives clients
like the Plaintiff a line of credit for tools and tool like
products. The Plaintiff's learned after receiving collection
notices that his payments were not going directly to the Defendant.
The Plaintiff was led to believe his payments were going to the
right place. It wasn't until the Plaintiff started receiving calls
from the Defendant that he owed over $14,000 that Plaintiff
discovered something was wrong. Within in the last year, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff collection letters for debts that she
did not in fact owe. That is, the Plaintiff had paid any
outstanding amount to the Defendant, yet the Defendant continued to
badger him for allegedly unpaid bills. The Plaintiff informed the
Defendant that he did not in fact owe the bills that the Defendant
said she owed, but the Defendant continued harass him with
erroneous collection notices, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff further investigated and found out he was overcharged
and the tools were not good quality and came from a company
overseas other than Matco Tools. As a result of the Defendant's
fraudulent practices, the Plaintiff has suffered emotional
distress, wasted time, and anxiety, contends the suit.
On behalf of the class, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring
Defendant to cease advertising and selling the Class Products in a
manner that is deceptive, to disclose all hidden fees in a
conspicuous manner at or prior to the point of sale, and an award
of damages to the Class Members, together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff Nathanial Baggs is a citizen and resident of the State of
California, County of San Bernardino.
Matco Tools operates as an automotive tool manufacturing and
distribution company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Maadanian Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEYYED JAVAD MAADANIAN, et al., Plaintiffs v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC., et al., Defendants, Cause No. C22-0665RSL
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for lack
of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
The Plaintiffs are 26 individuals who have lost the use of their
Mercedez-Benz vehicles because the braking system installed in
their 2004-2015 ML-Class, GL-Class, and R-Class vehicles was
defective and has been recalled. One of the named Plaintiffs,
Seyyed Javad Maadanian, resides in Washington. The Plaintiffs
allege violations of federal and state statutes, fraud by
concealment or omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and breaches of express and implied warranties on
behalf of a nationwide class, as well as state specific claims
under California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin law.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint on
the ground that the Plaintiffs cited an inapposite provision of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"). They
also seek dismissal of the claims asserted by the 25 non-Washington
residents under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.,
San Francisco County, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017) ("BMS").
First, the Plaintiffs specifically allege that the Court has
personal jurisdiction over the Defendants under 18 U.S.C. Section
1956(d) because the latter are found, have agents, and transact
substantial business in this District. Section 1956(d) is part of
RICO and relates to service in any action or proceeding under this
chapter.
The Plaintiffs have not, however, asserted a RICO claim in this
litigation, making Section 1956(d) inapplicable, Judge Lasnik
holds. Nevertheless, the Defendants offer no case law that supports
their argument that the erroneous identification of a statute as
the basis for personal jurisdiction is fatal to the Plaintiffs'
claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires only a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,"
which the Plaintiff provides at Dkt. # 41 at paragraph 10. In the
absence of a federal statutory basis for the exercise of
jurisdiction over a defendant, the issue is whether the Plaintiffs
have made a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists.
Judge Lasnik finds that the Second Amended Complaint contains
uncontroverted allegations regarding the Defendants' purposeful
availment of the Washington market and, with regards to Maadanian,
how those actions gave rise to his claims. The Defendants have now
waived any challenge to the adequacy of the Plaintiffs' allegations
regarding the Court's power of judgment over Maadanian's claims.
Their claim that the Court is deprived of personal jurisdiction
over them because the Plaintiffs cited an inapplicable statute is
unsupported and unpersuasive.
Next, the Defendants argue that, even if the Court has the power to
resolve Maadanian's claims against them in this forum, the claims
of the nonresident Plaintiffs do not arise out of or relate to
their contacts with the State of Washington and must be dismissed
under the reasoning of BMS. The nonresident Plaintiffs argue that
the Court has specific jurisdiction because this is a class action
asserting nationwide claims and because one of the class claims
arises under federal law. Alternatively, they request that the
Court exercises pendent personal jurisdiction over the
nonresidents' claims because they share a common nucleus of
operative facts with Maadanian's claims.
Judge Lasnik holds that the fact that the Plaintiffs seek to
represent a nationwide class is not dispositive. Also, to the
extent the nonresident Plaintiffs are pursuing a federal claim, it
appears on the current record that the Court has the power to
exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and resolve that
claim. Finally, because the Defendants must appear in this forum to
defend against a federal claim which is legally and factually
dependent on two of the state law claims, the policy considerations
underlying the pendent personal jurisdiction doctrine favor
compelling the Defendants to answer the state law claims in the
same suit.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Lasnik denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/68qmo from Leagle.com.
METZ CULINARY: Brinson Suit Removed to W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Daniel Brinson, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. METZ CULINARY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. E179576/2023 was removed from the New
York State Supreme Court, County of Niagara, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York on May 5, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00402.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Metz at
the Niagara University campus from November of 2022 to February of
2023, and he asserts three claims: a claim on behalf of himself and
a purported class that Metz violated a provision of the New York
State Department of Labor's Hospitality Industry Wage Order by not
paying uniform maintenance pay; a claim on behalf of only himself
that Metz violated New York Labor Law by not paying him on a weekly
basis; and a claim on behalf of himself and a purported class that
Metz violated New York Labor Law by not providing accurate annual
wage notices and periodic wage statements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (718) 669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Subhash Viswanathan, Esq.
METZ CULINARY MANAGEMENT, LLC
One Lincoln Center
110 West Fayette Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
Phone: (315) 218-8324
Email: sviswanathan@bsk.com
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: June 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
MICHAEL REID, Derivatively on Behalf of MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE SANGHI, GANESH MOORTHY, J. ERIC BJORNHOLT, L.B. DAY, MATTHEW
W. CHAPMAN, WADE F. MEYERCORD, AND ESTHER L. JOHNSON,
Defendants,
- and -
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Nominal Defendant.
Case No. CV2019-002389
NOTICE OF PROPOSED STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT
(Assigned to The Honorable Timothy Thomason)
RICHARD DUTRISAC, derivatively on behalf of MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE SANGHI, GANESH MOORTHY, JAMES ERIC BJORNHOLT, MATTHEW W.
CHAPMAN, WADE F. MEYERCORD, ESTHER L. JOHNSON, L.B. DAY, and KAREN
RAPP,
Defendants,
and
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation,
Nominal Defendant.
Case No. CV2021-012459
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF MICROCHIP
TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED ("MICROCHIP" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK
AS OF MARCH 24, 2023 (THE "RECORD DATE").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE
RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE
ABOVE-CAPTIONED STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS (THE "ACTIONS") AND
CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE COURT APPROVES
THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED
CLAIMS.
IF YOU HOLD MICROCHIP COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER,
PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ACTIONS ARE DERIVATIVE ACTIONS BROUGHT BY
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND
THERE IS NO CLAIM FORM BECAUSE NO INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO BE
COMPENSATED AS A RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTIONS.
THE COURT HAS MADE NO FINDINGS OR DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE
MERITS OF THE ACTIONS. THE RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON
REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.
Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the Actions. This Notice is provided by Order of
the Superior Court of the State of Arizona for Maricopa County (the
"Court"). It is not an expression of any opinion by the Court with
respect to the truth of the allegations in the Actions or merits of
the claims or defenses asserted by or against any party. It is
solely to notify you of the terms of the proposed Settlement and
your rights related thereto. Capitalized terms not otherwise
defined shall have the definitions set forth in a written
Stipulation of Settlement, dated March __, 2023 ("Stipulation").
The text of the Stipulation is included with a Form 8-K that was
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
on April 14, 2023, and can be viewed at and/or downloaded at the
"SEC Filings" link on the "Investor Relations" page at
https://www.microchip.com/en-us/about/investors.
WHY THE COURT HAS ISSUED THIS NOTICE
Your rights may be affected by the Settlement of the actions styled
Reid v. Sanghi, et al., Case No. CV2019-002389 (Ariz. Super.
Ct.-Maricopa Cnty.), and Dutrisac v. Sanghi, et al., Case No.
CV2021-012459 (Ariz. Super. Ct.-Maricopa Cnty.), filed in the Court
on January 22, 2019, and August 5, 2021, respectively. Plaintiffs
Michael Reid and Richard Dutrisac, on behalf of themselves and
derivatively on behalf of Microchip; defendants Steve Sanghi,
Ganesh Moorthy, J. Eric Bjornholt, L.B. Day, Matthew W. Chapman,
Wade F. Meyercord, Esther L. Johnson, and Karen Rapp (together, the
"Individual Defendants" or "Settling Defendants"), nominal
defendant Microchip (together with Plaintiffs and the Settling
Defendants, the "Settling Parties"), have agreed upon terms to
settle the above-referenced Actions and have signed the Stipulation
setting forth those settlement terms.
On June 14, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing")
will be held before the Court, at East Court Building, 101 West
Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, to determine: (i) whether the
terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate,
including the separately negotiated amounts for Plaintiffs'
Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, and should be finally
approved; (ii) whether a final judgment should be entered and the
Actions dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation; and
(iii) such other matters as may be necessary or proper under the
circumstances. The Court has the right to continue or adjourn the
Settlement Hearing from time to time, by oral announcement at the
hearing or at any adjournment thereof, as well as to change the
hearing date, time, or platform (in person, by video or telephone
conference) without further notice to Microchip stockholders. Thus,
if you are planning to participate in the Settlement Hearing, you
should confirm the date, time, and platform before going to the
Court, and you may consult the Court's calendar and/or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's website for any change in date or time of, or platform
used for the Settlement Hearing. The Court may also approve the
Settlement, with such modifications as may be agreed to by counsel
for the Settling Parties consistent with such Settlement, without
further notice to Microchip stockholders.
THE MICROCHIP DERIVATIVE ACTIONS
A. Reid Action
On January 22, 2019, plaintiff Reid filed an action captioned, Reid
v. Sanghi, et al., Case No. CV2019-002389, in the Superior Court of
Arizona for Maricopa County against the Individual Defendants and
the Company as nominal defendant (the "Reid Action").
Plaintiff Reid alleges that the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Microchip and its stockholders by issuing
a series of allegedly materially false and misleading statements
regarding the operations and financial performance of Microsemi
Corporation ("Microsemi"), a computer chip manufacturer it acquired
for $10.15 billion. The Reid Action also brings a claim against the
Individual Defendants for waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment.
The Settling Defendants deny each and every one of the claims and
contentions alleged by Plaintiff Reid.
B. Dutrisac Action
On August 5, 2021, plaintiff Dutrisac filed suit on behalf of
Microchip in this Court alleging his demand served on the Board on
April 13, 2020 was wrongfully refused by the Microchip Board (the
"Dutrisac Action" and together with the Reid Action, the
"Actions"). The Dutrisac Action also alleges that the named
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Microchip
and its stockholders by issuing allegedly materially false and
misleading statements related to the Company's acquisition of
Microsemi, and as to certain of the Individual Defendants, by
allegedly trading on material, adverse information related to the
Company's business. The Dutrisac Action brings claims against the
named Individual Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, insider
selling, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and contribution and
indemnification.
The Settling Defendants deny each and every one of the claims and
contentions alleged by Plaintiff Dutrisac.
C. Denial of Motions to Dismiss
On March 12, 2021, members of the Audit Committee of Microchip's
Board of Directors moved to dismiss the Reid Action. After full
briefing and oral argument, the Court denied the motion to dismiss
on April 1, 2022.
On January 28, 2022, members of the Audit Committee of Microchip's
Board of Directors moved to dismiss the Dutrisac Action. After full
briefing and oral argument, the Court denied the motion to dismiss
on April 7, 2022.
D. Partial Consolidation of the Stockholder Derivative Actions
in the Arizona Superior Court
On January 10, 2023, the Arizona Superior Court entered an Order
Granting Joint Stipulation Regarding Partial Consolidation of
Derivative Actions. The Court's Order consolidated the Reid and
Dutrisac Actions for the limited purpose of pretrial discovery
matters. The Order further provided that "[d]iscovery shall proceed
according to this Court's prior scheduling orders entered in the
Reid and Dutrisac Actions, and, absent stipulation by the parties
or further order by the Court, plaintiffs Michael Reid and Richard
Dutrisac ("Plaintiffs") shall coordinate discovery and be subject
to all discovery limitations therein and all disclosure rights and
obligations thereunder as if Plaintiffs were a single party." The
Settling Defendants produced more than 900,000 pages of documents
to Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Settling Parties had begun setting
deposition dates. As part of the Settlement, the parties will
request that the Court consolidate the Reid and Dutrisac Actions
for all purposes.
E. The Mediation
The Settling Parties actively engaged in continued discussions
aimed at potential resolution of the Actions. Specifically, the
Settling Parties submitted extensive mediation statements to Robert
A. Meyer, Esq. ("Mr. Meyer" or the "Mediator") and met for a
full-day videoconference mediation session before Mr. Meyer on
August 24, 2022. As a result of the mediation and subsequent
arm's-length settlement negotiations overseen by the Mediator that
followed, the Settling Parties reached an agreement that, subject
to approval of the Court, resolves the Actions and the Released
Claims as further described herein.
F. The Microchip Board of Directors' Approval of the Settlement
The members of Microchip's Board of Directors unanimously approved
the Settlement on February 21, 2023, and unanimously determined
that the Settlement is in the best interests of Microchip and its
stockholders. The Settling Defendants acknowledge that the
corporate governance measures detailed herein create substantial
benefits for the Company and its stockholders, and the benefits of
the Settlement, including the corporate governance enhancements and
the $4,000,000 monetary payment to be made by the Company's
insurer(s) to the Company, were caused by Plaintiffs' and their
counsel's commencement and prosecution of the Actions.
SETTLEMENT HEARING
On June 14, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., the Court will hold the Settlement
Hearing at East Court Building, 101 West Jefferson, Phoenix,
Arizona 85003. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider
whether the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and
adequate and thus should be finally approved, whether the
separately negotiated Fee and Expense Amount should be approved,
and whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant
to the Stipulation. The Court has the right to continue or adjourn
the Settlement Hearing from time to time, by oral announcement at
the hearing or at any adjournment thereof, as well as to change the
hearing date, time, or platform (in person, by video or telephone
conference) without further notice to Microchip stockholders. Thus,
if you are planning to participate in the Settlement Hearing, you
should confirm the date, time, and platform before going to the
Court, and you may consult the Court's calendar and/or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's website for any change in date or time of, or platform
used for the Settlement Hearing. The Court may also approve the
Settlement, with such modifications as may be agreed to by counsel
for the Settling Parties consistent with such Settlement, without
further notice to Microchip stockholders.
Pending determination of whether the Settlement should be approved,
no Microchip stockholder, either directly, representatively,
derivatively, or in any other capacity, shall commence or prosecute
against any of the Released Persons, any action or proceeding in
any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal asserting any
of the Released Claims.
YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
NO LATER THAN MAY 31, 2023. The Court Clerk's address is:
Clerk of the Superior Court for Maricopa County
201 West Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003
YOU ALSO MUST DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL AND TO COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS AND MICROCHIP SO THEY ARE
RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAY 31, 2023. Counsel's addresses are:
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
STEPHEN J. ODDO
ERIC M. CARRINO
ROBBINS LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Or
MICHAEL I. FISTEL, JR.
MARY ELLEN CONNER
JOHNSON FISTEL LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Counsel Defendants and Microchip:
KEITH E. EGGLETON
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
& ROSATI, P.C.
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be
considered unless it is timely filed with the Court and delivered
to Plaintiffs' Counsel and Counsel for Defendants and Microchip.
Any Person or entity who fails to object or otherwise request to be
heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived
the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement as incorporated
in the Stipulation and waived any right to otherwise request to be
heard (including the right to appeal) and will be forever barred
from raising such objection or request to be heard in this or any
other action or proceeding, and shall be bound by the releases
given and the Judgment to be entered by the Court.
This Notice summarizes the Stipulation. It is not a complete
statement of the events of the Actions or the Settlement contained
in the Stipulation.
You may inspect the Stipulation and other papers in the Action at
the Court Clerk's office at any time during regular business hours
of each business day. The Clerk's office is located at 201 West
Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85003. You or your counsel must appear in
person to inspect these documents. The Clerk's office will not mail
copies to you. You may also view and download the Stipulation on
the "Investor Relations" page of Microchip's website at
https://www.microchip.com/en-us/about/investors.
If you have any questions about matters in this Notice you may
contact by telephone Plaintiffs' Counsel at (619) 525-3990 or in
writing at Stephen J. Oddo, 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300, San
Diego, CA 92122 or soddo@robbinsllp.com or at (470) 632-6000 or in
writing at Michael I. Fistel, Jr., 40 Powder Springs Street,
Marietta, GA 30064 or michaelf@johnsonfistel.com.
PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER
THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
MOBILE FIDELITY: Wins Settlement Approval Over Vinyl Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Bloom at pitchfork.com reports that Prestige reissue label
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (MoFi) has won a federal judge's approval
to issue a $25 million settlement in order to resolve a 2022 fraud
lawsuit, Billboard reports and documents viewed by Pitchfork
confirm.
The complaint, filed in a Washington federal court last summer,
accused the company of marketing its vinyl LPs as purely analog
while using Direct Stream Digital (DSD) technology in its vinyl
production. MoFi confirmed that allegation shortly before the
lawsuit was filed. Months prior, MoFi had opened a new vinyl
pressing plant in Oxnard, California, which the company heralded as
America's "premier vinyl production facility."
That August, MoFi customers Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman
filed a proposed class action in federal court, alleging that
MoFi's branding had been "deceptive and misleading" and had tricked
them into paying higher prices for ultimately lesser quality
vinyl.
Subsequently, plaintiff Adam Stiles of Charlotte, North Carolina,
filed another proposed class action lawsuit that year, pointing to
his purchase of a $40 Pretenders album released by MoFi, which the
company claimed was pressed from the "original master recording."
"Had Mr. Stiles been aware that the record used digital remastering
or DSD technology, he would not have purchased the record, or would
have paid significantly less for it," the lawsuit noted. It also
claimed that other members of the potential class action lawsuit
were similarly impacted by paying a higher price for records with
that label.
Stiles' complaint alleged fraud, deceptive trade practices, breach
of warranty (express and implied), unjust enrichment, and more. He
sought restitution and damage on behalf of himself and the proposed
class.
Back in February, Billboard reported that MoFi had reached a
settlement with Tuttle, Collman, and additional plaintiffs that
could reach up to $25 million -- but that several customers
objected to the deal, saying it was "tainted by the stink of
collusion." The proposed settlement offered two options for tens of
thousands spurned customers: They could return their eligible
purchases for a full refund, or, they could keep the records and
receive a 5% cash refund or a 10% refund in credit. The settlement
would have allowed MoFi to continue denying any wrongdoing.
The proposed settlement was expected to compensate roughly 40,000
consumers who bought albums marketed as analog. Attorneys who filed
similar complaints against MoFi have claimed, however, that they
were not consulted about the "inadequate, collusive settlement" and
that it was reached by "ineffectual" lawyers.
U.S. District Judge James L. Robart preliminarily approved the
settlement, rejecting claims that it was the result of collusion.
Robart ruled that "the Amended Settlement Agreement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure," per court documents. The settlement is still pending
final approval. [GN]
MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Seeks Approval of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Emmy Freedman, writing for Law360, reports that a former worker for
a Michigan health care system asked a federal judge on May 12 to
greenlight a $600,000 deal to wrap up his proposed class action
accusing the system of saddling its retirement plan with excessive
record-keeping fees.
The case is Peck v. Munson Healthcare et al. [GN]
NATERA INC: Misclassifies Patient Coordinators, Visajel Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Visajel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Natera, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-11051-IT (D. Mass., May
11, 2023) seeks to recover damages arising from the Defendant's
misclassification of them as overtime exempt in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Overtime Act, and to
recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's
fees and costs, and any other relief permitted by law.
According to the complaint, patient coordinators are generally
expected to and regularly work over 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiff has worked multiple weeks over 40 hours over the course
of her employment as a Patient Coordinator (although likely not as
frequently as most Patient Coordinators due to medical issues she
has experienced during the course of her employment). But, Natera
allegedly does not pay the Patient Coordinators overtime
compensation for workweeks over 40 hours, says the suit.
The Plaintiff began her employment as a Natera Patient Coordinator
on January 31, 2022, with a base salary of $57,000 per year and
right to earn an additional $25,000 in total annual commissions.
Natera is the global leader in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing,
dedicated to oncology, women's health, and organ health.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
92 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 723-7700
Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
NATIONAL EWP INC: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Martinez, an individual, and JUAN
SANCHEZ, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL EWP, INC., a Nevada corporation,
SIMON JOHNSON, an individual, KEVIN SIMPSON, an individual, and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. ECU002811 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Imperial,
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on May 7, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-00837-BEN-KSC.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to reimburse
plaintiffs and the class of nonexempt employees of Defendants their
necessary business expenses, failed to provide timely, accurate and
itemized wage statements, failed to provide legally compliant meal
and rest periods and to compensate for premiums, failed to provide
accurate compensation for regular and overtime pay, and failed to
pay timely wages due and upon separation.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark S. Posard, Esq.
Jennifer M. Holly, Esq.
Heather T. Daiza, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576 5000
Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
Email: mposard@grsm.com
jholly@grsm.com
hdaiza@grsm.com
NATIONAL VISION: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Moore Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Monika R. Moore, Plaintiff v. National Vision, Inc., dba America's
Best Contacts & Eyeglasses, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00593 (E.D.
Mo., May 8, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself
and all those similarly situated, due to the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On March 11, 2019, Defendant hired Plaintiff Monika R. Moore to
work as a receptionist at its America's Best Contacts & Eyeglasses
store in St. Louis, Missouri. On July 26, 2021, Defendant promoted
Ms. Moore to assistant manager at an hourly rate of $14.25. Ms.
Moore typically worked Monday to Saturday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm
and averaged 54 hours per week from February 2021 to January 2022.
Allegedly, the Defendant improperly deducted meal time hours from
the time sheets of Ms. Moore. It also failed and refused to pay Ms.
Moore for all hours worked and an overtime premium for all hours
worked over 40 in any given workweek. For the said violations, Ms.
Moore seeks declaratory relief; unpaid back wages; overtime
premiums for all hours worked over forty hours in a work week;
liquidated and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law; and
attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action, says
the suit.
National Vision, Inc., d/b/a America's Best Contacts & Eyeglasses,
is a Georgia corporation headquartered in Duluth, GA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Rolwes, Esq.
Philip E. Oliphant, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
4818 Washington Blvd., #107
St. Louis, MO 63108
Telephone: (314) 208-3865
Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
E-mail: erolwes@cronelawfirmplc.com
NATIONSBENEFITS HOLDINGS: Sued Over Clients Unprotected Health Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA HASSAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NATIONSBENEFITS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
0:23-cv-60885-RS (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2023) is a civil action
seeking monetary damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief
from the Defendant, arising from its failure to safeguard the
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Personal Health
Information (PHI) of its clients' health plan members, resulting in
unauthorized access to its information systems on or around January
30, 2023 and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that
Private Information.
This Private Information included the Plaintiff's and the proposed
class members' first and last names, addresses, phone numbers,
dates of birth, gender, health plan subscriber ID numbers, Social
Security Numbers and/or Medicare Numbers.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's investigation concluded
that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach
included the Plaintiff's and approximately 3,037,302 other
individuals' information, including members of the health plans
Aetna ACE, Elevance Health Flexible Benefit Plan, and UAW Retiree
Medical Benefits Trust.
On behalf of herself and the classes, the Plaintiff brings causes
of action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, and violation of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), seeking an award of
monetary damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief, as a
result of the Defendant's alleged failure to adequately protect
their highly sensitive Private Information.
The Plaintiff and class members are current or former patients of
healthcare providers and organizations that utilize Defendant's
services.
Nationsbenefits Holdings is a Plantation, Florida-headquartered
company that provides proprietary technology solutions, including
for supplemental benefits, flex cards, and member engagement, to
managed healthcare organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
NEW SCHOOL: Meng Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The New School. The
case is styled as Lily Meng, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. The New School, Case No. 1:23-cv-03851
(S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The New School -- https://www.newschool.edu/ -- is a private
research university in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Artis Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Khadijah Z. Artis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02069-TWT
(N.D. Ga., May 8, 2023), is brought against NextGen for its failure
to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated patients' personally identifiable information
("PII"), including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
and addresses (the "Private Information"), from criminal hackers.
Based on the Notice filed by Defendant and sent to impacted
patients, it was alerted to suspicious activity on its systems on
or around March 30, and later determined that cybercriminals had
accessed its systems between March 29 and April 14, 2023 (the "Data
Breach"). Notably, NextGen was also the victim of a separate
ransomware attack in January of 2023, yet it failed to adequately
enhance its data security practices following this earlier breach,
thus opening the door for this subsequent attack on its systems.
The Plaintiff and "Class Members" (defined below) were, and
continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various
other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will
remain for their respective lifetimes. There has been no assurance
offered by NextGen that all personal data or copies of data have
been recovered or destroyed, or that Defendant has adequately
enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar
breach of its network in the future, especially considering
NextGen's very recent history of now multiple data breaches
impacting its network and systems.
Therefore, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at
an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering,
ascertainable losses in the form of identity theft and other
fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, out-of-pocket
expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data
Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings
this class action lawsuit to address NextGen's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it
collected and maintained, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to NextGen.
NextGen is a software and services company that serves numerous
healthcare entities across the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Hirsh, Esq.
HIRSH LAW OFFICE, LLC
2295 Towne Lake Pkwy., Suite 116-181
Woodstock, GA 30189
Phone: 678-653-9907
Email: Michael@Hirsh.law
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Benn Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Benn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02050-TWT (N.D. Ga.,
May 8, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent targeted
cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party
criminals accessed and exfiltrated personal data NextGen's network
that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive
consumer data of the Plaintiff and at least 1,049,375 Class Members
("Data Breach").
Information compromised in the Data Breach includes personally
identifying information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") such as names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social
Security numbers (collectively, "PII" and "PHI" is "Private
Information"). The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on
behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private
Information that Defendant collected and maintained.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a negligent
and/or reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was
maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a
condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief,
the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper
disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice
that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private
Information from those risks left that property in a vulnerable
condition. In addition, NextGen and its employees failed to
properly monitor the computer network and IT systems that housed
the Private Information.
Armed with the Private Information accessed in the Data Breach,
data thieves can commit a variety of crimes including opening new
financial accounts in Class Members' names, taking out loans in
Class Members' names, using Class Members' names to obtain medical
services, using Class Members' Private Information to target other
phishing and hacking intrusions based on their individual health
needs, using Class Members' information to obtain government
benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using Class Members'
information, obtaining driver's licenses in Class Members' names
but with another person's photograph, and giving false information
to police during an arrest.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members face a
substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm.
Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to suffer
injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to as
a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of
their Private Information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to NextGen.
NextGen is a leading provider of cloud-based healthcare technology
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: 404-320-9979
Fax: 404-320-9978
Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Justin C. Walker, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jwalker@msdlegal.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Kerr Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawna Kerr, on behalf of Minor Child J.K., On behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-02148-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 11, 2023) sues the Defendants
for inadequate safeguarding of the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
personally identifiable information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff
and other Class Members that their information had been stolen by
criminals and listed for sale on the dark web.
On March 30, 2023, the Defendant learned its network was accessed
by an unauthorized third party. In response, Defendant initiated an
investigation and confirmed that a third party gained unauthorized
access to Defendant's network between March 29, 2023 and April 14,
2023. The Data Breach has affected 1,049,375 individuals. The said
Data Breach involved the following types of information: name, date
of birth, address, and Social Security Number.
On April 28, 2023, the Defendant notified Plaintiff and Class
Members of the Data Breach. The Defendant's delay in noticing
affected persons of the theft of their Private Information
allegedly prevented early mitigation efforts and compounded the
harm.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses, including a loss of privacy, the
loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket monetary losses
and expenses, the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack, the diminished value of
their Private Information, and the substantial and imminent risk of
identity theft, says the suit.
Plaintiff Shawna Kerr, on behalf of Minor Child J.K., is a Citizen
of Iowa residing in Bettendorf, Iowa.
Nextgen is a provider of innovative ambulatory healthcare
technologies located in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbliechner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: James Sue Over Clients' Unprotected Health Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JONETHAN JAMES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02137-TWT
(N.D. Ga., May 11, 2023) is a class action arising out of the
recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized
third-party criminals accessed and exfiltrated personal data
NextGen's network that resulted in unauthorized access to the
personally identifying information (PII) and protected health
information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and at least 1,049,375 Class
Members.
The Information compromised in the Data Breach includes names,
addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant negligently and
unlawfully failed to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information by allowing cyberthieves to access NextGen's
computer network and systems for 16 days which contained unsecured
and unencrypted Private Information.
The Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct includes:
-- a. Failing to maintain an adequate data security system to
reduce the risk of data breaches and cyber-attacks;
-- b. Failing to adequately protect patients' and customers'
Private Information;
-- c. Failing to properly monitor its own data security systems
for existing intrusions;
-- d. Failing to ensure that its vendors with access to its
computer systems and data employed reasonable security
procedures;
-- e. Failing to train its employees in the proper handling of
emails containing Private Information and maintain
adequate email security practices; and
-- f. Failing to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of
electronic PHI it created, received, maintained, and/or
transmitted.
Due to NextGen's inadequate security measures and its delayed
notice to victims, the Plaintiff and Class Members now face a
present, immediate, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft
that they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives.
The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant seeking
redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for:
negligence; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; and
breach of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiff Jonethan James is a natural person, resident, and a
citizen of the State of Michigan. Mr. James has no intention of
moving to a different state in the immediate future.
NextGen is a software & services company that develops and sells
electronic health record software and practice management systems
to the healthcare industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Rd.
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
NLJ LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hollins Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONTAE HOLLINS, individually, and on the behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NLJ LOGISTICS LLC and MILTON
HILL, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01709 (S.D. Tex., May 8, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery associates
from approximately November 2022 to February 2023 as an hourly
employee at an average rate of pay of $19.00 per hour. During one
or more weeks of their employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated worked in excess of 40 hours.
Unfortunately, Plaintiff was not paid any overtime wages. Now,
Plaintiff seeks damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and cost on behalf of himself and all those persons similarly
situated.
NLJ Logistics LLC operates a company known as a delivery service
partner with Amazon engaged in business of providing final mile
delivery services for Amazon packages locally across the country
including in Harris County, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chukwudi Egbuonu, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHUKWUDI EGBUONU
4141 Southwest Freeway, Suite 390
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (713) 635-9488
Facsimile: (832) 426-5792
E-mail: chuck@celawoffice.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Norfolk Southern Corporation
("Norfolk Southern" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSC) and reminds
investors of the May 15, 2023 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Norfolk
Southern stock or options between October 28, 2020 and March 3,
2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") and would like to
discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson
directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310) . You may also
click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/NSC .
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania,
California and Georgia .
Norfolk Southern is a rail transportation company that implemented
a strategy known as "Precision Scheduled Railroading" ("PSR"),
which is associated with hyper-efficient operational changes
designed to increase revenues and decrease costs. Operational
changes typically include reductions in staff; longer, heavier
trains that can stretch up to miles in length; and tighter
schedules.
The Norfolk Southern class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Norfolk Southern's PSR,
including its use of longer, heavier trains staffed by fewer
personnel, had led to Norfolk Southern suffering increased train
derailments and a materially increased risk of future derailments;
(ii) Norfolk Southern's PSR was part of a culture of increased
risk-taking at the expense of reasonable safety precautions due to
Norfolk Southern's near-term focus solely on profits; (iii) Norfolk
Southern's PSR rendered Norfolk Southern more vulnerable to train
derailments and train derailments with potentially more severe
human, financial, legal, and environmental consequences; (iv)
Norfolk Southern's capital spending and replacement programs were
designed to prioritize profits over Norfolk Southern's ability to
provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail transportation services;
(v) Norfolk Southern's lobbying efforts had undermined Norfolk
Southern's ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail
transportation services; (vi) Norfolk Southern's commitment to
reducing operating expenses as part of its PSR goals undermined
worker safety and Norfolk Southern's purported "commitment to an
injury-free workplace" because Norfolk Southern's PSR plan
prioritized reducing expenses through fewer personnel, longer
trains, and less spending on safety training, technology, and
equipment such as hot bearing wayside detectors (a/k/a "hotboxes")
and acoustic sensors; (vii) Norfolk Southern's rail services were,
as a result of its adoption of PSR principles, more susceptible to
accidents that could cause serious economic and bodily harm to
Norfolk Southern, its workers, its customers, third parties, and
the environment; and (viii) Norfolk Southern had failed to put in
place responsive practices and procedures to minimize the threat to
communities in the event that these communities suffered the
derailment of a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous and toxic
materials.
On February 3, 2023, eastbound Norfolk Southern Railway Company
general merchandise freight train 32N derailed 38 railcars in East
Palestine, Ohio, leaving behind what the Associated Press called "a
mangled and charred mass of boxcars and flames." The derailed
equipment included 11 tank cars carrying hazardous materials that
subsequently ignited, fueling fires that damaged an additional 12
non-derailed railcars.
On February 6, 2023, responders engaged in a controlled detonation
and burn of the vinyl chloride, spewing massive volumes of
chemicals into the vicinity. The chemicals released from the
derailment entered the air and water of the surrounding residential
areas, the closest of which were only 1,000 feet from the site of
the accident. On this news, the price of Norfolk Southern stock
fell.
Then, on February 8, 2023, after lifting a previously issued
evacuation order, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine stated that Norfolk
Southern was "the one[] who created the problem. It's their
liability. They're the ones who ought to pay for it." Following
their return, numerous residents reported hazardous air quality and
other health and environmental concerns. On this news, the price of
Norfolk Southern stock again fell.
Thereafter, on February 13, 2023, the Environmental Protection
Agency stated that it had concluded that Norfolk Southern may be
responsible for the cleanup costs of the derailment site or the
costs incurred by the EPA for area cleanup. On this news, the price
of Norfolk Southern stock once again fell.
Next, on February 15, 2023, reports emerged that Ohio Attorney
General Dave Yost was considering taking legal action against
Norfolk Southern over the derailment. On this news, the price of
Norfolk Southern stock again fell.
Finally, on March 6, 2023, Norfolk Southern announced a 6-part plan
to improve operational safety that included, among other things,
adding about 200 temperature sensors along its tracks where
existing sensors are at least 15 miles apart, reviewing the
temperature levels that set off alarms for train crews, and adding
more acoustic sensors that analyze vibrations for potential
problems. On this news, the price of Norfolk Southern stock fell,
further damaging investors.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Norfolk Southern's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP ( www.faruqilaw.com ). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
OCWEN LOAN: Orre Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AUNE ORRE, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum of Decision and Order dated March 31,
2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled The ESTATE OF AUNE ORRE, on
behalf of themselves and all others so similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and DEUTCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, as TRUSTEE OF THE INDYMAC INDX MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
2005-AR18, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-AR18,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-10553-TSH, in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Worcester.
Plaintiff Dorothy Makoni who was a representative Plaintiff in the
original and first amended complaints voluntarily dismissed her
claims on July 30, 2021. Therefore, Orre Estate is the lone
representative Plaintiff.
The Estate of Aune Orre, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, filed an Amended Complaint against Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, alleging that the
foreclosure of her property was wrongful and is void as the result
of breaches of the mortgage contract. More specifically, Plaintiff
alleges in the First Amended Complaint that the pre-foreclosure
default/right to cure notice sent to her omitted a five-day prior
to the foreclosure sale deadline on her contractual right to
reinstate the mortgage after acceleration thereby rendering the
statement that she "could still avoid foreclosure by paying the
total past due amount before a foreclosure sale takes place"
inaccurate and deceptive.
The Plaintiff's claim has been undermined by a recent First Circuit
ruling that renders the First Amended Complaint subject to
dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim.
On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to
amend her May 2, 2019 complaint to assert a claim that different
language in the pre-foreclosure default/right to cure mortgage
notice was misleading and not in strict compliance with the right
to reinstate her mortgage and therefore, the foreclosure sale is
void.
On March 31, 2023, District Judge Timothy S. Hillman entered an
Order denying with prejudice Plaintiff's February 8, 2021 motion.
The appellate case is captioned as Estate of Aune Orre v. Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-1394, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 8, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appearance
form, Docketing Statement, and Transcript Report/Order form are due
on May 22, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ESTATE OF AUNE ORRE, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Todd Steven Dion, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD S. DION, ESQ.
15 Cottage Ave., Ste 202
Quincy, MA 02169
Telephone: (401) 965-4131
E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com
Defendants-Appellees OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE INDYMAC INDX MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2005-AR18, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2005-AR18; and WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, AS TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIES
ASSET-BACKED RECEIVABLES, LLC TRUST 2005-FR2 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-FR2, are represented by:
Kevin William Manganaro, Esq.
Maura Katherine McKelvey, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
53 State St., 27th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 213-7000
E-mail: kmanganaro@hinshawlaw.com
mmckelvey@hinshawlaw.com
ONE BROOKLYN: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Vickers Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dona Vickers, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
One Brooklyn Health System, Inc. (OBH), Case No. 514172/2023 (N.Y.
Sup., May 11, 2023) seeks to hold OBH responsible for the injuries
it inflicted on Plaintiff and 235,251 others similarly situated due
to the Defendant's impermissibly inadequate data security, which
caused the personal identifying information (PII) and protected
health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated to be exposed to the public.
According to the Defendant's submission to the Maine Attorney
General, the Data Exposure included name, Social Security number,
health insurance information, and medical information of Plaintiff
and patients. The Notice of Data Breach Plaintiff received on April
20, 2023, the Defendant "experienced a cybersecurity incident that
affected its computer systems" on November 19, 2022. The Defendant
further explained that its investigation, it "learned that an
unauthorized actor acquired limited amount of OBH data . . .
between July 9, 2022, and November 19, 2022."
After the Data Exposure, the Defendant failed to provide timely
notice to the Plaintiff and Class Members, thus exacerbating their
injuries. The Defendant impermissibly left Plaintiff and Class
Members in the dark—thereby causing their injuries to fester and
the damage to spread, the suit claims.
Today, the identities of the Plaintiff and Class Members are in
jeopardy because of Defendant's negligence. The Plaintiff and Class
Members now suffer from a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft and must now constantly monitor their financial and
personal accounts, the suit adds.
Plaintiff Dona Vickers is a natural person, resident, and citizen
of New York.
OBH is an integrated system of health services, with several
locations throughout Kings County and surrounding communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Steven D. Cohen, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
scohen@sirillp.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
ONLY LITTLE ONCE: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Only Little Once Inc.
The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Only Little Once Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03859 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Only Little Once Inc. -- https://onlylittleonce.com/ -- are
dedicated to creating clothing that kids love.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
OPTIMA TAX RELIEF: Melito Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optima Tax Relief
LLC. The case is styled as Peter Melito, Vanessa Melito, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Optima Tax
Relief LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00812-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal., May 8,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Breach of Contract.
Optima Tax Relief -- https://optimataxrelief.com/ -- is a full
service Tax Resolution firm that can handle almost any IRS or State
Tax Issue.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO ARNOLD APLC
6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 735
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (747) 777-7748
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
PANDORA MEDIA: Settles Class Action Over Sirius Merger for $3.5-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hailey Konnath, writing for Law360, reports that Pandora Media Inc.
stockholders said on May 12 that they've reached a settlement with
Pandora and Sirius XM Radio directors accused of orchestrating an
unfair $3.5 billion buyout, reaching a deal one week ahead of a
scheduled trial in the long-running Delaware litigation. [GN]
PARKER & BAILEY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parker & Bailey Corp.
The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Parker & Bailey Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-03858 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Parker & Bailey Corp. -- https://parkerbailey.com/ -- is a consumer
goods and wholesaler of wood care, polish and furniture protection
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
PERFECT KETO GROUP: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perfect Keto Group
LLC. The case is styled as Jacob Scheibe, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Perfect Keto Group LLC,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00839-L-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Breach of Contract.
Perfect Keto -- https://perfectketo.com/ -- aims to improve
people's health through online education, clean supplements for the
ketogenic diet, and high-quality low carb food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Phone: (858) 414-7465
Fax: (858) 300-5137
Email: legal@cweller.com
PERFECT KETO: Scheibe Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges Perfect Keto Group's strawberry lemon BASE dietary
supplement is misbranded and falsely advertised in that the
purportedly naturally flavored product contains a common synthetic
flavoring agent in a case - captioned Scheibe v. Perfect Keto Group
LLC.
In particular, the 22-page complaint says that although the BASE
dietary supplement is touted as "[c]ompletely clean" and free of
"junk," the product nevertheless contains DL malic acid, an
artificial flavoring agent derived from petrochemicals.
Per the suit, DL malic acid is made from benzene or butane in
petrochemical plants by way of "a series of chemical reactions,
some of which involve highly toxic chemical precursors and
byproducts." The DL malic acid in the product imparts a sweet and
tart taste that consumers associate with fruit flavors, and the
compound is far cheaper than naturally occurring malic acid, which
is almost never found in mass-produced foods, the case says.
"Defendant uses the petrochemical-derived DL malic acid in its
Products to create a sweet and tart flavor but pretends otherwise,
conflating natural and artificial flavorings, misbranding the
Products and deceiving consumers," the complaint alleges.
As the suit tells it, the ingredients on the BASE workout
supplement's label are declared "in a way that is misleading and
contrary to law" in that DL malic acid is referred to only by its
generic name, "malic acid."
Federal law requires food labels to accurately describe the nature
of the product and its characterizing flavors, the case stresses.
If a food's characterizing flavor is not created "exclusively by
the named flavor ingredient," the front label must state that the
item's flavor is "simulated or reinforced with either natural or
artificial flavorings or both," the complaint relays. If any
artificial flavor is present and "simulates, resembles or
reinforces" the characterizing flavor, it must be prominently
disclosed that the product is "artificially flavored," the lawsuit
says.
"The Products have none of the required disclosures regarding the
use of artificial flavors," the filing reads.
The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who
bought Perfect Keto's BASE strawberry lemon-flavored dietary
supplement within the last four years. [GN]
PET SUPERMARKET: Dodges Lawsuit Over 'Free Dog Food' Promo Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that a Pet
Supermarket Inc. customer didn't have standing to file a proposed
class action in state court alleging the company sent him
promotional texts in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, a Florida appeals court ruled.
Plaintiff Troy Eldridge failed to show he suffered harm from the
texts, either in the form of a procedural violation or an intrusion
into his privacy, Judge Fleur J. Lobree of the Florida Court of
Appeal, Third District, said.
Eldridge let an employee use his phone to text and enter him into a
contest to receive "free dog food for a year," . . . [GN]
PHH MORTGAGE: Willingham Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHH Mortgage
Corporation. The case is styled as Debra Willingham, Bennie Lee
Willingham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHH Mortgage Corporation doing business as: PHH
Mortgage Services, Case No. 0:23-cv-60838-RS (S.D. Fla., May 5,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
PHH Mortgage -- https://www.phhmortgage.com/ -- a wholly owned
subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation, is one of the largest
subservicers of residential mortgages in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott David Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
6810 North State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Phone: (561) 569-7062
Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
PORK KING: Court Narrows Claims in Chalas Suit Under ADA & NYCHRL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANA CHALAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORK KING GOOD, Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-03894 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part
and denies in part Pork King's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.
Ana Chalas, a Bronx, New York resident, is visually impaired.
Chalas uses NonVisual Desktop Access ("NVDA") screen reading
software to navigate websites on the internet. Pork King is a
registered Ohio Corporation that conducts business in New York
through its website, www.porkkinggood.com. Its website sells
various pork-based products.
Chalas filed the action on May 12, 2022, alleging that Pork King
failed to make its website accessible to the visually impaired,
thereby denying her access to its goods. On Aug. 2, 2022, the Court
granted Chalas' request for leave to amend her complaint and Chalas
filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Aug. 23, 2022.
Chalas alleges that on four occasions -- April 14, May 7, May 31,
and Aug. 21, 2022 -- she attempted to use Pork King's website to
buy Pork King Good Pork Rind Crumbs Original Flavor. Yet, because
of the website's accessibility barriers, Chalas could not buy the
product. Thus, she alleges that Pork King violated Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section
12101 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"),
N.Y.C. Administrative Code Sections 8-101 et seq., for failure to
provide equal access to blind and visually-impaired consumers on
its website. She Chalas seeks a preliminary and permanent
injunction as well as compensatory damages against Pork King.
On Sept. 30, 2022, Pork King filed the instant motion to dismiss
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim. It moves to dismiss Chalas' discrimination claims
under the ADA and the NYCHRL. It also moves to dismiss Chalas'
claim for civil penalties and fines or punitive damages under
NYCHRL, and her request for declaratory judgment.
First, the parties agree that Chalas has sufficiently alleged that
she is disabled and that Pork King's website was inaccessible to
Chalas' screen reader. Pork King's principle argument is that its
stand-alone website is not a "place of public accommodation" under
the ADA. It argues that Title III provides a comprehensive list of
only physical entities, which does not include websites, as places
of public accommodation.
Judge Ramos opines that a holding today that limits places of
public accommodation to the brick-and-mortar standard would
severely hamper Congress' effort to protect disabled persons who
want and need access to the growing number of online-only providers
of goods and services. Such an anomalous result could not have been
Congress' intention. In fact, the ADA was meant to provide a clear
and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
For this reason, as the Court previously determined, a stand-alone
website qualifies as a place of public accommodation to which Title
III of the ADA affords a right of equal enjoyment. Because Chalas
has sufficiently alleged discrimination upon which relief can be
granted under the ADA and NYCHRL, Judge Ramos denies Pork King's
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Next, Pork King argues that Chalas' claim for civil penalties,
fines, and punitive damages under NYCHRL should be dismissed. It
also moves to dismiss Chalas' claim for a declaratory judgment that
its website violated the ADA and NYCHRL because it is redundant.
Judge Ramos opines that as damages are not an independent cause of
action, a motion to dismiss these damages is procedurally
premature. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Chalas' request for
damages is denied. Moreover, Count III of the complaint asserts no
new claims and merely reiterates the same allegations as Counts I
and II. Because the claim for declaratory judgment is redundant,
Count III is dismissed.
For the reasons he discussed, Judge Ramos denies Pork King's motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim and failure to establish a
claim for damages under NYCHRL. He grants Pork King's motion to
dismiss Count III.
Pork King is directed to answer the complaint by May 30, 2023. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion,
Doc. 18.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/8qptq from Leagle.com.
PREMIUMCAPITALFUND.COM: Vallesillo Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alejandro Vallesillo, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premiumcapitalfund.com,
P.O. "John" Doe, Case No. 8:23-cv-00006 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 8,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03841-ALC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Premiumcapitalfund.com -- https://premiumcapitalfund.com/ --
provide smart, reliable, and cost-effective business financing
options to help small businesses take on the next steps in their
journey as business owners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
480 South Ellsworth Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Phone: (650) 781-8000
Fax: (650) 648-0705
Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
707 Alexander Rd. Bldg. 2, Suite 208
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (917) 541-7110
- and -
Minja Herian, Esq.
KOLEY JESSEN, PC LLO
1125 S. 103rd St., Suite 800
Omaha, NE 68124
Phone: (402) 390-9500
Fax: (402) 390-9505
Email: minja.herian@koleyjessen.com
QUEENSLAND: Flood Victims' Payouts Delayed, Claims Unfinalised
--------------------------------------------------------------
abc.net.au reports that payouts for victims of the 2011 Queensland
floods are being delayed because just 1 per cent of claims involved
in the long-running class action cannot be finalised.
In an update to more than 7,800 claimants, which has been seen by
the ABC, those involved in the court case were told final sums will
now be paid between July and September this year.
Despite a settlement sum of $440 million being ordered by a court
two years ago, the update letter said all claims will have to be
assessed before final payments are disbursed.
From June last year, interim payments were made to those involved
in the class action.
"The reason for the delay in making final payments is that the very
small number of claims that are still being assessed are the most
complex of the claims and they are taking a bit longer to finalise
and in some instances we and the assessors . . . have had
difficulty contacting and getting the information we need from some
of the claimants," the update from law firm Maurice Blackburn
read.
It also warned it was important for claimants whose claims are
still being assessed provide the information requested as quickly
as possible.
"Please do not wait until the last date to take a step that is
asked of you," it said.
Principal lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan said some claims had not been
finalised because they are particularly complex but others were
being delayed because participants had failed to provide basic
information, including bank account numbers.
Other claimants have died and their estates have not been
finalised, while several people cannot be contacted.
The law firm will be forced to exclude difficult claimants by June
2023 if they don't provide details required to finalise the action,
which was commenced in court in 2014.
'This is their last chance'
Ms Gilsenan said the claims are being assessed on a rolling basis
but once all the claims are finalised, they will be sent to an
external auditor before being paid out.
The payments range from hundreds of dollars to millions.
"We can't pay a single claimant their final payment until every
last claim is finalised," Ms Gilsenan said.
"For people who haven't provided the information required or who
have dropped out of contact, this is their last chance because
we're going to have to exclude those claims in order to pay the
vast majority.
"We don't want to exclude people but at a certain point we must
reject people from the pool, if there has been non-compliance, in
order to pay those final payments."
In 2019, the NSW Supreme Court found flood engineers operating the
Wivenhoe and Somerset dams in Queensland were negligent during the
large-scale flooding event in 2011.
The long-running class action alleged the dam operators failed to
follow their own manual and did leave enough space for heavy falls
during the crucial days of rain in January.
They argued that as a result, there were heightening flood levels
and damaging more properties.
Dam engineers have since spoken out about their role in the
disaster.
While the court ruled in favour of the negligence claim against the
Queensland government of the day, as well as Seqwater and SunWater,
they were not successful in some other aspects of the case.
In 2021, the NSW Supreme Court approved a partial settlement with
SunWater and the State of Queensland.
At the time, the law firm said the $440 million settlement covered
50 per cent of the liability for the losses suffered by group
members. [GN]
REJECT SHOP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
9now.nine.com.au reports that three shop managers claim they've
joined a class action against The Reject Shop because they're owed
thousands of dollars in unpaid overtime by their boss.
Former store manager Emma worked at the reject shop for 15 years
and is now a casual employee.
"I used to work anywhere from 50 to sometimes 80 hours a week," she
told A Current Affair.
Like many of her colleagues, the young mum said she has been
shortchanged.
Wendy, who is now retired, said she dedicated 33 years to The
Reject Shop, 20 of them as a manager.
"The harder you worked, the less you got I think," Wendy said.[GN]
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Dickson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rheem Manufacturing
Company, et al. The case is styled as Glenn Dickson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Rheem Manufacturing
Company, et al., Case No. 23CV001166 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., May 5, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Contract/Warranty."
Rheem Manufacturing Company -- https://www.rheem.com/ -- is an
American privately held manufacturer that produces residential and
commercial water heaters and boilers, as well as heating,
ventilating and air conditioning equipment.[BN]
RPNT ACUTE: Fails to Pay Nurses' OT Wages Under FLSA, Pittman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFIE PITTMAN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
RPNT ACUTE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00348 (W.D. Tex., May
11, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
from RPNT, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated hourly, non-exempt RPNT employees who were paid
under RPNT's shift differential pay scheme, per diem pay scheme,
and/or (3) "on-call" bonus pay scheme.
Like the Putative Class Members, the Plaintiff Pittman regularly
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. But RPNT does not pay
these employees overtime wages at the proper premium rate when they
work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Instead, RPNT uniformly
pays the Plaintiff Pittman and the Putative Class Members different
hourly rates (or "shift differentials") when they work weekend
shifts and after they work 8 hours in a day. But RPNT fails to
include these shift differentials in calculating these employees'
regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. Similarly, RPNT also
uniformly pays the Plaintiff Pittman and the Putative Class Members
per diems when they work night shifts. But RPNT fails to include
these per diems in calculating these employees' regular rates of
pay for overtime purposes. Finally, RPNT also uniformly pays the
Plaintiff Pittman and the Putative Class Members bonuses when they
work "on-call" shifts. But RPNT fails to include these bonuses in
calculating these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime
purposes, the suit says.
Plaintiff Pittman worked for RPNT as a Dialysis Registered Nurse
from December 2021 until December 2022.
RPNT "provides patient centered dialysis services" to "area
hospitals in North and Central Texas. "[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
S.Y. ORGANIC FARM: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.Y. Organic Farm,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie Lawrence, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. S.Y. Organic Farm, Inc.,
Marlin Management LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03493-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., May
9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
S.Y. Organic Farm, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is located in
Broadway, Brooklyn.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Johnston, Esq.
JOHNSTON LAW LLC
1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11757
Phone: (516) 388-7611
Email: DJ@BellLG.com
SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Consolidates Cogent and Thomas Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, COGENT BRAIN, PS, Plaintiff v. SAFECO INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., a Washington corporation, and FIRST
NATIONAL INSURANCE OF AMERICA, a Washington corporation; LIBERTY
MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
foreign insurance companies, Defendants. LAWRENCE A. THOMAS, DC,
PS, d/b/a CAPITOL HILL CHIROPRACTIC and BC CHIROPRACTIC d/b/a
Cooper Chiropractic, Plaintiffs, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, INC., a Washington corporation, and FIRST NATIONAL
INSURANCE OF AMERICA, a Washington corporation; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE CO. and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, foreign
insurance companies, Defendants, Case Nos. 2:23-cv-00544-RSM,
2:23-cv-00545-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington enters
an order for consolidation of related actions under Fed. R. Civ. P.
42(a)(2).
The cases Cogent Brain, PS v. Safeco Insurance Company of America,
et al., Western District of Washington Cause No. 2:23-cv-00544-RSM,
and Lawrence A. Thomas, DC, PS et al, v. Safeco Insurance Company
of America, et al., Western District of Washington Cause No.
2:23-cv-00545-RSL, both involve Class Action Complaints for
Violation of Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86 et seq. The cases
identified involve the same Defendants, the same claims and present
the same controlling issues of law.
While the cases have different plaintiffs, the cases allege
identical causes of action and share common issues of fact and law
as to liability and damages. They also involve many of the same
witnesses, records, and other documentary evidence. Discovery
served by the Plaintiff will be identical in both cases.
Consolidating the cases for trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(1)
will promote efficiency and conserve judicial resources.
Pursuant to LCR 42(a), Plaintiffs Cogent Brain PS and Lawrence A.
Thomas, DC, PS, d/b/a Capitol Hill Chiropractic and BC Chiropractic
d/b/a Cooper Chiropractic, and Defendants Safeco Insurance Company
of America, Inc., First National Insurance Co. of America
(improperly named as First National Insurance of America), Liberty
Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
stipulate that the later filed lawsuit, Lawrence A. Thomas, DC, PS
et al, v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al., Western
District of Washington Cause No. 2:23-cv-00545-RSL, will be
consolidated with: Cogent Brain, PS v. Safeco Insurance Company of
America, et al., Western District of Washington Cause No.
2:23-cv-00544-RSM.
The parties agree that the caption for the current case: Cogent
Brain, PS v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al., Western
District of Washington Cause No. 2:23-cv-00544-RSM, will be amended
to add the caption for Lawrence A. Thomas, DC, PS et al, v. Safeco
Insurance Company of America, et al., Western District of
Washington Cause No. 2:23-cv-00545. They agree that all future
pleadings, motions, briefs, and other papers will be filed only in
Cogent Brain, Case No. 2:23-cv-00544-RSM.
Neither Cogent Brain, PS v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, et
al., Western District of Washington Cause No. 2:23-cv-00544-RSM nor
Lawrence A. Thomas, DC, PS et al, v. Safeco Insurance Company of
America, et al., Western District of Washington Cause No.
2:23-cv-00545-RSL have been assigned a trial date.
The parties agree and request that the case schedule for Cogent
Brain, PS v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al., Western
District of Washington Cause No. 2:23-cv-00544-RSM will govern this
lawsuit.
The Parties have met and conferred regarding their Stipulation and
Proposed Order, as called for in LCR 42(b). Each named Plaintiff
will continue to represent only the putative class set forth in
their respective complaint. The Parties stipulate that
consolidation does not give rise to any new affirmative defenses or
challenges to standing, adequacy or typicality to represent a class
based on the claims or putative class set forth in the other
consolidated case.
Based on the foregoing Stipulation, Judge Martinez orders that the
later filed case, Lawrence A. Thomas, DC, PS et al, v. Safeco
Insurance Company of America, et al., Western District of
Washington Cause No. 2:23-cv-00545-RSL, will be consolidated into
case: Cogent Brain, PS v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, et
al., Western District of Washington Cause No. 2:23-cv-00544-RSM.
The caption for the current case Cogent Brain, PS v. Safeco
Insurance Company of America, et al., Western District of
Washington Cause No. 2:23-cv-00544-RSM, will be amended to add the
caption for Lawrence A. Thomas, DC, PS et al, v. Safeco Insurance
Company of America, et al., Western District of Washington Cause
No. 2:23-cv-00545.
All future pleadings, motions, briefs, and other papers will be
filed only in Cogent Brain, Case No. 2:23-cv-00544-RSM.
The case schedule for Cogent Brain, PS v. Safeco Insurance Company
of America, et al., Western District of Washington Cause No.
2:23-cv-00544-RSM (once issued) will govern the consolidated
lawsuits.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/kbl4l from Leagle.com.
Sarah L. Eversole -- eversole@wscd.com -- WILSON SMITH COCHRAN
DICKERSON, Seattle, WA,
James A. Morsch -- jmorsch@luc.edu -- Admitted Pro Hac Vice SAUL
EWING LLP, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for the Defendants.
David E. Breskin -- dbreskin@bjtlegal.com -- Cynthia J. Heidelberg
-- cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, Seattle,
WA, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
SAINT AGNES MEDICAL: Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Saint Agnes Medical Center, Case No.
23CECG00816 was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
May 5, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00388 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Saint Agnes Medical Center -- https://www.samc.com/ -- is a
not-for-profit entity that operates for one purpose: to further our
healing ministry.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com
SITEL OPERATING: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Pherigo Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES PHERIGO, TIERRA HUNT, SHRINE WILLIAMS, and KIMBERLY
WRIGHT, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION; SYKES ENTERPRISES,
INCORPORATED; and ALPINE ACCESS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00516-UNA
(D. Del., May 11, 2023) alleges that, due to Kronos-based
timekeeping and payroll systems being affected by a service outage
beginning in December 2021, the Defendants failed to pay wages,
including proper overtime, on time and in full for all hours
worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
As a result of the Sitel Group's failure to accurately track their
actual hours worked each week, employees who were non-exempt and
worked overtime were in many cases paid less than the hours they
worked in the workweek, including overtime hours. Many employees
were not paid for all their non-overtime wages for hours worked in
certain workweeks. Each of Plaintiffs worked 40 hours, or more,
during one or more weeks of the Kronos outage beginning in December
2021. The Plaintiffs were not paid the proper overtime premium for
all hours worked on time, if at all, for each of these weeks since
the onset of the Kronos service disruption, on December 11, 2021,
the lawsuit claims.
Sitel Group allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs for their actual
hours worked and at their regular rates of pay, in multiple
workweeks.
This action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages
Sitel Group owes the Plaintiffs and other Sitel Group workers under
the law, including unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties,
interest, and other remedies provided by federal law.
The Plaintiffs represent a collective of similarly situated workers
under the FLSA. This "FLSA Collective" is defined as:
All current or former non-exempt employees of Sitel Group
who worked in the United States at any time during
payroll cycles affected by Sitel Group’s Kronos service
outage, beginning December 11, 2021, until the time that
Sitel Group regained full access to all Kronos products
and services, and resumed normal employee timekeeping and
payment operations.
Plaintiff Williams represents a class of similarly situated workers
under Pennsylvania law. This "Pennsylvania Class" is defined as:
All current or former non-exempt employees of Sitel Group
who worked in Pennsylvania at any time during payroll
cycles affected by Sitel Group’s Kronos service outage,
beginning on or about December 11, 2021, until the time
that Sitel Group regained full access to all Kronos
products and services, and resumed normal employee
timekeeping and payment operations.
Plaintiff Hunt represents a class of similarly situated workers
under Arkansas law. This "Arkansas Class" is defined as:
All current or former non-exempt employees of Sitel Group
who worked in Arkansas at any time during payroll cycles
affected by Sitel Group’s Kronos service outage,
beginning on or about December 11, 2021, until the time
that Sitel Group regained full access to all Kronos
products and services, and resumed normal employee
timekeeping and payment operations.
Sitel Group provides customer engagement services to other
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq.
JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 656-5445
Facsimile: (302) 656-5875
E-mail: pat@jcdelaw.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET P.C.
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
SIX FLATS: OFPRS Class Suit Trial to Start February 3, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending April 2, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2023, that the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas sets discovery
for the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System (OFPRS)
class suit to be completed February 16, 2024 and trial date to
start February 3, 2025.
In February 2020, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against Holdings and certain of its former executive
officers (collectively, the "defendants") in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.
On March 2, 2020, the two cases were consolidated in an action
captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six
Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D.
Tex.) (the "Electrical Workers litigation"), and an amended
complaint was filed on March 20, 2020.
On May 8, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. were
appointed as lead plaintiffs, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and McKool Smith PC was
appointed as liaison counsel.
On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and growth
prospects, specifically with respect to the development of its Six
Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former
partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the
federal securities laws. The consolidated complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Holdings' publicly
traded common stock during the period between April 24, 2018 and
February 19, 2020.
On August 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.
On March 3, 2021, the district court granted defendants' motion,
dismissing the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.
On August 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ("the Fifth Circuit") from
the district court's decisions granting defendants' motion to
dismiss, denying plaintiffs' motion to amend or set aside judgment,
and denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental
brief. The appeal was fully briefed as of December 15, 2021, and
oral argument was held on March 7, 2022.
On January 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
On February 9, 2023, the Fifth Circuit mandate issued to the
district court.
On March 7, 2023, the district court entered a scheduling order
governing pre-trial proceedings, among other things setting a
completion of discovery date for February 16, 2024, and a date for
trial beginning February 3, 2025.
On April 18, 2023, Co-Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
& Retirement System filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint that would add a new named plaintiff, remove former
Co-Lead Plaintiff Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103
I.B.E.W., and modify the case caption.
On May 2, 2023, defendants filed an opposition to that motion and a
motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Six Flags is an American amusement park corporation.
SOCIAL FINANCE: Castiglia Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jonathan Castiglia, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOCIAL FINANCE, INC.,
Case No. 35-2023-CA-001856-AXXX-XX was removed from the Circuit
Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County, to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
May 5, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00288.
The Plaintiff alleges SoFi uses an automated system to send
"unsolicited text message marketing" to Plaintiff and the putative
class members without their prior express consent in violation of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NME 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sara F. Holladay, Esq.
Kathleen D. Dackiewicz, Esq.
McGUIREWOODS LLP
50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Phone: (904) 798-3224
Fax: (904) 798-3207
Email: sholladay@mcguirewoods.com
kdackiewicz@mcguirewoods.com
clambert@mcguirewoods.com
flservice@mcguirewoods.com
SOUTH AFRICA: Police Service Faces Class Action Over Illegal Guns
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Petersen, writing for Eyewitness News, reports that a Cape
Town mother who is still mourning the death of her son 10 years
after he was killed with an illegal gun has spoken to Eyewitness
news about her plight for closure and justice.
Melanie Kiel represents one of the nine families who are part of a
class action lodged against the South African Police Service (SAPS)
in the Western Cape High Court.
Gun-Free South Africa (GFSA) lodged the action, which centres
around two former senior police members, Colonel Christiaan
Prinsloo and Colonel David Naidoo, earlier last week.
Prinsloo and Naidoo have been convicted for stealing and
distributing more than 2,000 police-issued guns, meant to be
destroyed, to gang leaders on the Cape Flats between 2007 and
2015.
Melanie said that even though her son Dudley Richards was shot dead
in 2013, his death still haunts her.
"Sometimes I still stand at the window waiting for him to come
home," she said.
"Dudley was shot and killed at the age of 17, right here in the
road behind us. The reason why I joined this class action is
because I want to get justice and closure."
According to GFSA, police records show that between 2007 and 2015,
Prinsloo and Naidoo stole more than 2,000 guns and an unknown
amount of ammunition and distributed them to various criminals. The
police investigation found that these guns are linked to 1,066
murders.
GFSA has listed 261 people who have been shot by these guns; 187 of
them were under 18-years-old and 67 of them were killed.
GFSA director Adele Kirsten told Eyewitness News that the number
could be much higher.
"Given that there are more than 1,000 of Prinsloo's guns still in
circulation that have not been recovered or we are not aware have
been recovered, we are looking at potentially hundreds of families
who have been impacted by 'Prinsloo guns,'" Kirsten said.
Melanie said her whole family was traumatised by Dudley's death.
"My mum, dad, my late father, my brother, Dudley's siblings - all
of them, all of us were affected by his death. You expect death to
come your way at some point, but not so soon," she said.
Melanie said her wish is for the class action to bring peace to her
and the other families affected by the "Prinsloo guns".
"What I want is to get justice and closure. Money, revenge or even
sympathy is not a factor. I just want to see the people punished
for what they have done to my child and my family," she said.
Melanie said she doesn't want other families to go through what she
has suffered because of illegal guns.
SAPS spokesperson Brigadier Athlenda Mathe said a notice of the
intended class action was received.
"At this stage, we haven't been served with the class action
application and thus we cannot comment until we're served with the
application," Mathe said.
Mathe said SAPS will first have to assess the matter and then
decide on a way forward. [GN]
SOUTH AFRICA: Police Sued Over Theft, Supply of Guns to Criminals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Free South Africa of PoliticsWeb reports that GFSA, affected
families, and Norton Rose Fulbright law firm, which with Wim
Trengove (senior counsel) and Riaz Itzkin (junior counsel), have
taken the case pro-bono, held a briefing at the Desmond and Leah
Tutu Legacy Foundation to mark the first achievement in the
Prinsloo Guns class action: The lodging of papers with the Western
Cape High Court to apply for certification of a class action
against the police to claim for damages resulting from the theft
and supply of guns in police stores to criminals by two senior
police members.
The affected families comprise both direct and indirect Prinsloo
Gun victims. In total nine family members are named in the Prinsloo
Guns class action papers (see Note to Editors below for details).
They represent four categories of victim: children who were either
killed or injured (represented by their parents/guardians), adults
who were killed (represented by their family), and injured adults
(who represent themselves).
Two expert witnesses submitted affidavits in support of the class
action:
- Mark Mastaglio, an independent forensic scientist specialising in
the examination of firearms, who testified that it is possible to
identify a Prinsloo Gun from a recovered firearm, as well as a
recovered bullet or casing, because of the unique marks these guns
leave.
- Richard Matzopoulos, an epidemiologist and specialist scientist
at the South African Medical Research Council, who shows that
gun-related death rates significantly increased as Prinsloo Guns
flowed onto the Cape Flats.
GFSA's Founding Affidavit, which references a range of sources -
including SAPS' own records, describes in detail how Prinsloo and
Naidoo colluded from 2007 until Prinsloo's arrest in 2015 to steal
2,000+ guns and an unknown amount of ammunition awaiting
destruction at the Confiscated Firearms Store at Silverton in
Pretoria and distribute these to various criminals, including gang
members on the Cape Flats. GFSA argues that SAPS is at fault for
failing to uphold its constitutional, statutory, and international
obligations, which allowed Prinsloo and Naidoo to steal and
distribute guns and ammunition undetected and for years.
SAPS' reports, which are based on forensic data, show that between
2007 and June 2016, Prinsloo Guns were used in the commission of at
least 2784 crimes in the Western Cape alone. This includes 1066
murders, 1403 attempted murders and 315 other crimes. SAPS reports
further show that as of 2016, as many as 1012 Prinsloo Firearms
were still in circulation - and are likely killing and injuring
further victims. Consequently, GFSA argues that the class action
must include victims of Prinsloo's Guns dating from 2007 until the
present day.
While the class action aims to claim for damages and costs, all
claimants are clear that it won't bring their loved ones back and
it won't heal those who have been injured or disabled - but it may
bring a sense of justice and closure if the state is forced to
acknowledge the suffering caused by its negligence and corruption.
It may also force the state to take control of firearms so that no
more families lose a loved one to a Prinsloo Gun.
Notes:
Class action documents
Prinsloo Guns class action documents lodged with the Western Cape
High court on 9 May 2023 are available online at
www.prinslooguns.org.za; this includes:
-- GFSA's Founding Affidavit and appendices.
-- Affidavits from expert witnesses, Mark Mastaglio (an independent
forensic scientist specialising in the examination of firearms) and
Richard Matzopoulos (an epidemiologist and specialist scientist at
the South African Medical Research Council).
Aim of class action
The Prinsloo Guns class action seeks to claim financial relief for
damages arising from police corruption and negligence in managing
firearms in SAPS' care and on account of the Minister's vicarious
liability for the actions of his employees.
Family members who have joined the class action
Nine family members have joined the class action. They represent
four categories of direct and indirect Prinlsoo Gun victims.
Because the first stage of the class action is based on an 'opt
out' basis, anyone in these four categories who can prove that a
Prinsloo Gun was used in a shooting-related death or injury is
automatically included, unless they choose to formally opt out. The
four categories and the named families are:
Category
Family representing this category in the Prinsloo Guns class
action
Parents/guardians of children killed
-- Andre and Dianne Cornelius whose son, Dillan Cornelius, was
fatally wounded by a Prinsloo Firearm in August 2013 in a shooting
incident in Manenberg
-- Melanie Kiel, whose son Dudley Richards, was fatally wounded
with a Prinsloo Firearm in 2013 in a shooting incident in
Mitchell's Plein
Parents/guardians of children injured
-- Denise Mentor, the legal guardian of Leana van Wyk, a minor
female child who sustained serious head injuries during a shooting
incident with a Prinsloo Firearm in Hanover Park in 2012
-- Evenlyn Davids, the legal guardian of Liam Davids, a minor male
child who sustained serious neck injuries during a shooting
incident in Hanover Park with a Prinsloo Firearm in 2012
-- Simone Julies, the mother of Mogamat Moeneer and Mogamat Nazeer,
two minor male children who were injured in 2014 following a
shooting in Mitchell's Plein with a Prinsloo Firearm
Family members of adults killed
-- Natalie Dirks, the mother of Lukas Dirks, who was fatally
wounded by a Prinsloo Firearm in January 2015
Adults injured
-- Mansoer Eksteen, who was injured with a Prinsloo Firearm in
October 2014
-- Niezaam Cupido, who was injured in 2013 following a shooting in
Mitchell's Plein with a Prinsloo Firearm
How the Prinsloo Guns to gangs syndicate was detected
In September 2013 the police began recovering an excessive number
of guns on the Cape Flats that had been professionally 'cleaned' of
identifying marks, proof that a sophisticated gun smuggling
syndicate was at work. Project Impi was registered by SAPS in
December 2013 to investigate the syndicate.
Following intensive investigations, senior SAPS member Colonel
Christiaan Prinsloo, a commander of the Gauteng Firearm, Liquor and
Second Hand Goods Control was arrested in 2015. Prinsloo confessed
to his role in smuggling guns that were confiscated by or
surrendered to the police for destruction to gang leaders on the
Cape Flats and entered into a plea bargain with the state,
providing detailed information on the syndicate in return for a
lesser sentence. Colonel David Charles Naidoo was employed by SAPS
in the capacity of an operational officer in the Confiscated
Firearms Store at Silverton under the Head Office: Confiscated
Firearms Store, and assisted Prinsloo in his criminal enterprise.
For a full timeline of Prinsloo Guns, see www.prinslooguns.org.za
[GN]
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: SPR)
securities between April 8, 2020 and April 13, 2023. Spirit is a
non-Original Equipment Manufacturer that serves markets for
commercial airplanes, military platforms, and business/regional
jets.
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. (SPR)
Misled Investors Regarding its Production Quality Controls
According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose to
investors that Spirit lacked effective production quality controls,
which caused the Company to incorrectly install fittings designed
to join the aft fuselage to the vertical tail for some Boeing 737
Max airplanes that Spirit sent to Boeing. As a result, Spirit would
have to develop an inspection and repair procedure for the affected
fuselages, which would negatively impact Spirit's financial
results.
On April 13, 2023, Boeing announced that it would halt deliveries
of its 737 MAX aircraft due to a supplier quality problem. The same
day, Bloomberg identified Spirit as the supplier of the faulty
part. Several media outlets reported the details of the quality
problem. An article by Reuters reported that "[t]he problem
involves the installation of two fittings that join the aft
fuselage made by Spirit to the vertical tail, which were not
attached correctly to the structure of the fuselage before it was
sent to Boeing." Reuters also reported that "Spirit said it is
working to develop an inspection and repair for the affected
fuselages" and that "the problem is believed to date back to 2019."
On this news, Spirit's stock price fell $7.38, or 20.7%, to close
at $28.22 per share on April 14, 2023.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Spirit AeroSystems
Holdings, Inc. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for
the class must file their papers by July 3, 2023. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member. For more
information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Spirit AeroSystems
Holdings, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate
executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230512005448/en/
CONTACT: Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
ST. CHARLES HEALTH: Hit With Class-Action Lawsuit Over Meal Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Budnick at The Lund Report Premium reports that a nurse who
worked for the Bend-based St. Charles Health System filed a
class-action lawsuit claiming employees there were routinely
underpaid. The suit claims management allowed staff duties to
interrupt 30-minute meal breaks that Oregon law guarantees.
The suit, filed May 9 in Multnomah County Circuit Court, seeks to
represent current and former employees who worked at St. Charles
since 2017 -- a group estimated to number in the hundreds.
A spokesperson for St. Charles responded to the allegations in an
email to The Lund Report.
"We don't believe there is any merit to these claims and will
vigorously defend against them," Alandra Johnson wrote. "St.
Charles believes it is essential for caregivers to receive their
full 30-minute meal periods free from interruption. We work with
our caregivers and leaders to develop unit-specific practices so
that caregivers are able to receive uninterrupted meal periods. If
their meal period is interrupted, we are confident that we are
appropriately paying caregivers in accordance with the law."
The litigation represents another challenge for an independent
regional health system that was hard-hit financially during the
pandemic and remains beset by labor strife.
Filed on behalf of registered nurse Anna Ford, the suit contends
the health system had a "longstanding policy of failing to properly
compensate employees for work during statutory meal periods."
It claims that Ford and other employees had to carry "electronic
communication devices" while on break and were expected to respond
to calls. It claims the health system expected or allowed employees
to check a medical charting system during breaks, leading to
interruptions for which employees were "generally" not
compensated.
The nature of the suit's allegations are different from those at
issue in break-related litigation involving Legacy Health. That
case involves findings by the state's Bureau of Labor and
Industries that the Portland-based system failed to provide breaks
at the appropriate time in their shift. Legacy has fled a legal
action challenging the rules, arguing that the state's rules are
unfair and unconstitutional. The Legacy case is currently on
appeal.
St. Charles has not yet filed a response to the new suit, which
Portland attorney Shanti Lewallen filed on Ford's behalf.[GN]
STARS JEWELRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morocho Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RODRIGO MOROCHO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARS JEWELRY BY THE A JEWELER
CORP., STARS JEWELER BY TALIA, INC., HANANYA ARANBAIEV (A/K/A ELI
ARAN), and UAZIA ARANBAIEV, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03836
(S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2022) arises out of the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New
York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Plaintiff Morocho worked as a jeweler from approximately August
2015 to approximately April 3, 2023. He was responsible for
cleaning jewelry using harsh chemicals, selling merchandise to
customers, cleaning the store, and stocking. During the employment,
he regularly and consistently worked overtime but did not receive
overtime compensation for the hours worked. In addition, the
Defendants also failed to provide proper wage statements and
notices to Morocho and class members, says the suit.
Stars Jewelry By The A Jeweler Corp. is a New York domestic
business corporation, licensed to do business and doing business in
the State of New York. The company is engaged in the business of
selling jewelry and providing cleaning and repair services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford Tucker, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor,
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2243
E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com
SVB FINANCIAL: Robbins LLP Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons who acquired SVB Financial Group
(NASDAQ: SIVB) common stock pursuant to the Registration and
Prospectus issued in connection with SVB's July 2021 merger with
Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPFH) (the
"Merger").
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: SVB Financial Group (SIVB) Made False and
Misleading Statements in its Offering Documents in Connection with
its Acquisition of Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. (BPFH)
According to the complaint, brought against certain SVB directors
and officers and SVB's independent auditor KPMG, LLP, under the
Merger, each share of Boston Private stock was converted into the
right to receive $2.10 in cash and 0.0228 shares of SVB common
stock.
Leading up to the Merger, SVB concentrated a substantial portion of
its investment portfolio to longer-term, fixed-rate securities.
Because a rise in interest rates reduces the market value of
fixed-rate securities, SVB exposed itself to significant interest
rate risk. However, SVB failed to disclose this and other risks,
including uninsured depositor risk and liquidity risk. Moreover,
the Offering Materials framed potential interest rate increases as
a positive development for SVB such that it would increase its
interest rate spread, allowing SVB to charge more for its loans and
buy higher yielding securities at a rate that would outpace the
increased interest it would be obligated to pay on its customer
deposits. This turned out to be false, and SVB failed to disclose
that higher interest rates would reduce the market value of SVB's
marketable securities, resulting in material unrealized losses from
their decline in market value and released losses if they had to be
liquidated.
On March 9, 2023, SVB announced a mid-quarter update that it had
sold "substantially all of our Available for Sale (AFS) securities
portfolio" resulting in an estimated realized post-tax loss of $1.8
billion. The Company's stock plummeted more than 60% the next day.
On March 17, 2023, SVB announced it had filed a voluntary petition
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York.
What Now: Shareholders who owned Boston Private Financial Holdings,
Inc. stock before the Merger and acquired SVB Financial Group
pursuant to the Offering Materials may be eligible to participate
in the class action against SVB Financial Group. Shareholders who
want to act as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins
LLP. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to
participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you
choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.[GN]
TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lee Sues Over Inadequate Security Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAE LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:23-cv-03834 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2023), arises from the Defendant's
failure to protect highly sensitive data of thousands of current
and former employees.
On March 3, 2023, Defendant was hacked in a data breach, which is
unclear when it lasted but was not discovered until March 25, 2023.
Moreover, the Defendant did not provide victims with notice of the
data breach until April 19, 2023. Accordingly, it failed in its
duties when its inadequate security practices caused the data
beach, says the suit.
Taro is an international pharmaceutical company that claims to
develop proprietary, and off-patent pharmaceuticals for markets in
the United States, Canada, Israel, and other countries around the
world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
TECHNOLOGY CREDIT: Davis Suit Dismissed Under First-to-File Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONYA DAVIS, Plaintiff v. TECHNOLOGY CREDIT UNION, ET
AL., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-2206 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Dan Aaron
Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part Trivest
Partners, L.P.'s motion to dismiss and dismisses the case without
prejudice under the first-to-file rule.
Before the Court is Trivest's motion to dismiss with prejudice the
Plaintiff's complaint. The case stems from a purported business
operation that allegedly used false promises, deceptive
advertisement, and pressured sales tactics to sell the Plaintiff
overpriced and defective residential solar panels. Trivest is a
private equity company that invested in the now defunct solar panel
company. It argues that dismissal is warranted under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and the first-to-file rule.
The Plaintiff contends that this Court has personal jurisdiction
over Trivest, she has pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim,
and the first-to-file rule is inapplicable to the case.
In 2022, Ms. Davis purchased a solar system for her home from a
business called Power Home Solar (d/b/a Pink Energy). She paid
approximately $60,000 to buy and install the solar panels. In
October 2022, Pink Energy filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Defendant
Jayson Waller was Pink Energy's founder and CEO.
When Ms. Davis bought the solar panels, she financed the purchase
through a loan agreement with Defendants Technology Credit Union
and Sunlight Financial LLC. She alleges that the Defendants
pressured her to buy overpriced solar panels, using "pressured
hard-sell sales tactics" and "false, fraudulent, and misleading
representations." Ultimately, the solar panels were never fully or
consistently activated, failed to produce the kilowatt hours for
which she contracted, and resulted in financial and property damage
to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff alleges Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 13 against
all four Defendants: Breach of Contract (Count 1); Fraudulent
Misrepresentation (Count 2); Negligent Misrepresentation (Count 3);
Fraud in the Inducement/Execution (Count 4); Negligent
Selection/Retention/Training (Count 7); Civil Conspiracy (Count
10); Negligence (Count 11); Punitive Damages Claim (Count 13). In
Counts 5, 6, and 12, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment to
void the loan and sales agreement's contractual clauses that
pertain to arbitration and the limitation of liability. She alleges
Counts 8 and 9 against Technology Credit Union, Sunlight Financial,
and Trivest: Breach of Warranty (Count 8); Violations of Ohio
Consumer Protection Act (Count 9).
On Nov. 13, 2022, the plaintiffs in Aaron Hall, et al, v. Trivest
Partners L.P., et al (Case no. 4:22-cv-12743-FKB-CI) filed a class
action complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan (EDMI). The
three defendants in the class action complaint are: Trivest, Jayson
Waller, and TGIF Power Home Investor, LLC (later known as Pink
Energy). The class action complaint arose from the same business
operation that "ostensibly" sold and installed home solar systems
but was fundamentally an instrument of fraud and deception.
The plaintiffs in the class action suit allege Counts 1, 2, and 3
against all three defendants: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(a) and (c)) (Count 1);
Conspiracy to Violate Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d)) (Count 2); and
Violations of the Michigan Consumer Protections Act (Count 3). The
putative class, which the Court has not yet certified, includes
"All persons in the United States who purchased a home solar system
from Power Home Solar, LLC (including d/b/a/ Pink Energy) at any
time since January 1, 2018." On Feb. 15, 2023, Trivest and TGIF
Power Home Investor filed a joint motion to dismiss. A video
conference hearing regarding the Defendants' motion to dismiss is
scheduled for Aug. 9, 2023 at 2:00 p.m.
Turning to this case, on Dec. 8, 2022, the Ms. Davis filed her
complaint in the Northern District of Ohio. On March 31, 2023,
Trivest filed a motion to dismiss, which is the subject of this
opinion and order. On April 14, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a
memorandum in opposition to Trivest's motion to dismiss. On April
28, 2023, Trivest filed a reply.
Judge Polster addresses Trivest's first-to-file argument. In
applying the first-to-file rule, courts evaluate three factors: (1)
chronology of events; (2) similarity of the parties involved; and
(3) similarity of the issues or claims at stake.
Trivest argues that the first-to-file rule applies and that all
three factors weigh in favor of dismissal without prejudice, or
alternatively, staying the action pending the outcome of the
Michigan case. Ms. Davis opposes Trivest's efforts to consolidate
her case with the Michigan class action suit.
Judge Polster finds that the first-to-file rule applies and
warrants dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiff's case. He
finds (i) that the Michigan class action suit predates Ms. Davis's
complaint; (ii) the parties in Ms. Davis's case and the Michigan
class action suit are not "perfectly identical," but they
"substantially overlap"; (iii) that although none of Ms. Davis'
specific claims appear in the Michigan class action complaint, both
cases are "substantially similar" because they arose from the same
factual circumstances, over the same period, and seek similar
relief; and (iv) finds no evidence of inequitable conduct, bad
faith, anticipatory suits, or forum shopping.
Therefore, Judge Polster finds the three factors weigh in favor of
applying the first-to-file rule in the case. He exercises
discretion and dismisses without prejudice Ms. Davis' case.
Accordingly, he need not address Trivest's remaining motion to
dismiss arguments under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).
Trivest's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
The case is dismissed without prejudice under the first-to-file
rule.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/moxkq from Leagle.com.
TELEPHONE AND DATA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. (NYSE: TDS, TDS-PV, TDS-PU)
securities between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022. Telephone and
Data Systems, Inc. is a diversified telecommunications company.
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. (TDS)
Misled Investors Regarding its Subsidiaries' Ability to Retain
Customers
According to the complaint, United States Cellular (USCellular)
operates as a majority-owned subsidiary of TDS. Throughout the
class period, USCellular battled a systematic loss of "postpaid"
customers. In response, defendants touted USCellular's purported
ability to address postpaid customer "churn" and attrition via
tailored promotions and purported expense discipline.
Notwithstanding, USCellular's churn rate continued to worsen and
the Company's promotional activity decimated its profitability.
On November 4, 2022, defendants reported operating results for the
third quarter of 2022. Defendants' corrective disclosures revealed
that not only was USCellular's heavy promotional activity still
failing to correct postpaid churn rate, but that the "offer
structure" and its lack of "expense discipline" had, in fact,
substantially eroded the Company's profitability. On this news, the
price of TDS securities plummeted. TDS' common stock price declined
$4.29 per share (more than 25%), from a closing price of $16.57 per
share on November 3, 2022, to a close of $12.28 on November 4,
2022. TDS' preferred shares trading under the symbol TDS-PV
declined $0.96 per preferred share (more than 5%), from a closing
price of $17.20 per preferred share on November 3, 2022, to a close
of $16.24 on November 4, 2022. TDS' preferred shares trading under
the symbol TDS-PU also declined $1.01 per preferred share (more
than 5%) over the same period.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Telephone and Data Systems,
Inc. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class
must file their papers by July 3, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member. For more
information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Telephone and Data
Systems, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate
executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230512005449/en/
CONTACT: Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
TELEVISION TOWER: Faces Class Suit Over Fallen Lead-Laden Paint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Berinato of Fox Baltimore reports that a group of residents
living under the iconic red TV tower in Baltimore has filed a
class-action lawsuit against the owners of the tower and the
company that painted it because, they say, the work on the tower
spread lead-laden paint onto the neighborhoods below.
"What folks may not appreciate is that the tower's been covered in
over two and a half tons of lead," said Billy Murphy, one of the
attorneys representing the group.
The lawsuit claims that the lead-paint chips spread three-quarters
of a mile away from the tower.
Christine Sajecki, a resident of Woodberry, said that the situation
has changed how her family views the neighborhood. "My son learned
to climbed stairs on this playground. We used to maraud all over
this neighborhood all the time, but now we don't play in this
neighborhood anymore," said Sajecki.
Television Tower, Inc. owns the tower. It is an entity formed by
three TV stations that transmit their signals from the tower -
WBAL, WJZ, and WMAR. Skyline Tower Painting worked on the tower.
Last June, the Maryland Department of the Environment confirmed
that paint chips falling from the tower contained lead.
"The inspectors observed paint chips in the surrounding areas and
collected paint chip samples for analysis. MDE also performed
testing on the chips using a field device, which detected the
presence of lead in the paint," a spokesman for MDE said in a
statement at the time.
Late last week, MDE and the Maryland Attorney General filed a
lawsuit against the tower owners. The state lawsuit says the work
on the tower was carried out by an unaccredited contractor that did
little to contain the paint chips falling from the tower.
Murphy said that lead paint continues to fall from the tower and
residents continue to find paint chips, "all over the place."
Murphy said that MDE has the power to fine the company and stop the
work, but only a lawsuit can make the community whole again. [GN]
TELEVISION TOWER: Sued Over Properties' Lead Paint Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for several property owners in Baltimore's Woodberry
community filed a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City against Television Tower, Inc. ("TTI"), the owner of
the red "candelabra" tower located on "TV Hill," as well as
Nebraska-based Skyline Tower Painting, Inc. ("Skyline") for damages
and injunctive relief, alleging TTI and Skyline contaminated their
properties with lead paint when Skyline "hydro-blasted" the tower
in June of 2022 pursuant to a contract with TTI. Area residents
complained of finding red paint chips on their properties, which
were later found to contain lead.
The lawsuit seeks class representation of all owners of real
property located within a 4000-foot radius of the tri-pointed
broadcasting tower, located at 3723 Malden Avenue, which
encompasses the entirety of Baltimore's historic Woodberry
community as well as dozens of properties in neighboring
communities.
Attorney William "Billy" Murphy stated, "[l]ead is a dangerous
neurotoxin that is poisonous, especially to children. That the TV
Tower owners knew it contained lead paint yet hired an unaccredited
contractor to power blast that paint off hundreds of feet in the
air over folks' homes is unconscionable. The Defendants in this
case should have known better."
About Murphy, Falcon & Murphy
Murphy, Falcon & Murphy is a Baltimore, MD based law firm
specializing in complex civil, criminal, and civil rights
litigation. Our powerhouse legal team has a history of unrelenting
dedication to its clients in Baltimore and across the country. Our
team of seasoned trial lawyers has extensive experience in a wide
variety of cases with success rates that dwarf national averages
and is dedicated to providing smart strategies and creative
approaches to complex litigation. Our team is driven and
strategy-focused —characteristics that have helped us secure more
than $900 million in verdicts and settlements, including over $75
Million in police cases throughout the country. Our attorneys have
won some of the largest verdicts in high-profile, high-stakes cases
in some of the toughest jurisdictions around the country. The firm
represented Freddie Gray, Jr. and William H. Green, achieving
historic settlements of $6.4 million and $20 million, respectively,
for federal and state civil rights violations that led to their
deaths. [GN]
TESLA INC: Santiago Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joshua Santiago, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals v. TESLA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2023CH025231 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department – Chancery
Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on May 8, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-02891.
The Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on March 14, 2023. Tesla was
served with notice of process on April 7, 2023. In the State Court
Action, the Plaintiff alleges that vehicles manufactured by Tesla
suffer from a purported defect in their forward collision
monitoring system that causes the system to falsely alert ("Class
Vehicles"). The Plaintiff's Complaint includes claims for breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability, violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
aheldut@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
110 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 995-6333
Email: lkiser@kslaw.com
TESLA INC: Software Updates Depleted Cars' Batteries, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Shapero, writing for The Hill, reports that several Tesla
owners filed a class action lawsuit against the electric car
company on May 12, alleging that its automatic software updates
have depleted their cars' batteries or rendered them inoperable.
The owners of the Tesla Model S and Model X cars claim that the
software updates have occurred "without warning" and reduced the
driving range of the cars by at least 20 percent. In some cases,
the batteries became completely unusable, the lawsuit alleges.
Some Tesla owners spent between $500 and $750 to reverse the
update, while others needed to purchase a new battery for up to
$15,000, according to the claim.
"When car owners purchase their vehicles, they reasonably expect
that unforeseen events -- like weather, accidents, or flat tires --
may impact the performance of their vehicles and lead to costly
repairs," the lawsuit said.
"But no reasonable consumer would expect that the car manufacturer
itself, through an automated system, would deliberately and
significantly interfere with the car's performance through software
updates that reduce the operating capacity of the vehicles," it
added.
Tesla previously agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a class
action lawsuit with owners of its Model S electric sedans in 2021,
after an update temporarily reduced the batteries' charging speed,
capacity and range, according to CNBC. [GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Gamez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales
U.S.A., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Aracely Gamez, Jeffry
Takili, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor North America,
Inc., Case No. 23CV001477 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 8,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil."
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- http://www.toyota.com/usa/-- is
the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN]
TRADER JOE'S: Tarantino Sues Over Dangerous Metals in Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Tarantino, David Babaian, and Nancy Komessar, individually
and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. TRADER
JOE'S COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00853-L-KSC (S.D. Cal., May 9,
2023), is brought on behalf of persons who purchased certain
private-label dark chocolate products manufactured, marketed,
advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendant which were
contaminated with high amounts of dangerous heavy metals cadmium
and lead, consumption of which is known to cause a wide range of
harmful health effects.
The Trader Joe's dark chocolate products contaminated with these
harmful heavy metals include, without limitation, the following:
Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate 72% Cacao bars; and Trader Joe's The
Dark Chocolate Lover's Chocolate 85% Cacao bars.
In its marketing and labeling of Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate 72%
Cacao bars and Trader Joe's The Dark Chocolate Lover's Chocolate
85% Cacao bars, Trader Joe's does not disclose that these food
items contain any amount of lead or cadmium--let alone high amounts
thereof—rendering these foods unsafe, unfit for human
consumption, and otherwise worthless. Additionally, Trader Joe's
advertising and packaging of these chocolate bars is also
consequently materially false, deceptive, and misleading, and
reasonably likely to deceive the public. Lead and cadmium are both
carcinogenic and dangerous when consumed, posing obvious and
well-documented serious health risks to humans. In addition to
causing cancer, these heavy metals can impair kidneys, the liver,
bones, brain development, and other key organs and systems. Given
such health risks, the presence of even small lead and cadmium
amounts in food items, whether alone or combined, is material to
reasonable consumers.
On December 15, 2022, the independent nonprofit consumer watchdog
organization Consumer Reports published its exposé revealing that
many popular dark chocolate bars, including those manufactured and
sold by Trader Joe's, contained heavy metals. The Consumer Reports
investigation was supported independent lab testing showing that at
least two Trader Joe's dark chocolate products contained high
levels of cadmium or lead, measured against California's maximum
allowable dose level (or "MADL"),
To their detriment, Plaintiffs relied on Trader Joe's
misrepresentations and omissions that these dark chocolate bars
contained only those ingredients listed on the packaging and
labeling, and that they were safe and fit for human consumption.
Had Plaintiffs known these food items contained heavy metals like
lead or cadmium they would not have purchased the contaminated
products on the same terms and prices, if at all.
Since at least approximately 2014, Trader Joe's has known of the
presence of lead and cadmium in various of its private-label dark
chocolate food products, when a consumer advocacy group tested
these items and subsequently notified Trader Joe's of the results.
Additionally, Trader Joe's sources the ingredients and manufactures
these private label products and has exclusive knowledge of their
quality control testing and the ingredients contained therein. The
Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of classes of other
similarly situated purchasers of Trader Joe's products containing
high levels of heavy metals lead and cadmium, seek all applicable
and available relief and damages under the laws of California,
Illinois, Maryland, and the United States, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has regularly purchased Trader Joe's dark chocolate
products.
Trader Joe's is a national chain of neighborhood grocery stores,
with over 560 stores in 43 states across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Dustin L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St., Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: (415) 788-4220
Fax: (415) 788-0161
Email: rschubert@sjk.law
dschubert@sjk.law
TS INNOVATION: Kilari Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------
Phanindra Kilari, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TS INNOVATION ACQUISITIONS SPONSOR, L.L.C.
ROBERT J. SPEYER, JERRY I. SPEYER, TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, L.P.,
TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, INC., PAUL A. GALIANO, JENNY WONG,
JOSHUA KAZAM, JENNIFER RUBIO, NED SEGAL, AND MICHELANGELO VOLPI,
Case No. 2023-0509- (Del. Chancery Ct., May 9, 2023), is brought on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of
TS Innovation Acquisitions, Inc. ("TSIA"), a special purpose
acquisition company (SPAC), which, through a merger (the "Merger")
of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Lionet Merger Sub Inc., acquired
Latch, Inc. as its wholly owned subsidiary; asserting breach of
fiduciary duty claims arising from the Merger against (a) Robert J.
Speyer, Paul A. Galiano, Jenny Wong, Joshua Kazam, Jennifer Rubio,
Ned Segal, and Michelangelo Volpi, in their capacity as members of
TSIA's board of directors (the "TSIA Individual Defendants"); and
(b) TS Innovations Acquisitions Sponsor, L.L.C., Tishman Speyer
Properties, L.P., Tishman Speyer Properties, Inc., Jerry I. Speyer,
and Robert J. Speyer, (the "Sponsor Defendants") in their
capacities as TSIA's controlling stockholders.
March 10, 2021, in anticipation of the consummation of the Merger
TSIA filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement and Proxy/Prospectus
with the SEC. TSIA later filed amendments to the statement on March
30, 2021, May 3, 2021, May 10, 2021, and May 12, 2021
(collectively, with the March 10, 2021 statement the "Pre-Merger
Registration Statement" or "Registration Statement"). The
Pre-Merger Registration Statement was declared effective on May 12,
2021. Shareholders of both TSIA and Latch, Inc. approved the
Merger, which closed on June 4, 2021. The combined company changed
its name to Latch, Inc. and began trading publicly on NASDAQ under
the trading symbol "LTCH" on June 7, 2021. The post-Merger company
is hereafter referred to as "Latch" and pre Merger Latch, Inc. is
referred to as "Legacy Latch."
The Pre-Merger Registration Statement and other public statements
issued in connection with the Merger misrepresented and/or omitted
material information concerning Legacy Latch. Because TSIA's public
stockholders were not fully informed of all material information
regarding Legacy Latch, they exchanged their right to $10 per share
plus interest--held in trust for their benefit--for an interest in
Latch.
The Pre-Merger Registration Statement materially misrepresented
nearly every "Key Business Metric" of Legacy Latch (the term "Key
Business Metric" was used by Legacy Latch itself in its filings),
including, but not limited to: falsely representing Legacy Latch's
sales revenue which was based primarily on bookings of non-binding
letters of intent that in reality in no way could lead to the
revenue Legacy Latch projected; grossly misrepresenting the
"typical" timeline for converting a letter of intent into a sale;
misrepresenting the ease and feasibility of retrofitting buildings
booked in connection with the letters of intent; inflating Legacy
Latch's hardware sales because it delivered hardware to clients
before projects were due to begin in order to recognize additional
revenue on a quarterly basis; touting technology and products that
either did not have a proof of concept and would not be usable or
deliverable; and overstating the "international market" Legacy
Latch had and would be able to expand into.
Indeed, the disclosures surrounding the deal were not just
marginally flawed, but affirmatively false and misleading. The
result has been a financial catastrophe and Latch's stock price has
plummeted, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased shares of TSIA stock prior to the May 11,
2021.
TS Innovation Acquisitions Sponsor, L.L.C. (the "Sponsor") is a
Delaware Limited Liability Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 274-2180
Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
- and -
Brent B. Barriere, Esq.
Jason W. Burge, Esq.
Kaja S. Elmer, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P.
201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
Phone: (504) 586-5252
Facsimile: (504) 586-5250
Email: bbarriere@fishmanhaygood.com
jburge@fishmanhaygood.com
kelmer@fishmanhaygood.com
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Twist Bioscience Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Peters securities class suit in
the Northern District of California.
On December 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No.
22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.) ("Securities Class Action") was filed in
federal court in the Northern District of California ("Court").
The Securities Class Action names the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants and asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The Securities Class Action's claims are based in large part on
allegations made in a report issued on November 15, 2022 by
Scorpion Capital ("Scorpion Report") concerning, among things, the
Company's DNA chip technology and accounting practices.
The initial complaint filed in the Securities Class Action alleges
that various statements that the defendants made between December
13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 were materially false and misleading
in light of the allegations in the Scorpion Report, and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or acquired Company securities during an alleged class
period that began on December 13, 2019 and ended on November 14,
2022, as well as certain other costs.
This case remains in the preliminary stage. Given the inherent
uncertainty of litigation and the legal standards that must be met,
including class certification and success on the merits, the
Company cannot express an opinion on the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or on the amount or range of any potential
loss.
The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves against the claims asserted against them.
Twist Bioscience Corporation synthetic biology and genomics company
based in California.
TWITTER INC: Remand of Morgan Suit to Spokane Super. Court Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLEN MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00122-MKD (E.D. Wash.), Judge Mary K. Dimke of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denies the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
The Plaintiff filed suit on May 3, 2022, in Spokane County Superior
Court. The Defendant removed the action to federal court on May 19,
2022. On May 26, 2022, the Plaintiff moved the Court to remand the
matter back to state court. He made a single argument: the
Defendant's Notice of Removal was untimely. The Defendant opposed
the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and responded to the untimeliness
argument. In reply, the Plaintiff asserts that the Complaint does
not confer Article III standing and thereby requires remand to
state court.
In the Motion to Remand, the Plaintiff advised why he filed the
action, which is nearly identical to Gray v. Twitter, Inc., No.
20-cv-01389 (W.D. Wash.), in the wake of the Supreme Court's
decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021). While
the Plaintiff explained the Supreme Court's holding in TransUnion
in this section of the original motion explained, he did not argue
that Article III standing's requirements were lacking in the
matter. However, in reply and at the August 24 hearing, the
Plaintiff primarily argued remand is appropriate because Article
III standing is not satisfied. The Defendant requested leave to
respond to the Plaintiff's new argument.
On Sept. 9, 2022, the Court directed the parties to provide
supplemental briefing on whether Article III standing exists. The
Defendant filed a supplemental brief on Sept. 23, 2022. The
Plaintiff responded on Sept. 30, 2022. The Court granted the
Defendant leave to file a surreply, which was filed on Oct. 14,
2022. On Jan. 25, 2023, the Plaintiff filed Notice of Supplemental
Authority. On Feb. 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint. On May 2, 2023, the Court held a status hearing. At that
hearing, the Defendant did not object to the Plaintiff's filing of
an amended complaint.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated his right to privacy.
He brings the civil action pursuant to the Criminal Profiteering
Act, RCW 9A.82.010, 9A.82.100. Specifically, he alleges that the
Defendant unlawfully obtained his and other users' cell phone
numbers which he and other users register with a Twitter account
and then sold that information to third-party advertisers from
which the Defendant illegally profited.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient
facts that, when accepted as true, satisfy the elements of Article
III standing. Specifically, it asserts the Plaintiff has pled that
(1) he has suffered an intangible concrete harm, which is an injury
in fact, even following the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion,
(2) the alleged injury was caused by Defendant, and (3) the alleged
harm is redressable under RCW 9.26A.140.
Judge Dimke finds that the Defendant has established that the
Plaintiff's allegations are sufficiently plead such that Article
III standing has been satisfied. She also finds that the Defendant
has demonstrated the action is removable under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d) and its removal was timely.
Accordingly, Judge Dimke denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
The Defendant will answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from the date of her
Order. The District Court Executive is directed to file the Order
and provide copies to the parties.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/nz0cz from Leagle.com.
TWITTER INC: Wins Bids for Arbitration & to Dismiss Borodaenko Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DMITRY BORODAENKO, et al., Plaintiffs v. TWITTER,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-07226-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants Twitter's motion to compel
arbitration and motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs Dmitry Borodaenko and Abhijit Mehta initially filed the
putative class action in November 2022 and amended their complaint
a month later in December 2022. They seek to represent a class of
former Twitter employees who (1) are disabled, or were either on
leave or preparing to take family medical leave at the time Elon
Musk purchased the company, and (2) were either terminated or
constructively discharged due to Twitter's new workplace policies.
According to the complaint, Twitter employees had historically been
permitted to work remotely, but shortly after purchasing the
company, Mr. Musk announced that working remotely would only be
permitted for 'exceptional' employees that Musk himself would have
to approve. Mr. Musk also announced that employees would be
expected to work longer hours and "at high intensity" moving
forward. S
These new policies, the Plaintiffs contend, made it impossible for
many disabled employees to continue working for Twitter and many
felt forced to resign as a result. At the same time, the company
also began laying off a substantial portion of its workforce. The
Plaintiffs contend that these layoffs disproportionately affected
employees who were on or intending to take family or medical
leave.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs bring causes of action
for discrimination in violation of (1) the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"); (2) the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act ("FEHA"); and for violations of (3) the Family and
Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"); and (4) the California Family Rights
Act ("CFRA"). They seek to represent a class of "all similarly
situated Twitter employees across the United States who are either
disabled or have taken, or planned soon to take, a family or
medical leave, and whose jobs have been affected by the company's
layoffs, terminations, and heightened demands on the workforce."
The Defendant moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Abhijit
Mehta and to dismiss the FAC in its entirety. The Plaintiffs agree
that Mr. Mehta did not opt out of the Defendant's arbitration
agreement and that his claims should be compelled to arbitration.
Judge Gilliam accordingly grants the motion to compel arbitration
and stays the action as to Mr. Mehta's claims. He therefore limits
his analysis below to the motion to dismiss Plaintiff Borodaenko's
claims. Any references to "Plaintiff" refer to Mr. Borodaenko
unless otherwise specified.
As an initial matter, the Defendant argues that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's ADA and FEHA
discrimination claims because the Plaintiff did not exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing the case. Specifically, the
Plaintiff did not obtain right-to-sue notices from either the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the California
Department of Fair Employment & Housing. However, after briefing on
the motion to dismiss was complete, the Plaintiff received notices
from both entities. The Defendant nevertheless argues that the
Court should disregard these notices because Plaintiff did not seek
leave to file them on the docket.
Judge Gilliam declines to elevate form over substance in this way.
He therefore denies the motion to dismiss on this basis. The
parties are nevertheless cautioned that the Court expects counsel
will scrupulously comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Civil Local Rules moving forward.
More substantively, the Defendant argues that Plaintiff Borodaenko
has failed to state a plausible claim for disability discrimination
under either the ADA or FEHA. The Plaintiff confirms that he
intends to bring claims for both disparate treatment and disparate
impact under these statutes. But the Defendant contends that the
Plaintiff does not offer sufficient factual support for these
claims.
Judge Gilliam agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged that Twitter terminated him -- or any other
member of the putative class -- because of a disability. He
therefore grants the motion to dismiss the disparate treatment
claims under the ADA and FEHA.
The Plaintiff has also failed to plausibly allege that a disparity
actually exists. Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiff has not
alleged that such individuals have actually resigned or that they
have done so at higher rates than their non-disabled colleagues.
Again, he points only to his own circumstances of being terminated
after telling his manager that he could not return to the office
but the Court cannot draw an inference of disparity from a single
data point. The Plaintiff must provide factual support for this
conclusion. Judge Gilliam therefore grants the motion to dismiss
the disparate impact claims under the ADA and FEHA.
Next, the Plaintiff acknowledges that he does not have standing to
bring these claims himself and intends to find another named
Plaintiff to assert these claims. Judge Gilliam therefore grants
the motion to dismiss the FMLA and CFRA claims to the extent
Plaintiff Borodaenko asserts them himself. Plaintiff Mehta's FMLA
and CFRA claims, however, remain stayed pending arbitration.
The Defendant also moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim under the
Declaratory Judgment Act for an injunction prohibiting Twitter from
soliciting separation agreements from disabled employees that
release their discrimination claims without first notifying them of
this case. In response, the Plaintiff appears to argue that the
claim is moot anyway because in a separate case, Cornet v. Twitter,
Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-06857-JD, Twitter already agreed to include
notice of this case as part of its distribution of severance
agreements. He thus acknowledges that his claim for relief was
"effectively adjudicated" already. Judge Gilliam therefore grants
the motion to dismiss this claim.
Lastly, the Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss or
strike the class allegations. It argues, for example that the
complaint does not sufficiently allege that the Plaintiff is
similarly situated to the putative class because unlike the
putative class, Plaintiff did not resign because of the company's
new policies, but rather was laid off.
Because he has dismissed all the claims, Judge Gilliam need not
reach this argument.
Accordingly, Judge Gilliam grants the motion to compel arbitration
and stays the action as to Plaintiff Mehta's claims. The parties
will file a status report with the Court every 120 days from the
date of the Order explaining the progress of the arbitration
proceeding as to Plaintiff Mehta's claim and will notify the Court
within 48 hours of the completion of arbitration.
Judge Gilliam also grants the motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff
Borodaenko's claims. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
within 21 days of the date of the Order.
Judge Gilliam further sets a case management conference on June 20,
2023, at 2:00 p.m. All counsel will use the following dial-in
information to access the call: Dial-In: 888-808-6929; Passcode:
6064255
The parties to meet and confer and submit a revised joint case
management statement by June 13, 2023. They should be prepared to
discuss how to move the case forward efficiently.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/4783b from Leagle.com.
U.S. STEEL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over December 2018 Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Felton, writing for TribLive, reports that a class action
lawsuit of Mon Valley residents will allege that a 2018 fire at a
U.S. Steel site resulted in spiking emissions, noxious odors and
physical discomforts.
Allegheny County Court Judge Philip Ignelzi on May 12 issued an
order certifying a class of more than 123,000 Mon Valley residents
in the environmental case against U.S. Steel.
The class action suit seeks compensation as the result of the
December 2018 fire at U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works.
The gas-fueled fire burned for about two hours and tore through the
plant's No. 2 Control Room, damaging critical equipment used to
clean coke oven gas and shutting down pollution-control systems.
The Allegheny County Health Department subsequently began to warn
residents about high levels of sulfur dioxide, and a 2021 Pitt
study said the fire sickened nearby residents.
The plaintiffs in the case claim U.S. Steel should have prevented
the fire, which they allege originated from a series of mechanical
failures caused by long-term corrosion and inadequate maintenance.
They allege the resulting emissions caused noxious odors and
physical discomforts — including burning throat, watering eyes,
headaches, nausea and difficulty breathing — among Mon Valley
residents.
The court certified the case as a class action, meaning all 123,000
Mon Valley residents' nuisance claims can be addressed in a single
lawsuit.
The court at this point did not rule on the merits of the
allegations against U.S. Steel. It ruled only on whether class
action is proper for this situation.
In an emailed statement, U.S. Steel spokesperson Amanda Malkowski
said the company was reviewing the judge's opinion.
"Environmental stewardship is a core value at U.S. Steel, and we
remain committed to the safety of our employees and the communities
where we live and work," she said.
Malkowski declined to offer additional comment on the pending
litigation.
Sarah Siskind of Miner, Barnhill & Galland, the plaintiffs' lead
attorney, said she was "thrilled" by the court's decision to move
ahead with a class action suit.
"Now we can move forward and hold U.S. Steel accountable to its Mon
Valley neighbors," she said. [GN]
UNITED HELPERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Groulx Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DENISE GROULX, individually and for others similarly situated v.
UNITED HELPERS CARE, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00561-MAD-DJS
(N.D.N.Y., May 8, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Denise Groulx worked for United Helpers Care, Inc. (UHC)
as a resident coordinator in Ogdensburg, NY from approximately
October 1997 until October 2022. She regularly worked more than 40
hours in a workweek but UHC did not pay her for all the hours she
worked. Instead, UHC automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from
these employees' work time for so-called meal breaks. In her
complaint, Groulx alleges that UHC's automatic meal break deduction
policy and/or UHC's unpaid "on call" shift policy violated the FLSA
and the NYLL. Accordingly, she seeks to recover her unpaid overtime
compensation, plus liquidated damages, interest, penalties, and
attorney's fees and costs.
UHC is a New York non-profit corporation that maintains its
headquarters in Ogdensburg, NY. As a hospital network, UHC is
engaged in the operation of a hospital and is an institution
primarily engaged in providing healthcare services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David I. Iversen, Esq.
E. STEWART JONES HACKER MURPHY, LLP
28 Second Street
Troy, NY 12180
Telephone: (518) 274-5820
Facsimile: (518) 274-5875
E-mail: diversen@joneshacker.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued Over False Online Course Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that the University of
Southern California (USC) faces a proposed class action that claims
the school has falsely marketed its online Master of Social Work
(MSW) program as "exactly the same" as its in-person counterpart.
The 48-page lawsuit says that the online program, offered since
2010, is "aggressively" represented on the USC website as having
the same instructors and curriculum and providing the same clinical
experience and career development services as the renowned
in-person program. In truth, however, online MSW students receive a
vastly different experience than the one touted by USC, in large
part because it outsources significant aspects of the online
program to for-profit company 2U "in exchange for splitting the
tuition," the suit alleges, calling the school's online MSW
representations "egregiously false and misleading."
In addition, the university is accused of "reverse redlining,"
namely in that it specifically targets the alleged MSW program
misrepresentations at minority groups, including people of color
and veterans, to persuade them to enroll in the "inferior" online
program, the case shares.
Not only does USC charge students the same lofty tuition for an
in-person or online MSW degree, it also heavily promotes the online
program on its website, which is "replete" with claims that the two
programs are the same, the complaint says.
For instance, the website states that "[m]any students find the
[online] experience even more interactive and fulfilling than a
traditional classroom," the filing relays. In the FAQ section, when
asked about the difference between the online and in-person MSW
programs, the university's answer is "[virtually,] nothing," the
lawsuit adds.
In reality, the suit charges, USC does not facilitate this remote
program but instead outsources its administration to 2U -- a fact
the case claims the university does its best to conceal. According
to the complaint, USC's arrangement with 2U has purportedly
transformed the online MSW program into "an enormous degree mill"
that has seen enrollment numbers skyrocket since 2010.
"USC's websites and advertisements hide the connection [with 2U]
and inaccurately portray USC's online MSW program as being entirely
administered in-house, just like USC's in-person program," the
complaint reads. "In addition, 2U employees . . . are provided USC
email addresses and instructed not to reveal that they work for 2U
rather than USC."
Despite USC's representations, online and in-person MSW students do
not receive the same course content, are not given the same access
to clinical placement and career services and are not taught by the
same instructors, the filing explains. In fact, many instructors
who teach the online courses have no association with USC's social
work programs or faculty and often live outside of California, the
lawsuit relays.
Further, rather than live, seminar-style lectures taught by
"esteemed faculty," as represented by USC, many of the online MSW
courses apparently consist of "pre-recorded, 'asynchronous'
content, mostly of PowerPoints and YouTube videos" that are
sometimes outdated or directly contradict contemporary research or
the material itself, the suit claims.
What's more, the case takes issue with USC's recruitment training,
which allegedly makes use of an "offensive" graphic that
"caricature[s] potential recruitment targets according to their
race, age, gender, socioeconomic status, and veteran status" and
lists "conversion probability" -- that is, how likely a candidate
is to enroll.
"USC recruiters (actually 2U employees in disguise) are not using
the same targeted marketing and recruiting efforts to recruit
anyone to USC's in-person MSW program, let alone targeting people
of color or veterans for the in-person program. USC's operatives
reserve the high-pressure and racialized tactics for those it
recruits to its different and unequal online MSW program."
In spite of "multiple scandals," the university still "steadfastly"
maintains that the two MSW programs are the same, the complaint
shares.
The plaintiffs, Los Angeles and San Diego residents who graduated
from or are currently enrolled in the online MSW program, were each
misled by USC's representation that the program was the same as the
in-person version, the filing says.
The lawsuit charges that, like other online MSW students, the
plaintiffs paid "inflated" tuition fees for a program that was "not
remotely what USC told them they were getting." As the case tells
it, each plaintiff has more than $100,000 debt thanks to the
university's "completely different and decidedly unequal" online
program.
The lawsuit looks to represent any California residents who are or
have been students in the online Master of Social Work degree
program at the USC School of Social Work at any time since May 4,
2019. The suit also looks to cover California residents who are
people of color or veterans and who are or have been students in
the online MSW program. [GN]
US XPRESS: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 10
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CHATTANOOGA DIVISION
LEWIS STEIN, et al., Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00098-TRM-CHS
CLASS ACTION
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC. ("USXPRESS" OR THE "COMPANY") CLASS A
COMMON STOCK PURSUANT TO AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE PUBLIC OFFERING
THAT COMMENCED ON JUNE 14, 2018, AND ARE NOT OTHERWISE EXCLUDED
FROM THE CLASS PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS
LITIGATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN
THIS NOTICE. TO CLAIM YOUR SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS, YOU
MUST SUBMIT A VALID PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ("PROOF OF
CLAIM") POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED ONLINE ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 16,
2023.
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.
THIS NOTICE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE YOU PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED IN
2021 ADVISING YOU OF THE PENDENCY OF THIS LITIGATION.
This Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") has
been sent to you pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, Chattanooga Division (the "Court").
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the proposed
$13,000,000.00 settlement of the Litigation (the "Settlement") and
of the hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") to be held by the Court
to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
Settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated
March 27, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), by and between Plaintiffs
Deirdre Terry, Charles Clowdis, Bryan Robbins, SEPTA, and Linda
Babbidge, on behalf of themselves and the Class (as defined below),
on the one hand, and Defendants USXpress, Eric Fuller, Max Fuller,
Eric Peterson, Jason Grear, Lisa Quinn Pate, Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC, Stephens Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.,
and WR Securities LLC (the "Defendants"), on the other hand. This
Notice describes what steps you may take in relation to the
Settlement and this class action.
1 All capitalized terms used in this Notice that are not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings provided in the Stipulation,
which is available on the website www.USXSecuritiesLitigation.com.
This Notice is not intended to be, and should not be construed as,
an expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the truth
of the allegations in the Litigation as to any of the Defendants or
the merits of the claims or defenses asserted by or against the
Defendants. This Notice is solely to advise you of the proposed
Settlement of the Litigation and of your rights in connection
therewith.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
SUBMIT A
CLAIM FORM
The only way to be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement. Proof of Claim forms must be postmarked or submitted
online on or before August 16, 2023.
EXCLUDE YOURSELF
FROM THE CLASS
Get no payment. This is the only option that potentially allows you
to ever be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants or any
other Released Persons about the legal claims being resolved by
this Settlement. Should you elect to exclude yourself from the
Class, you should understand that Defendants and the other Released
Defendant Parties will have the right to assert any and all
defenses they may have to any claims that you may seek to assert,
including, without limitation, the defense that any such claims are
untimely under applicable statutes of limitations and statutes of
repose. Exclusions must be postmarked on or before June 19, 2023.
If you excluded yourself in response to the prior notice in 2021,
do not do so again.
OBJECT
Write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement, the
Plan of Allocation, and/or the request for attorneys' fees and
expenses. You will still be a Member of the Class. Objections must
be received on or before June 19, 2023. If you submit a written
objection, you may (but do not have to) attend the hearing.
GO TO THE HEARING
ON JULY 10, 2023
Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.
Requests to speak must be received by the Court and counsel on or
before June 19, 2023.
DO NOTHING
Receive no payment. You will, however, still be a Member of the
Class, which means that you give up your right to ever be part of
any other lawsuit against the Defendants or any other Released
Defendant Parties about the legal claims being resolved by this
Settlement and you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered
by the Court in the Litigation.
SUMMARY OF THIS NOTICE
Statement of Class Recovery
Pursuant to the Settlement described herein, a $13 million
settlement fund has been established. Based on Plaintiffs' estimate
of the number of allegedly damaged shares eligible to recover under
the Settlement, the average distribution per common share under the
Plan of Allocation is approximately $0.18, before deduction of any
taxes on the income earned on the Settlement Amount, notice and
administration costs, and the attorneys' fees and expenses as
determined by the Court. Class Members should note, however, that
these are only estimates. A Class Member's
actual recovery will be a proportion of the Net Settlement Fund
determined by that claimant's claims as compared to the total
claims of all Class Members who submit acceptable Proofs of Claim.
An individual Class Member may receive more or less than these
estimated average amounts.
Statement of Potential Outcome of Case
The Settling Parties disagree on both liability and damages and do
not agree on the amount of damages that would be recoverable if the
Class prevailed on each or any claim alleged. Defendants deny that
they are liable to the Class and deny that the Class has suffered
any damages. The issues on which the parties disagree are many, but
include: (1) whether Defendants engaged in conduct that would give
rise to any liability to the Class under the federal securities
laws; (2) whether Defendants have valid defenses to any such claims
of liability; (3) the appropriate economic model for determining
the amount by which the price of USXpress Class A common stock was
allegedly artificially inflated (if at all) during the relevant
period; (4) the amount, if any, by which the price of USXpress
Class A common stock was allegedly artificially inflated (if at
all) during the relevant period; (5) the effect of various market
forces on the price of
USXpress Class A common stock at various times during the relevant
period; (6) the extent to which external factors influenced the
price of USXpress Class A common stock at various times during the
relevant period; (7) the extent to which the matters that
Plaintiffs alleged were materially false or misleading influenced
(if at all) the price of USXpress Class A common stock at various
times during the relevant period; and (8) the extent to which the
various allegedly adverse material facts that Plaintiffs alleged
were omitted influenced (if at all) the price of USXpress Class A
common stock at various times during the relevant period.
Statement of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Sought
Since the Litigation's inception, Plaintiffs' Counsel have expended
considerable time and effort in the prosecution of this Litigation
on a wholly contingent basis and have advanced the expenses of the
Litigation in the expectation that if they were successful in
obtaining a recovery for the Class, they would be paid from such
recovery. Class Counsel will apply to the Court on behalf of all
Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed
thirty-three and onethird percent (33-1/3%) of the Settlement
Amount, plus expenses not to exceed $1,500,000.00, plus interest
earned on both amounts at the same rate as earned by the Settlement
Fund. If the amounts requested are approved by the Court, the
average cost per USXpress Class A common stock will be
approximately $0.08. In addition, Plaintiffs may seek payment for
their time and expenses incurred in representing the Class.
Further Information
For further information regarding the Litigation, this Notice or to
review the Stipulation of Settlement, please contact the Claims
Administrator toll-free at 1-877-216-9819, or visit the website
www.USXSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also contact a
representative of counsel for the Class: Greg Wood, Shareholder
Relations, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 655 West Broadway,
Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, 1-800-449-4900,
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com, www.rgrdlaw.com; or Shannon L. Hopkins,
Partner, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403,
Stamford, CT 06905, 203-992-4523, www.zlk.com.
Please Do Not Call the Court or Defendants with Questions About the
Settlement.
VARIABLE ANNUITY: $32.15 Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you had a retirement account with Variable Annuity Life
Insurance Company (VALIC) between April 27, 1998, and April 18,
2003, You could benefit from a Class Action Settlement.
A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
A settlement has been reached with respect to certain attorneys who
represented customers having retirement accounts with the Variable
Annuity Life Insurance Company ("VALIC") between April 27, 1998,
and April 18, 2003.
What is this about?
The Settlement is of a class action lawsuit filed against
defendants Milberg LLP, Melvyn I. Weiss (deceased), Michael C.
Spencer, Janine L. Pollack, Lee A. Weiss, Brian Kerr, Uitz &
Associates, Ronald Uitz, the Lustigman Firm, Sheldon Lustigman
(deceased), and Andrew Lustigman. The defendants represented the
plaintiffs in Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins., No.
CV-010242-TUC-WDB (D. Ariz. May 25, 2001). The class
representatives allege that the defendants failed to timely
designate expert and fact witnesses in the Drnek litigation and for
that reason, the Drnek litigation was dismissed. The defendants
deny these claims and maintain they have done nothing wrong and did
not cause any harm to the Class.
Who's included?
If you are a person who:
(1) purchased an individual variable deferred annuity contract,
(2) received a certificate to a group variable deferred annuity
contract issued by the VALIC, or
(3) made an additional investment through such a contract, on or
after April 27, 1998, to April 18, 2003, that was used to fund a
contributory retirement plan or arrangement qualified for favorable
tax treatment pursuant to sections 401, 403, 408, 408A, or 457 of
the Internal Revenue Code, you are included in the Class.
More information about accounts and investments included in the
Class is available at the website.
What can you get?
Subject to Court approval, and as described more fully in documents
available at www.bobbittsettlement.com, the class representatives,
on behalf of the Class, have agreed to settle all claims that were
or could have been asserted against the defendants in exchange for
a settlement payment of $32,150,000.00 in cash, together with up to
$1 million to pay the expense of providing notice to the class
members ("Settlement Fund"). Class Counsel will apply to the Court
for (1) their attorneys' fees equal to 30% of the Settlement Fund;
(2) the reimbursement of litigation expenses; and (3) service
awards to the two named plaintiffs representing the class of
$30,000 each. The Settlement Fund less administration costs,
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and the service awards
will be distributed in accordance with a plan of distribution to be
approved by the court. It is estimated that there are approximately
1.3 million members of the Class.
How to get benefits.
You must submit a claim form by October 5, 2023, to get benefits as
a class member. The Claim Form is attached. If you did not receive
one in the mail, you may request a Claim Form at the website or by
calling (833) 915-1143.
Your Other Rights.
If you don't want a payment from this Settlement and you don't want
to be legally bound by it, you need to exclude yourself in writing
by June 12, 2023, or you won't be able to sue the defendants about
the claims in this case. If you ask to be excluded, you can't get a
payment from the Settlement. If you stay in the Settlement, you may
object to it by July 21, 2023, but will be bound by the terms of
the Settlement if it is approved by the Court. The website has more
information about your eligibility to participate in this
Settlement.
The Court will hold a hearing on September 5, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.,
to consider whether to approve the Settlement. You can appear at
the hearing, but you don't have to. You can hire your own attorney,
at your own expense, to appear or speak for you at the hearing.
For complete information: Visit: www.bobbittsettlement.com
Call: (833) 915-1143
VERLOOP LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verloop LLC. The case
is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons v. Verloop LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03866 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Verloop -- https://shop.verloopknits.com/ -- is a company that
operates in the Textiles industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Onn Tablet Touchscreen
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Walmart faces a
proposed class action that alleges the mega retailer's Onn brand of
touchscreen tablets are defective in that their screens are liable
to crack, develop patches of "dead pixels" and otherwise fail to
work as advertised.
The 47-page lawsuit alleges Walmart has known of and concealed the
defect plaguing its 2019, 2020 and 2021 Onn Surf and Pro tablets,
which the complaint refers to as the "class devices," and has
routinely refused to repair or replace the supposedly dependable
and versatile devices free of charge when the touchscreen problem
occurs, which can happen within months or even days of use.
Per the suit, consumers have shared online that applying "normal
pressure" to the screen -- or subjecting the tablet to "ordinary
and foreseeable stress," such as being gently dropped to a surface
or removed from a protective case -- is enough to cause the screen
to crack or malfunction.
"Given the design defect, the [Onn tablet] displays are not strong
enough to endure the stresses they experience in the course of
normal and foreseeable use," the lawsuit summarizes.
The case charges that Walmart has failed to warn consumers about
the Onn tablet screen defect and, to date, "has not publicly
acknowledged [the problem] in any forum."
"Had Plaintiff and Class members known about the Display Defect at
the time of purchase, they would not have bought the [Onn tablets],
or would have paid substantially less for them," the filing
contends.
"Ordinary use" can damage Onn tablet touchscreen, lawsuit says
Walmart has consistently highlighted the size and high quality of
its Onn tablets' "crystal-clear display," touting the screens'
"stunning clarity," resolution and functionality, the suit relays.
The filing stresses that an Onn tablet's touchscreen is critical to
its overall functionality given that the device has no more than
three physical buttons, and the vast majority of a user's
interactions come by way of swiping and tapping the tablet's
graphical interface.
According to the lawsuit, tens of thousands of consumers nationwide
have purchased Walmart's Onn tablets -- manufactured by China-based
LightComm Technology Co., LTD -- based on the retailer's claims
that the devices are dependable, versatile, "perfect for kids" and
otherwise suitable for gaming, watching movies, viewing photos or
browsing the internet.
The existence of the apparent touchscreen defect effectively
ensures that Onn buyers will be unable to do any of these things,
the suit contends.
"Defendant knew or should have known about the Display Defect
before releasing the Class Devices," the case reads. "Despite this
knowledge, Walmart marketed the Class Devices as high quality,
dependable, and versatile tablet computers, offering broad
functionality."
As the lawsuit tells it, "ordinary use" of an Onn tablet is all it
takes for its touchscreen to malfunction. Protective cases "appear
to offer little protection" against the screen defect -- and are
often "cited as the cause of the damage" as the touchscreen will
crack when a consumer attempts to insert the device or remove it
from a screen protector, the complaint relays.
"Damage arising from the Display Defect happens without warning and
most often renders the tablets unusable," the case summarizes,
contesting that Walmart's representations of the Onn tablets are
false and misleading.
Expert blames materials, flawed case design for touchscreen
problems
To pin down the cause of the "common and widespread" Onn
touchscreen issues, the plaintiff's attorneys consulted Niebuhr
Metallurgical Engineering's Dr. David Niebuhr, a veteran
professional metallurgical engineer and former Professor of
Materials Engineering and current adjunct at California Polytechnic
State University. Dr. Niebuhr's career has been devoted to "product
development, materials selection, and design and failure analysis,"
the case says.
Dr. Niebuhr attributed the Onn touchscreen defect specifically to
"the use of inappropriate materials for the touchscreen and case,
and a flawed case design," the suit explains. In particular,
testing done by the expert found that the Onn tablet touchscreens
are made from poly(ethyl acrylate), or PEA, a polymer that's
cheaper than glass, the most commonly used touchscreen material,
the filing states. Moreover, PEA is more susceptible to scratching
and fracture than other touchscreen materials and possesses "low
impact resistance and tensile strength," the lawsuit shares.
The Onn tablets' cases are made from similarly cheap material, the
complaint continues.
The same testing found that the Class Device cases are made of
polystyrene. This polymer is cheaper than polycarbonate, the
polymer most commonly used to construct the cases of portable
electronic devices. Although brittle when unadulterated, most
commercial polystyrene contains additives that permit some
flexibility -- a feature that makes this polymer inappropriate for
the Class Devices."
The filing shares that the Onn tablets' polystyrene case "lacks
interior features that would prevent it from bending and twisting"
when force is applied to it. Given the touchscreen's brittleness
and propensity to fracture, the Onn tablet, the suit says, "needs a
rigid case to protect it," which, as currently manufactured, it
does not have.
"In the absence of a rigid case, even slight bending or twisting of
a Class Device can cause the touchscreen to crack," the filing
reads.
Further, the lawsuit says that a "secondary effect" of the
inappropriate tablet materials and case design is that the devices'
touchscreens are "prone to black blotching and complete failure."
Per the suit, black discoloration on the touchscreen is produced by
dead pixels, which develop after physical damage is done to the
screen's underlying liquid crystal display. Any physical damage to
the display can also cause a tablet's digitizer to "stop
registering touch or fail completely," the case adds.
"Because the Class Device touchscreens are extremely susceptible to
physical damage arising from ordinary use, a large percentage of
[Onn tablets] experience screen blotching, touch failure, or dead
screens," the filing says.
Onn users' experiences ring similar
The plaintiff, a Las Cruces, New Mexico resident, claims to have
purchased two eight-inch Onn Surf Tablet Pro devices from Walmart
in 2019 and 2020. Within roughly four months of ownership, the suit
says, "black blotches" began to appear on the touchscreen of one
device, and within days the screen "went black" and the tablet
"became unusable," the lawsuit states. Per the case, the plaintiff
purchased a replacement model and within days "a crack appeared
along the bottom of the touchscreen," which then began to spiderweb
and obscure the display.
"While using the device the touchscreen stopped responding and his
Class Device became unusable," the lawsuit says.
According to the suit, the plaintiff contacted Walmart "multiple
times," spending roughly four to five hours on the phone with a
representative to unsuccessfully secure a refund.
As the lawsuit tells it, the plaintiff's experience is not
dissimilar to that of other consumers who have complained online
that their Onn tablet's touchscreen broke or stopped working
relatively soon after purchase. According to the suit, complaints
began pouring in "[s]oon after Walmart began selling" the tablets,
and it "rapidly became obvious" that the touchscreen defect is a
serious problem for consumers.
"Based on the prevalence of [negative reviews], Walmart was aware
or should have become aware of the Display Defect in late 2019,
soon after the first negative reviews were posted to its website,"
the suit alleges.
The lawsuit calls Walmart's attempts to "disclaim or limit" its
warranties "unconscionable and unenforceable" given that the
retailer "knowingly sold a product without informing consumers of
the Display Defect." Moreover, the time limits pertaining to
Walmart's warranties are similarly inadequate to protect consumers
as they "unreasonably favor[]" the retailer.
"Furthermore, Defendant specifically excludes damage caused by the
Display Defect -- i.e., cracked screens -- from the Limited
Warranty, rendering it useless for Plaintiff and the Class
members," the suit adds.
Who's covered by the lawsuit?
The case looks to represent all consumers in the United States who
bought a 2019, 2020 or 2021 Onn Surf and/or Pro tablet.
I have an Onn tablet. What comes next?
There's usually nothing you need to do to join or sign up for a
proposed class action case after it's initially filed. It's only if
and when a suit settles that consumers affected by the allegations
-- called class members -- need to act. This typically involves
filling out and filing a claim form online or by mail. For some
settlements, class members who may be eligible for compensation may
receive direct notice about it.
Now, though, we have a long way to go, as lawsuits like this could
take months or even years to come to any resolution one way or
another.
If you own an Onn touchscreen tablet, or simply want to stay in the
loop on class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign up for
ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter here. [GN]
WALT DISNEY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 11
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 12 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of The
Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS) common stock between December 10,
2020 and November 8, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Captioned 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund v. The Walt Disney
Company, No. 23-cv-03661 (C.D. Cal.), the Disney class action
lawsuit charges Disney and certain of its top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-the-walt-disney-company-class-action-lawsuit-dis.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Disney class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than July 11, 2023.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Disney, together with its subsidiaries, engages
in the film and episodic television content production and
distribution business. Disney offers direct-to-consumer ("DTC")
streaming service through Disney+.
As the Disney class action lawsuit alleges, defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Disney+ was suffering decelerating
subscriber growth, losses, and cost overruns; (ii) the true costs
incurred in connection with Disney+ had been concealed by Disney
executives by debuting certain content intended for Disney+
initially on Disney's legacy distribution channels and then making
the shows available on Disney+ thereafter to improperly shift costs
out of the Disney+ segment; (iii) Disney had made platform
distribution decisions based not on consumer preference, consumer
behavior, or the desire to maximize the size of the audience for
the content as represented, but based on the desire to hide the
full costs of building Disney+'s content library; and (iv) Disney
was not on track to achieve even the reduced 2024 Disney+ paid
global subscriber and profitability targets, such targets were not
achievable, and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis in fact.
On November 8, 2022, Disney reported financial results for the
fourth quarter and fiscal year end October 1, 2022, missing analyst
estimates by wide margins on both the top and bottom lines.
Specifically, Disney's DTC segment reported a monumental operating
loss of $1.47 billion compared to a $630 million loss in the same
quarter the prior year while revenue in the segment increased just
8% to $4.9 billion. Disney also reported a decline in its average
revenue per Disney+ subscriber, as more customers subscribed
through a discounted bundle with Disney's other services. Notably,
the bundled offering made up about 40% of domestic subscribers,
confirming that Disney was relying on short-term promotional
efforts to boost subscriber growth while impairing Disney +'s
long-term profitability. On this news, the price of Disney common
stock declined more than 13%.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Disney common
stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff
of the Disney class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally
the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief
sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of
the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Disney class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Disney class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the Disney class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading complex class action firms representing
plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the
most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for
recovering more than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 – the
third year in a row Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those
three years alone, Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for
investors, more than double the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is
one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Appeal Filed in Sunshine Children's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff SUNSHINE CHILDREN'S LEARNING CENTER, LLC filed an appeal
from the District Court's Order dated April 24, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled SUNSHINE CHILDREN'S LEARNING CENTER, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
WASTE CONNECTIONS OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:21-cv-62123-BB, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
The Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on Nov. 17, 2021,
asserting two counts against Defendant: breach of contract ("Count
I"); and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
("Count II"). The basis for its claims against the Defendant is
that the Defendant increased its rates in breach of the Parties'
contract and in breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The Plaintiff also asserts class representation
allegations.
On October 26, 2022, the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom of the Southern
District of Florida entered an order on a motion for extension of
time of discovery cutoff deadline. The parties shall complete class
certification discovery on or before December 15, 2022, said the
Order.
On Jan. 27, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment
wherein it argues that: (1) it is entitled to summary judgment on
the Plaintiff's contract claim because there was no material breach
and the Plaintiff suffered no damages; (2) it is entitled to
judgment on three affirmative defenses: voluntary payment, waiver,
and failure to mitigate damages because the Plaintiff paid its
bills; and (3) the Plaintiff's claim that Defendant's lack of
notice breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing fails
because the duty of good faith and fair dealing imposes no
obligation beyond the contract and there was no breach of
contract.
In response, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant breached the
notice provision of the Contract which was a condition precedent
and a material term and that breach caused it damage. It contended
that the Defendant is not entitled to judgment on its affirmative
defenses because each requires that a party have full knowledge of
the facts and circumstances, which the Plaintiff did not. The
Plaintiff also asserted that there are sufficient facts for a
reasonable jury to conclude that the Defendant breached the duty of
good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide necessary
information to the Plaintiff.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Bloom entered an
Order on April 5, 2023 denying the Defendant's January 27 Motion
for Summary Judgment. Judge Bloom finds that the Defendant again
rehashes the relevant record evidence that its invoices provided a
phone number for inquiries should further information be needed and
contends that the Plaintiff need only have called to find out
everything it needed to know. But she has already concluded that
there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff had
sufficient notice or enough facts to put it on inquiry and impose
an obligation that it call or otherwise inquire. The Defendant has
therefore not met its burden on summary judgment of demonstrating
that there is no dispute of material fact over whether the notice
it provided met the Plaintiff's reasonable expectations in light of
the express terms of Section 5(b) of the Contract.
On April 24, 2023, Judge Bloom also signed an Order denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. She notes that
Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of satisfying the
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The
Plaintiff does not seek class certification under Rule 23(b)(1) or
(2). Therefore, class certification is not warranted, and the Court
need not proceed further, says the Order.
The appellate case is captioned as Sunshine Children's Learning
Center, LLC v. Waste Connections of Florida, Inc., Case No.
23-90010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, filed on May 8, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner SUNSHINE CHILDREN'S LEARNING CENTER, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:
Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 SE 6th St., Suite 2900
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
E-mail: mfistos@zpllp.com
ezebersky@zpllp.com
- and -
Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange SE Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339-2049
Telephone: (770) 444-9325
E-mail: adam@webbllc.com
Defendant-Respondent WASTE CONNECTIONS OF FLORIDA, INC. is
represented by:
Megan R. Brillault, Esq.
Casey T. Clausen, Esq.
Eric L. Klein, Esq.
James B. Slaughter, Esq.
BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, PC
1350 I St NW Ste 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3311
Telephone: (202) 789-6000
E-mail: mbrillault@bdlaw.com
cclausen@bdlaw.com
eklein@bdlaw.com
jslaughter@bdlaw.com
- and -
Desislava Docheva, Esq.
Samuel Felker, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
100 SE 3rd Ave Suite 1620
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Telephone: (954) 768-1610
E-mail: ddocheva@bakerdonelson.com
samfelker@bakerdonelson.com
WHITE CASTLE: Ill. Supreme Ct. Ruling in BIPA Class Suit Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha G. Kohne, Michelle A. Reed, Molly E. Whitman, and Joseph
Hold at akingump.com reports that the Illinois Supreme Court issued
a pair of decisions related to the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA) that continue to ratchet up compliance pressure
on businesses. On February 17, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court
ruled in a narrow 4-3 majority that a separate claim for damages
accrues each time a business violates the state's BIPA (e.g.,
accruing additional damages each time a fingerprint is scanned
rather than a single violation for each unique fingerprint
collected). Under BIPA, companies collecting biometric data such as
facial scans, fingerprints and voiceprints can face millions of
dollars in fines if they fail to seek permission to collect this
data, or if they fail to disclose their data retention plan.
In a class action filed against White Castle, the United States
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit certified to the Court the
following question: "Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each
time a private entity scans a person's biometric identifier and
each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party,
respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission?"1
In the underlying case filed in 2018, the putative class action
representative Latrina Cothron, a White Castle employee since 2004,
alleges that White Castle collected her fingerprints without her
consent every time she accessed her computer and weekly pay stubs,
violating her biometric privacy rights with every scan since BIPA
was enacted in 2008. White Castle argued that Ms. Cothron's BIPA
violation claim was time barred because it accrued, if at all, only
the first time her fingerprint was scanned after the Act took
effect. The Court disagreed, holding that "the plain language of
section 15(b) and 15(d) shows that a claim accrues under the Act
with every scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or
biometric information without prior informed consent."2
The decision came on the heels of another BIPA-related ruling from
the Court, which ruled just two weeks earlier that Illinois'
five-year "catchall" statute of limitations applies to BIPA claims
because the statute does not specify a limitations period.3 Taken
together with the White Castle decision, these rulings could have
catastrophic consequences for corporations defending BIPA class
actions because potential liability may be increased exponentially.
Under BIPA, companies can face $1,000 in liquidated damages per
violation and $5,000 for intentional or reckless violations.4 White
Castle estimated that if Cothron succeeds on her claims on behalf
of a class of nearly 9,500 employees, it may be on the hook for
upwards of $17 billion in damages.5
More recently on March 23, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court handed
down a ruling addressing BIPA claims brought by employees under
union contracts with broad management rights clauses. In the case
of William Walton v. Roosevelt University, the Court determined
that the Labor Management Relations Act preempts BIPA, meaning
biometric privacy disputes between union employees are resolved
under federal law and their collective bargaining agreement.
Unlike in White Castle, the plaintiff William Walton must go before
an adjustment board instead of a court to pursue claims that
Roosevelt University collected his scanned fingerprint data
unlawfully. This decision arrives after two other union-related
cases -- Miller v. Southwest Airlines and Fernandez v. Kerry --
similarly found preemption. In Miller, the 7th Circuit found BIPA
claims are preempted by the Railway Labor Act, ruling that a
dispute over fingerprint scanning must be settled before an
adjustment board since the union may have agreed to the scans on
behalf of the employees. In Fernandez, the 7th Circuit found that
the BIPA claims from union-represented workers are preempted under
the Labor Management Relations Act, upholding a dismissal because
another fingerprint scanning dispute implicated collective
bargaining agreements.
The White Castle decision has a silver lining for employers
utilizing biometric technology to collect data from Illinois
residents. In considering White Castle's concerns over potential
"annihilative liability," the Court acknowledged that BIPA damages
are discretionary rather than mandatory. The Court ultimately left
concerns over excessive damages awards unanswered, encouraging the
legislature to clarify its intent regarding potential liability
under the Act.
In light of these recent rulings, companies are likely to face
increased pressure and higher settlement demands from plaintiffs,
especially where claims may involve the use of biometric scanners
on a daily basis or even multiple times per day. Companies should
use caution when implementing biometric scanning technology, and
those that already use such technology should conduct regular
audits to ensure compliance with BIPA.
1 Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 20 F.4th 1156, 1167 (7th Cir.
2021).
2 Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., --- N.E. 3d ---, 2023 WL
2052410, at *8 (Ill. Feb. 17, 2023).
3 Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., --- N.E. 3d ---, 2023 WL
1458046, at *8 (Ill. Feb. 2, 2023).
4 CITE to statute
5 Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 2023 WL 2052410, at *7.[GN]
WONWON GROUP: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENDA HARRELSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. WONWON GROUP INC. d/b/a VOLCANO STEAK & SUSHI,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02147-VMC (N.D. Ga., May 11, 2023) seeks to
recover from the Defendant the tips unlawfully withheld pursuant to
the unlawful "tip out" process, full minimum wages for all time
worked, and all unpaid overtime wages, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends that despite working substantial hours in
excess of 40 each workweek, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff
straight time at a subminimum wage for all hours worked regardless
of the number of hours worked. In addition to the Plaintiff's and
other Servers' normal job duties in actively serving customers,
they were also required to complete numerous pre-shift and
post-shift closing duties. The Plaintiff and other Servers took 45
minutes to complete their Pre-Shift Duties, and 30-60 minutes to
complete their Closing Duties, the Plaintiff claims.
The Defendant regularly paid Plaintiff and other Servers a base
subminimum wage of $4.00 per hour. In addition to the hourly wage,
Plaintiff and other Servers received tips from Defendant's
customers for their service. The Plaintiff and other Servers were
required to "tip out" or surrender 50% of the tips they received
while working in Defendant's hibachi area. Additionally, the
Plaintiff and other Servers were required to "tip out" or
surrender 30% of the tips they received while working in the dining
room. Additionally, the Defendant further failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other members of the Minimum Wage and Tip Collective
with a full disclosure compliant with 29 C.F.R. sections 531.54 and
531.59(b), the suit further asserts.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server from July
1, 2022, until April 22, 2023.
Wonwon Group owns and operates multiple restaurants with a
steakhouse and sushi bar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 780-4880
Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
tmonteiro@scottemploymentlaw.com
YOUTUBE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SCHNEIDER, UNIGLOBE
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, and AST PUBLISHING, LTD., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs file an
administrative motion for further argument or for leave to file
supplemental briefing in further support of the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
The Defendants have conceded that their DMCA affirmative defense
raises common issues. They should not be allowed to use that
defense as a deterrent to litigation ensuring that costs of
litigating that defense become unbearably high for individual
plaintiffs only to withdraw the defense before it ever gets tested
and acquires any preclusive effect. This situation is thus a
paradigmatic case where it is appropriate to apply Rule 23(c)(4) to
determine the applicability of YouTube's DMCA safe harbor defense
on a class-wide basis.
In these circumstances, the Plaintiffs request supplemental oral
argument at the Court's convenience to address the relevance to the
pending class certification motion of the Defendants'
just-disclosed position.
The Plaintiffs have brought this motion on an expedited basis, the
day after learning of the Defendants' position, recognizing that a
decision could be forthcoming on the pending class certification
motion and because the Defendants' letter claims that their
decision to contingently try to abandon their DMCA safe harbor
defense potentially impacts the pretrial filings deadline of next
Thursday, May 11, 2023.
YouTube is an American global online video sharing and social media
platform.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44WcgHv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
Carol O’Keefe, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
rewing@koreintillery.com
rcortazar@koreintillery.com
stillery@koreintillery.com
sberezney@koreintillery.com
cokeefe@koreintillery.com
- and -
Joshua Irwin Schiller, Esq.
Philip C. Korologos, Esq.
Jeffrey Waldron, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293-6800
Facsimile: (415) 293-6899
E-mail: jischiller@bsfllp.com
pkorologos@bsfllp.com
jwaldron@bsfllp.com
ZENNI OPTICAL: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rebekah Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Zenni Optical, Inc., Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-02023-00012709-CU-MT-CTL was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on May 5, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00821-H-KSC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Zenni Optical, Inc. -- https://www.zennioptical.com/ -- offers the
largest selection of affordable glasses online, including
prescription glasses and sunglasses for men, women, and kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rebekah Strawn Guyon, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 586-7700
Fax: (310) 586-7800
Email: guyonr@gtlaw.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled for June 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
Olivier Douliery, writing for Agence France Presse, reports that
everyone who had a Zoom account and Canadian residency as of June
30, 2020 may soon receive compensation. The British Columbia
Superior Court will be asked to approve or reject the settlement at
a hearing scheduled for June 12.
A class action lawsuit against video conferencing platform Zoom,
whose popularity has exploded during the pandemic, has been settled
out of court for two million Canadian dollars.
Any resident of Canada in dated June 30, 2020 who had a Zoom
account or subscription and who downloaded the application could
therefore soon receive compensation.
Initiated in British Columbia, the lawsuit accused the company Zoom
Video Communications of having shared the personal information of
some of its users with third parties, in addition to having falsely
presented its service as being entirely encrypted at a time when it
was not.
Zoom denies everything, but nevertheless consented to the payment
in order to avoid a trial. No Canadian judge has therefore had to
rule on the basis of these allegations.
The Superior Court of British Columbia will be called upon to
approve or reject the out-of-court settlement at a hearing
scheduled for June 12. If the agreement receives the blessing of
justice, eligible persons will be able to file a claim form.
A similar class action had already been taken in the United States.
It ended in 2021 with an amicable agreement set with a payment of
85 million US dollars. [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 ***