/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230524.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 24, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 104
Headlines
1-800 WINESHOP.COM: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 26, 2024
2ND STREET USA: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
3M COMPANY: Association of Fire Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
3M COMPANY: Gelder Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Schechtman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Schultz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Scoggins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Sentak Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ABELIGHT INC: Rayford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AC MIA LLC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADT PIZZA: Seeks More Time for Class Certification Response
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Siflinger Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
ALCLEAR LLC: Murray Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ALVARIA INC: Pharr Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
AMERICOOL HEATING: Horton Suit Remanded to King County Super. Court
AMICK FARMS: Diaz Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
APPLE INC: Oct.10 Extension to File Class Certification Bid Sought
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Tuttle's Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
AUSTRALIA: Settles Toxic Chemical Lakes Class Suit for $88-Mil.
AVID SPORTSWEAR: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAYER AG: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Monsanto Class-Suit Settlement
BEAUTYHABIT INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BELLA LUNA TOYS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEN.ETH: Attorney Threatens Class Action Over $PSYOP Memecoin
BERMAN'S AUTO: Federated Mutual Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
BEST PRACTICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cartegena Alleges
BHP GROUP: Lawyers Warn of Investors' Risk in Samarco Dam Suit
BIG PICTURE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Certification Bid by July 3
BLACKSTONE INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Bridges GIPA Suit
BLUE DIAMOND: Court Strikes Henderson's Class Action Complaint
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Faces Basic Suit Over Securities Violations
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Sued Over Unregistered Sale of Securities
BRITANNICA FLOOR: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Mismanagement of Social Housing Units
BUFFALO WILD: Class Action Suit Over Chicken Wings Pending
BUILDER SERVICES: Carapia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS: Taylor Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
C&W FACILITY: Ramirez Suit Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Prairie Pointe Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tenn.
CARDINAL GROUP: Judge Hears Arguments in Urban Infinity Suit
CARVIN WILSON: Locke Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
CASCADE LIVING: Kastel Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Rossen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHAMPS SPORTS: Gamez Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
CLEVELAND BROTHERS: MacMichael Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
CO.EXIST NUTRITION: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLUMBUS FAMILY: Morrison Conditional Status Bis Partly OK'd
COMPLIANCE STAFFING: Murphy Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Griffin to File More Briefing on Deal
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Certification Bid & Briefing Due Nov 7
CREPINI LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CRUNCH TECH INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CRUNCHBASE INC: Casar Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Information
CVENT HOLDING: Juan Monteverde Investigates Blackstone Sale
DAYTON, OH: Dismissal of Morris v. Mimms With Prejudice Recommended
DELTESS CORP: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Securities Class Suit
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit in Colorado
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Class Suit in Colorado
DISH NETWORK: Owen-Brooks Files Suit in D. Colorado
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by July 10
DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Expanded-Range Fees
DST SYSTEMS: Bid to Stay Injunction Tossed in Hamilton Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Alden Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Allen Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Barkley Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Bay Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sarette Lawsuit
E. GLUCK CORPORATION: Cody Files Suit in C.D. California
EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Wins in Part Bid to Amend Class Complaint
ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Real Estate Settlement Class Suit
EXECUTIVE LE SOLEIL: Bid to Toss & Strike Nunez Class Claims Denied
FCA US: Class Action Settlement in Victorino Suit Gets Initial Nod
FCA US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kendrick Extended to July 5
FEDERAL BUREAU: Seeks June 16 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
FINANCE OF AMERICA: Miller Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Partly Obliged to Produce Docs in Securities Suit
FORWARD AIR FINAL: Jatindranath Sues Over Improper Deductions
FOX CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Quinones Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
GARAGE CARS LLC: Barrett Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
GARDEN GROVE: June 12 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
GEICO ADVANTAGE: 5th Cir. Affirms Angell Class Suit Certification
GENERAL FREIGHT: Florexil Sues Over Untimely Compensation
GENERAL MILLS: Court Denies Schweinsburg's Bid to Alter Judgment
GENERAL MOTORS: Court OKs White Bid for Class Certification
GEO GROUP: Adelanto Immigrant Detainees Sue Over Cleaning Agents
GERI KRUCKENBERG: Summary Judgment in Quad Cities TCPA Suit Upheld
GIVAUDAN SA: Faces Candle Makers Antitrust Class Action Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: New York District Court Stays Chen-Oster Class Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Collects Patients' Private Health Info, Suit Claims
GOOGLE LLC: Content ID Class Action Trial Scheduled June 2023
GOOGLE LLC: London Court Dismisses Privacy Breaches Class Action
GRANITE STATE: Greniers Seek Initial Nod of Settlement Agreement
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Transfer Hicks Suit to E.D. Cal.
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Remand of Hicks Suit to State Court Denied
HAPPY STATE BANK: Gallens Files Suit in N.D. Texas
HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Must Face Weehawken Tenants' Class Action
HAWAII: Appeals Attorney Fees Ruling in E.K. Suit to 9th Circuit
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Burger Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
HIGHERDOSE LLC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HIGHLAND WHOLESALE: Abarca-Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Suit Over Cannabis Abatement
HYATT CORPORATION: $1MM Settlement in Bickerton Suit Has Final OK
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settles Vehicle Theft Class Action for Over $200-M
IMPORT PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Byrd Suit Alleges
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Doheny Sues Over Age Discrimination
INTUIT INC: Eligible Users Set to Receive Settlement Checks
IOWA: Gov. Responds to Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Seeks Leave to File Sur-reply in Erickson Suit
JEWELRY ARTISANS: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JIMBO'S HAMBURGER: Choc Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
JOSEPH R. BIDEN: Missouri Bid to Add Class Allegations OK'd
JOSH STEIN: ACLUNC Seeks Certification of Defendant Class
JUMP TRADING: Kim Sues Over Manipulation of Market Price
JUMP TRADING: Manipulated Stablecoin Price for $1.3-B Profit
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to August 4
KOHL'S INC: Faces Reimer Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
KOHLS INC: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
KROGER CO: White Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of Dismissal Bid
LAST BRAND INC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LE ELEGANT BATH: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAT KING: Deadline to Respond to Class Certification Bid Adjourned
MCKINSEY & CO: Canada to Join Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Arthur Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MECOX GARDENS & POTTERY: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
META PLATFORMS: Court Orders to Pay Blogger Suit for $56,278
META PLATFORMS: July 26 Class Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Refuses to Add New Claim in Class Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Must Face Class Action Suit Over Source Code
MONARCH: Edwards Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
MONDELEZ INT'L: Class Cert Bids Deadline Set for Jan. 26, 2024
MPOWER ENERGY: Rhymes Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
MVW HOLDINGS INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Emerson Merger
NATIONAL WILDLIFE: E.D. Michigan Refuses to Dismiss Gaines Suit
NATURAL FACTORS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Wins Summary Judgment vs Uviles
NEXT LEVEL BURGER: Hunter Sues Over Labor Law Violation
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Breedlove Sues Over Inadequate Cyber Security
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Brown Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Derouin Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: James Sue Over Clients' Unprotected Health Info
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Distribution of Net Settlement Fund Authorized
NIKE USA: Ellis Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices
NIKE USA: Faces Ellis Class Suit Over Greenwashed Sustainability
NORDICTRACK INC: Pagano Files Suit in D. Utah
ONFIDO INC: Ill. Court Approves Amended Class Action Settlement
PACIFICORP: Faces Class Action Over 2020 Labor Day Fires
PARADISE OAKS: Barker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PAYDAYZ STAFFING: Mital Files Suit in D. Arizona
PEAK TECHNICAL: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PFIZER INC: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
PH7 NATURAL BEAUTY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PHARMABOX LLC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PILLOW CUBE INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PLENTY MERCANTILE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Court Tosses July 21 Class Cert Hearing Date
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Cho 401(k) Plan Suit Seeks Class Status
QASIM PHARMACY: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
QWP HOLDINGS: FLSA Conditional Collective Status Sought in Hunsaker
RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Averts Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
RCI DINING: Must Respond to Class Certification Bid by May 30
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Woolard Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
RIGHT TEMP: Appeals Court Ruling in JLS Suit to N.Y. Appellate Div.
RIVER CLIFF: Default Judgment Entered Against Joye in Allstate Suit
ROADSAFE TRAFFIC: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROLLING FRITO-LAY: Hall Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ROOT INC: Kolominsky Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
RYVYL INC: Court Names Glancy Prongay Lead Counsel in Cullen Suit
SAFECO INSURANCE: Haenfler Files Suit in D. Arizona
SALVATION ARMY: Provisional Class Certification Sought in Tassinari
SHOREWOOD FOREST: Bids to Compel Discovery in Stratford Suit Denied
SITEL OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pherigo Suit Alleges
SMS VENTURES: Krantz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action Suit Over Illegal Guns Pending
SOUTHWEST HEALTH: Colvin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MI: Schultz Seeks to Certify Inmate Class
STANLEY BLACK: Montgomery Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
STAR SNACKS: Copeland Sues Over Unlawful and Deceptive Marketing
SYSCO METRO: Suit Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Aug. 23
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Vehicles' Over-the-Air Updates
TIMOTHY WARD: Foster Suit Seeks Class Certification
TORCH ELECTRONICS: Romano Files Class Certification Bid
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: BOAGF Holdco Suit Transferred to N.D. Iowa
TRUSTED MEDIA: Bohnak Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
TTEC SERVICES: $2.5MM Settlement in Beasley Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
TWITTER INC: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration in Borodaenko
U.S. STEEL: Court Certifies Suit Over 2018 Fire at Clairton Coke
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: MTC Seeks to File Reply Brief Portion Under Seal
UNITED PARCEL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Malone Class Complaint
UNITED STATES: Judge Set to Hear Haitian Migrants' Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Fails to Disclose Patients' Visitation Fees
USA TODAY: Fox Rothschild Discusses Class Certification Ruling
UTAH: Medina Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
VAIL RESORTS: Stone Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial to 10th Cir.
VAN BUREN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Albano Suit Alleges
VIATRIS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 14
VOPAK TERMINAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 8
WALMART INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Jessica Suit
WALMART INC: Kim 'Spark Toys' Suit Seeks Class Certification
WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Misleading Streaming Revenue Reports
WEEE! INC: Jia Sues Over Property and Privacy Rights Violation
WELLS FARGO: Settles Unauthorized Accounts Scandal Suit for $1B
WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Faces Another Suit Over Banksia Hill Detainees
WESTLAND FARMS: Court Denies Garcia's Bid for Order to Show Cause
WILMETTE, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Storm Water Improvement Project
YALE UNIVERSITY: Emrit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
YUM BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Ransomware Attacks
ZIP CO: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Business Representations
*********
1-800 WINESHOP.COM: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 26, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHI RENEE SPARKS,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
1-800 WINESHOP.COM, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02804-TPB-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber entered a case management and
scheduling order as follows:
-- Discovery Cut-Off: March 22, 2024
-- Class Certification Motion: April 26, 2024
-- Summary Judgment, Daubert, and May 31, 2024
other Dispositive Motions:
-- The parties shall participate in May 6, 2024.
court-annexed mediation on or
before:
1-800-wineshop.com specializes in Wine.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MnagAK at no extra charge.[CC]
2ND STREET USA: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2nd Street USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. 2nd
Street USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03476 (E.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
2nd Street USA, Inc. -- https://2ndstreetusa.com/ -- is a one of a
kind second hand clothing store which buys and sells used clothing
and accessories.[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
3M COMPANY: Association of Fire Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Association of Fire Districts of the State of
New York, East Fishkill Fire District, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The 3M Company agent of formerly known as
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC Chemicals Americas
Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Arkema Inc.; Archroma U.S. Inc.; BASF
Corporation, Individually; BASF Corporation, as successor in
interest to Ciba Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier
Global Corporation; Chemdesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.;
Chemicals, Inc.; Clariant Corporation, Individually; Clariant
Corporation, as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical
Corporation; Corteva, Inc., individually; Corteva, Inc., as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; DuPont De Nemours Inc., individually;
DuPont De Nemours Inc., as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; Dynax Corporation; E. I. DuPont De Nemours
and Company, individually; E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., individually; Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., as successor
in interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical
Company; National Foam, Inc.; The Chemours Company, Individually;
The Chemours Company, as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Individually;
The Chemours Company FC, LLC, as successor in interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Tyco Fire Products, LP,
Individually; Tyco Fire Products, LP, as successor in interest to
The Ansul Company; Doe Defendants 1-20, fictitious names whose
present identities are unknown; Case No. 7:23-cv-03329 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on May 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01954-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.
3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and
consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew W. Croner, Esq.
Nicholas H. Mindicino, Esq.
Patrick James Lanciotti, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 397-1000
Fax: (646) 843-7603
Email: acroner@napolilaw.com
nmindicino@napolilaw.com
planciotti@napolilaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon
Santurce, Puerto Rico
Phone: (833) 271-4502
Email: pnapoli@napolilaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Nicole G. McDonough, Esq.
ARCHER & GREINER, P.C (NJ2)
21 Main Street, Suite 353 Court Plaza Souith East
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 342-6000
Fax: (201) 342-6611
Email: nmcdonough@archerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Gelder Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Gelder, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02028-RMG
(D.S.C., May 11, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Schechtman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Schechtman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02022-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Schultz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Schultz, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02023-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Scoggins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Scoggins, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02024-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Sentak Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sentak, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02025-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
ABELIGHT INC: Rayford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abelight, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Gerald Blythe Rayford, on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Petition v. Abelight, Inc., Bethesda
Luteran Communities Auxiliary, Does 1-10, Case No. 23CV001488 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Abelite -- http://www.abelite-da.com/-- provides statistical
timing signoff tools and consulting for digital designs.[BN]
AC MIA LLC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AC Mia LLC. The case
is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AC Mia LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03933
(S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
AC Mia LLC is a Florida limited liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
ADT PIZZA: Seeks More Time for Class Certification Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAIQA MIRZAI, et al., V.
ADT PIZZA LLC, et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-RNC (D. Conn.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying the deadline for
them to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification, and the deadline to answer the complaint pending a
final determination on the Defendants' motion to dismiss, or stay
the case and compel individual arbitration, (which is being filed
simultaneous to this motion).
ADT Pizza is a franchisee of Pizza Hut located in 9 states.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M1zof5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard J. Buturla, Esq.
Raymond J. Rigat, Esq.
Paul A. Testa, Esq.
BERCHEM MOSES PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Telephone: (203) 783-1200
Facsimile: (203) 878-2235
E-mail: rbuturla@berchemmoses.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Siflinger Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kim Siflinger, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Albertsons Companies LLC, Safeway Inc.,
Case No. 23-00002-06319-8 SEA was removed from the King County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on May 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00682 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Albertsons Companies, Inc. --
https://www.albertsonscompanies.com/home/default.asp -- is an
American grocery company founded and headquartered in Boise,
Idaho.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 N 34th St, Ste 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Phone: (206) 816-6603
Fax: (206) 319-5450
Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James F. Williams, Esq.
Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq.
David A. Perez, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave Ste 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3543
Email: Jwilliams@perkinscoie.com
mwebster@perkinscoie.com
dperez@perkinscoie.com
ALCLEAR LLC: Murray Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benny Murray II, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved v. ALCLEAR, LLC a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV10429
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 9, 2023), is brought
against the Defendants, pursuant to California's Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA"), to recover civil penalties (75% payable to
the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% payable to
Aggrieved Employees) for the Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code, by failing to pay the Plaintiff minimum and
overtime wages.
The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of
minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked by virtue
of, The Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies,
and failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control
during unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for
missed or improper meal periods, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in Los Angeles County as a
non-exempt lead, team lead, ambassador, senior ambassador and/or
similar title(s) from in or around late September 2021 through the
present.
The Defendants own, operate, or otherwise manage a technology
company that owns and operates CLEAR, a biometric secure identity
platform that stores individuals' personal information and links it
to biometric data, allowing them to bypass security checkpoints by
using fingerprint and/or iris identification.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
ALVARIA INC: Pharr Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alvaria, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Valerie Pharr, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Alvaria, Inc., Carrington Mortgage
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11053-AK (D. Utah, May 11, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Alvaria, Inc. -- https://www.alvaria.com/ -- formerly Aspect
Software, Inc., is an American multinational software company that
sells call center and customer experience software technology to
large enterprises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
AMERICOOL HEATING: Horton Suit Remanded to King County Super. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ERIC HORTON, Plaintiff v. AMERICOOL
HEATING & A/C LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01838-BJR
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the
Plaintiff's motion to remand and remands the case to King County
Superior Court.
In light of this ruling, the Court does not reach the Defendants'
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.
From May to October 2022, Horton worked as a Heating, Ventilation,
& Air Conditioning ("HVAC") technician for Defendant Americool
Heating & A/C LLC. Americool is a Washington limited liability
company that employs technicians out of locations in Centralia and
Kennewick to install, maintain, and repair HVAC systems. Defendants
Lincoln Anderson and Norman Upson are co-owners of Americool and
its president and vice president, respectively.
On Nov. 17, 2022, Horton commenced this putative class action in
King County Superior Court, alleging that by failing to provide
rest breaks, meal breaks, and proper compensation required by
Washington law, the Defendants engaged in a systemic scheme of wage
and hour abuses against their installation and service technicians.
Horton filed suit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of all
individuals who are or have been employed as installation or
service technicians by Americool in the state of Washington from
Nov. 17, 2019, through the date of final disposition of this
action.
The Plaintiff avers that Americool failed to provide (1) paid
ten-minute rest breaks for every four hours worked or ten minutes
of additional pay for each missed rest break; (2) meal breaks after
five consecutive hours worked and a second meal break during
ten-hour days, or payment for each missed meal break; (3)
compensation for off-the-clock work time, including preparatory
work and meal breaks that were recorded but not received; and (4)
overtime wages for travel time or missed breaks that when
calculated, extended the work week beyond forty hours. In addition,
he alleges that Americool improperly deducted wages for tools and
supplies purchased by employees.
Horton asserts six violations of Washington law: for failing to
provide employees with rest breaks in violation of the Industrial
Welfare Act, RCW Section 49.12.020, and WAC 296-126-092 ("Count
I"); for failing to provide meal periods in violation of the same
statute and administrative code provision ("Count II"); for failing
to pay wages in the amount required under the Minimum Wage Act
("Count III"); for failing to pay overtime wages in violation of
RCW 49.46.130 ("Count IV"); for unlawful wage deductions in
violation of the Wage Rebate Act ("Count V"); and for the willful
refusal to pay earned wages in violation of RCW 49.52.050 ("Count
VI").
On Dec. 29, 2022, the Defendants timely removed the case to federal
court. They contend that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over Horton's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because,
although he alleges violations exclusively under state law, his
claims arise under federal law. Specifically, the Defendants
maintain that aside from his rest period claim comprising Count I,
each of Horton's remaining five claims is preempted by Section 301
of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. Section
185(a).
According to the Defendants, those five claims are covered by or
require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA")
that governed the terms and conditions of Horton's employment
during the relevant period. They also request that the Court
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Horton's rest period claim
in Count I pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a).
On Jan. 30, 2023, Horton filed a motion to remand the case to King
County Superior Court. In the motion, he concedes that his claim
for meal period violations in Count II is preempted by Section 301
of the LMRA in light of the CBA provisions governing meal periods,
and states that he agreed to dismiss this claim. However, Horton
argues that his "remaining claims--for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Minimum Wage Act, for unlawful
deductions in violation of the Wage Rebate Act deduction
regulations, and for willful refusal to pay wages in violation of
the Wage Rebate Act--are not preempted."
Horton argues that such claims are based on non-negotiable rights
conferred by Washington state law, are independent of any rights
given to him and class members under the collective bargaining
agreement, and do not require interpretation of the agreement. The
Defendants oppose the motion.
On Jan. 24, 2023, the parties met and conferred and stipulated to
dismissal of Horton's meal period claim in Count II, as well as the
portions of Counts IV and VI that arose from his meal period claim.
The Plaintiff concedes that his second claim for relief is
preempted under Section 301 of the LMRA. He also concedes that as a
result of this, he cannot pursue damages under his fourth and sixth
claims for relief that are based on the second claim for relief.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement on whether Horton's
claim in Count III for off-the-clock work performed as a result of
being clocked out for an unused meal break was similarly
preempted.
Thus, on Feb. 16, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings, requesting dismissal of Horton's request
for "damages related to allegedly missed meal periods" in Count
III. They further argue that this claim should be dismissed because
Horton did not exhaust the exclusive remedies provided to him in
the CBA regarding meal periods, and that it should be dismissed
with prejudice because amendment would be futile. Horton opposes
the motion.
The Defendants acknowledge that Horton's rest period claim in Count
I is not preempted under the LMRA because the CBA is silent on this
issue. Similarly, Horton has agreed to dismiss his meal period
claim in Count II and the corresponding portions of Counts IV and
VI because the CBA supersedes any independent state law right
regarding meal breaks.
Judge Rothstein finds that (i) Horton's wage and hour claim in
Count III does not seek purely to vindicate rights provided by the
CBA, and (ii) Horton's wage and hour and unlawful deduction claims
are not substantially dependent on interpretation of the CBA and
are, therefore, not preempted under Section 301. The Court declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Horton's claims under 28
U.S.C. Section 1367.
For the reasons stated, the Court grants Horton's motion to remand,
and accordingly, orders that:
1. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), all further
proceedings in this case are remanded to the Superior Court
for King County in the State of Washington;
2. The Clerk of the Court will mail a certified copy of this
Order to the Clerk of the Court for the Superior Court for
King County;
3. The Clerk of the Court will also transmit the record herein
to the Clerk of the Court for the Superior Court for King
County, Washington; and
4. The Clerk of the Court will terminate the motion pending at
Docket No. 16 and close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 1, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4z7cbf3w from Leagle.com.
AMICK FARMS: Diaz Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DIAZ, JEAN-NICHOLE
DIAZ, and DIAZ FAMILY FARMS, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. AMICK FARMS, LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-01246-MGL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order conditionally certifying an Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) collective composed of, and facilitating the sending of
written notices to:
"All individuals who currently or formerly grew chickens for
Amick
in the United States under an Amick Broiler Grower Contract from
[insert date three years prior to the date that the Court issues
an
Order granting Conditional Certification] to the present."
Amick Farms supplies quality chicken products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 8, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42wf4cK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
Robert Wehrman, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
rwehrman@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Jamie Crooks, Esq.
Alison Newman, Esq.
FAIRMARK PARTNERS LLP
1825 7th St NW, No.821
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (619) 507-4182
E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com
alison@fairmarklaw.com
- and -
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
BERGER MONTAUGE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
mwalling@bm.net
APPLE INC: Oct.10 Extension to File Class Certification Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court
for an Order as follows:
Event Current Date New
Date
Apple's Daubert Reply May 19, 2023 June 2,
2023
the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion N/A June 2,
2023
the Plaintiffs' Daubert Reply N/A Sept. 1,
2023
Apple’s Reply in Support of its N/A Sept. 26,
2023
Daubert Motion Regarding
the Plaintiffs’ Reply Expert
Reports:
Class Certification/Daubert June 23, 2023 Oct. 10,
2023
Hearing:
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nTbpXz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
- and -
David C. Frederick, Esq.
Aaron M. Panner, Esq.
Kyle M. Wood, Esq.
KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL &
FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 326-7900
Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
apanner@kellogghansen.com
- and -
Michael Liskow, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036-5803
Telephone: (212) 899-1761
Facsimile: (332) 206-2073
E-mail: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cynthia E. Richman, Esq.
Harry R. S. Phillips, Esq.
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. , Esq.
Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
Caeli A. Higney, Esq.
Julian W. Kleinbrodt, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 955-8234
Facsimile: (202) 530-9691
E-mail: crichman@gibsondunn.com
hphillips2@gibsondunn.com
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
dswanson@gibsondunn.com
chigney@gibsondunn.com
jkleinbrodt@gibsondunn.com
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Tuttle's Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN J. TUTTLE, et al., Plaintiffs v. AUDIOPHILE
MUSIC DIRECT INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C22-1081JLR (W.D.
Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants Plaintiffs Stephen
J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman's motion for preliminary approval of
their class action settlement with Defendants Audiophile Music
Direct, Inc. and Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Inc.
The Defendants are producers and sellers of vinyl music recordings.
One of their product lines, according to the Plaintiffs, consists
of analog recordings that are made without the use of digital
processing, i.e., by duplicating the original analog master
recordings using only analog processes. The Plaintiffs assert that
recordings made without a digital processing step are highly valued
by high-end audiophiles and collectors. As a result, they allege,
the Defendants were able to charge a "high premium" for recordings
that they claimed were produced without a digital processing step.
These recordings were produced under processes the Defendants refer
to as "Original Master Recording" ("OMR") or "Ultradisc One-Step"
("One-Step").
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants represented that many of
these recordings were produced using analog-only processes when, in
fact, they were not. Approximately 123 OMR and One-Step recordings
that the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants had represented were
analog-only but in fact were produced using a digital processing
step are at issue in this litigation (the "Applicable Records").
The Plaintiffs assert, on behalf of themselves and proposed
Washington and nationwide classes, that they reasonably relied on
the Defendants' representations that the Applicable Records were
produced using analog-only processes, purchased the recordings
either directly from the Defendants or from third-party retailers
in reliance on those representations, and suffered damage as a
result. The Defendants' sales records indicate that they sold over
634,000 Applicable Records between 2007 and July 27, 2022. The
Defendants sold approximately 25% of the Applicable Records
directly to retail customers, and the remaining 75% to other
retailers such as Target and Walmart.
The Plaintiffs filed the action on Aug. 2, 2022. Between August 18
and Sept. 23, 2022, other sets of plaintiffs filed separate
proposed class actions against the Defendants in the Northern
District of Illinois, the Central District of California, and the
Northern District of California -- Stiles v. Mobile Fidelity Sound
Lab, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04405 (N.D. Ill.) (filed Aug. 18,
2022); Bitterman v. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04714 (N.D. Ill.) (filed Sept. 1, 2022); Allen v.
Audiophile Music Direct, Case No. 2:22-cv-08146 (C.D. Cal.) (filed
Sept. 22, 2022, in Los Angeles County Superior Court before being
removed to federal court); Molinari v. Audiophile Music Direct,
Case No. 4:22-cv-05444 (N.D. Cal.) (filed Sept. 23, 2022). Thus,
the instant case is the first-filed action challenging the
Defendants' alleged representation of the OMR and One-Step
recordings as analog-only when those recordings were in fact
produced using a digital processing step.
The Plaintiffs originally moved for preliminary approval of the
parties' class action settlement on Jan. 15, 2023. On Jan. 20,
2023, the Court denied the motion without prejudice; directed the
Plaintiffs to correct several issues the Court had identified in
their preliminary approval materials; and granted the Plaintiffs
leave to submit revised materials with a renewed motion for
preliminary approval. The Plaintiffs filed the instant revised
motion and amended settlement agreement on Jan. 31, 2023.
The parties' proposed settlement class is comprised of: All
original retail consumers in the United States who, from March 19,
2007, through July 27, 2022 purchased, either directly from a
Defendant or other retail merchants, new and unused Mobile Fidelity
Sound Lab, Inc. (MoFi) vinyl recordings which were marketed by
Defendants using the series labeling descriptors Original Master
Recording and/or Ultradisc One-Step, that were sourced from
original analog master tapes and which utilized a direct stream
digital transfer step in the mastering chain, and provided that
said purchasers still own said recordings (the Applicable
Records).
The Defendants estimate that the Class will include approximately
20,000 people who purchased Applicable Records directly from
Defendants and at least the same number who purchased Applicable
Records from other retailers.
The Plaintiffs' research indicates that "most, if not all" of the
Applicable Records that have been cared for properly have a value
on the secondary market that exceeds their original purchase price.
Therefore, the parties' proposed settlement offers Class members
their choice of three forms of relief. Class members who wish to
return their Applicable Records may choose to receive a full refund
of the price they paid for their Applicable Records, plus tax and
shipping. Class members who wish to keep their Applicable Records
may choose either a refund of 5% of the price they paid for their
Applicable Records, plus tax and shipping, or a coupon for 10% of
the price they paid for their Applicable Records, plus tax and
shipping, that can be redeemed for any products offered on the
Defendants' Music Direct website.
Coupons expire 180 days after issuance and are not transferable; a
Class member may, however, combine the value of multiple coupons
when making a purchase on the Defendants' website. Class members
who purchased multiple Applicable Records may select among the
three forms of relief for each record -- for example, a Class
member may choose to receive a full refund for one record and a
coupon for another. Class members must show both proof of purchase
and proof of ownership of their Applicable Records to receive a
refund or coupon. In exchange, they agree to release the Defendants
from any claims, known or unknown, which arise out of or are in any
way related to the Defendants' marketing, promotion, and sale of
the Applicable Records between March 19, 2007, and July 17, 2022,
or which could have been raised in this litigation related to the
Applicable Records.
The parties propose a notice program that includes (1) sending the
full notice and claim forms by U.S. Mail and the summary notice by
email to approximately 23,000 individuals who purchased Applicable
Records directly from Defendants; (2) publishing notice on
Defendants' websites and on industry and audiophile online forums,
websites, and print media; and (3) targeted advertising on social
media. The proposed Settlement Administrator, Kroll Settlement
Administration LLC, will also create a website to enable Class
members to electronically submit proofs of purchase and ownership
of their Applicable Records.
Class members who chose to receive a 5% refund or 10% coupon will
receive their compensation within 30 days of the expiration of the
period to appeal or the completion of any appeals of the final
approval of the settlement agreement. Class members who chose to
return their Applicable Records will receive a pre-paid return
shipping label and return instructions at the same time.
The Plaintiffs will ask the Court to approve a service award of
$10,000 for each of the two named Plaintiffs. They will also
request an award of attorneys' fees and costs of no more than
$290,000. Attorneys' fees and service awards will be paid directly
by the Defendants, and the Defendants will bear all expenses and
costs arising from the administration of the settlement.
On March 13, 2023, the Court granted Intervenors' motion to
intervene in the action for the limited purpose of opposing the
Plaintiffs' revised motion for preliminary approval of the class
settlement and granted the Plaintiffs and the Defendants leave to
file optional replies in support of the Plaintiffs' motion.
Judge Robart concludes that the parties have shown that the Court
is likely to find that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Rule 23(e)(2) and to certify the Class for
settlement purposes under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Therefore, he
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
parties' class action settlement.
Judge Robart conditionally certifies the following Class: All
original retail consumers in the United States who, from March 19,
2007, through July 27, 2022 purchased, either directly from a
Defendant or other retail merchants, new and unused Mobile Fidelity
Sound Lab, Inc. (MoFi) vinyl recordings which were marketed by
Defendants using the series labeling descriptors Original Master
Recording and/or Ultradisc One-Step, that were sourced from
original analog master tapes and which utilized a direct stream
digital transfer step in the mastering chain, and provided that
said purchasers still own said recordings (the Applicable Records).
Excluded from the Class are persons who obtained subject Applicable
Records from other sources.
Judge Robart appoints (i) Kroll as the Settlement Administrator;
(ii) Plaintiffs Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman as the Class
representatives; and (iii) Duncan Calvert Turner of Badgley Mullins
Turner PLLC as the Class counsel.
The final approval hearing is scheduled for Oct. 30, 2023, at 9:00
a.m. before the Honorable James L. Robart at the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, 700 Stewart
Street, Suite 14106, Seattle, WA 98101. The court may change the
date for the final approval hearing. If the court changes the
hearing date, notice of such change will be posted on the
settlement website.
The matter is stayed until further order of the Court, except for
such proceedings that may be necessary to implement the settlement
and the Order.
The following deadlines will govern proceedings through the final
approval hearing:
a. Preliminary Date Approval Preliminary Approval Order - May
9, 2023
b. Notice Deadline - June 23, 2023
c. Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee Motion Deadline - July 18, 2023
d. Exclusion/Objection Deadline - Aug. 22, 2023
e. Claims Administrator's Filing of Exclusion Requests - Aug.
29, 2023
f. Class Member Claim Form Submission Deadline - Sept. 21,
2023
g. Parties' Final Approval Motion Deadline - Oct. 6, 2023
h. Responses to Objections Deadline - Oct. 6, 2023
i. Final Approval Hearing - Oct. 30, 2023
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/3014g from Leagle.com.
AUSTRALIA: Settles Toxic Chemical Lakes Class Suit for $88-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Online News Editor of La Prensa Latina reports that Australia's
government on Monday settled a class-action lawsuit over claims
that toxic substances used at military bases leaked into
surrounding properties.
The settlement totals AU$132.7 million ($88 million) to compensate
some 30,000 claimants of seven communities across the country, said
Shine Lawyers in a statement.
The contamination occurred from the use of firefighting foam,
containing thousands of toxic "forever chemicals" that do not break
down and accumulate in the body, at seven military bases that
leaked onto the ground and spread to surrounding land in the states
of South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, New Wales South,
Victoria and the Northern Territory.
However, the State did not admit liability in the settlement, which
was reached before the case was to go on trial Monday in court and
still requires final approval by a judge, Shine added.
"The settlement money, if approved, will go some way to compensate
the seven communities in this class action for their losses,
however, many are still stuck on contaminated land," said Shine's
joint Head of Class Actions Craig Allsopp.
The plaintiffs believe that the commonwealth did not take the
necessary measures to prevent contamination, which has caused their
property values to fall.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stressed that the authorities must
take the necessary steps to protect people, according to the
official transcript of the statements Monday in the city of
Adelaide.
"People have, across a range of communities, suffered from the use
of this," he said.
"We need to get it right in the first place that would avoid these
sort of actions, which the biggest concern that I have with PFAS
(PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) isn't, of course, a
financial one – it is the health outcomes of people who are
affected by it."
Another lawsuit on aboriginal lands is still pending, Shine said.
[GN]
AVID SPORTSWEAR: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avid Sportswear LLC.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Avid Sportswear LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03937 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
AVID Sportswear -- https://avidgear.com/ -- is a sporting lifestyle
brand that transcends the traditional boundaries of sporting
apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawpc.com
BAYER AG: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Monsanto Class-Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on May
15, 2023 declined to hear a dispute involving a lawsuit against
Bayer AG's (BAYGn.DE) Monsanto Co that could rein in a common form
of settlement in class action cases under which money is awarded to
charities and third parties unrelated to the litigation.
The justices turned away an appeal by Anna St. John, an attorney
who opposed an agreement for Monsanto to pay more than $39 million
to settle claims that the company deceptively labeled certain
Roundup weedkiller products. Lower courts rejected the challenge by
St. John, who had objected to the settlement because $14 to $16
million of the award would go to consumer non-profit groups and a
university that were not injured by the company's alleged
misconduct.
At issue in the case are so-called cy pres awards in class action
cases that direct money that may go unclaimed or cannot be feasibly
distributed to class members to unrelated entities as long as it
would be in the interests of the plaintiffs.
Critics have said such awards encourage frivolous lawsuits and
excessive fees going to class action attorneys who may seek to
benefit their own interests instead. Proponents have said these
settlements can put otherwise low-value awards per person to good
use by benefiting groups that work for the public good or support
underfunded entities.
The Supreme Court in 2019 sidestepped resolving a challenge to cy
pres awards in a case involving Google. Conservative Justice
Clarence Thomas, dissenting in that case, called cy pres
settlements "unfair and unreasonable."
The plaintiffs sued in 2019 on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of individuals who bought certain of the company's Roundup
weedkiller products with the allegedly deceptive labeling. Monsanto
and the plaintiffs defend the settlement because both sides
extended efforts to reach out to as many consumers as possible to
file a claim - even increasing compensation to generate more claims
- before any leftover money would be used for cy pres
distribution.
Class members filed more than 240,000 claims worth more than $13
million. The settlement proposed three cy pres recipients,
including the National Consumer Law Center, the National
Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau, and the Center
for Consumer Law & Economic Justice at the University of
California, Berkeley.
St. John, the sole individual who opposed the settlement, is an
attorney at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute's Center for Class
Action Fairness, which is also representing her in the case.
Monsanto has called the group, which advocates against what it
considers abusive class action procedures, a "serial objector to
class-action settlements."
The group said in court papers that further steps could have taken
to distribute the settlement award to class members. In addition,
it said the cy pres distribution would infringe St. John's right to
free speech under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment because
the chosen recipients would subsidize "left-leaning organizations"
that "work against her political beliefs."
A federal judge rejected St. John's objections and approved the
settlement, a ruling that the St. Louis, Missouri-based 8th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last year. [GN]
BEAUTYHABIT INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beautyhabit, Inc. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Beautyhabit, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03890
(S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beautyhabit -- https://www.beautyhabit.com/ -- offers natural
skincare, beauty, hair, fragrances, cosmetics, bath, candles, gifts
and baby care.[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
BELLA LUNA TOYS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bella Luna Toys. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Bella Luna Toys, Case No. 1:23-cv-03894
(S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bella Luna Toys -- https://www.bellalunatoys.com/ -- has been
offering quality Waldorf toys, wooden toys, and Waldorf dolls since
2002.[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
BEN.ETH: Attorney Threatens Class Action Over $PSYOP Memecoin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalton, writing for CryptoSlate, reports that an attorney
posted a legal threat on May 19 in an attempt to force the creator
of the $PSYOP memecoin to return funds to investors.
Law firm threatens class action suit
Mike Kanovitz, a partner at Loevy & Loevy, posted a letter on
Twitter that reads:
"A refund is the stand-up thing to do. You've made promises and
failed to live up to them. Anyone . . . knows that if you f-- up
on delivering what you promised, the customer gets a refund."
In fact, Kanovitz asserted that $PSYOP creator Ben_eth did not
accidentally "f-- up" but deliberately misled token buyers, broke
promises, and misstructured liquidity pools. Most importantly, he
said that the project released tokens in a "trickle," an allegation
supported by tweets that admit that 90% of the $PSYOP allocation is
still unreleased.
The attorney suggested that Ben_eth could be guilty of wire fraud
and said that this is a predicate act for racketeering. He added
that this could force Ben_eth to pay $21 million in damages in
spite of the fact that the $PSYOP sale only raised $7 million.
Kanovitz said that if Ben.eth does not refund investors, Loevy &
Loevy will file a class action suit in Arizona. He said that
Ben_eth's communications will be subpoenaed and that the names of
Ben_eth and his collaborators will be revealed in the process.
$PSYOP defenders ridicule legal threat
The letter immediately attracted criticism due to its casual tone,
typos, and lack of approval from Kanovitz's legal partner Jon
Loevy.
The legal threat has been dismissed by Ben_eth, who called the
letter "so unprofessional it could get [the firm] in trouble with
the bar association." He also ridiculed Kanovitz for sending the
letter as a non-fungible token on the Ethereum blockchain.
It is unclear whether the proposed lawsuit has legal grounding.
However, $PSYOP itself has little integrity or substance despite
the fact that it has raised $7 million. The project was denounced
by a media studio with the same name on May 19, and a scammer has
tried to imitate the token launch in a phishing scheme. [GN]
BERMAN'S AUTO: Federated Mutual Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berman's Auto Group,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Federated Mutual Insurance
Company, a Minnesota Company v. Berman's Auto Group, Inc., Steven
Stroud, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02909 (N.D. Ill., May 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Berman Auto Group -- https://www.berman.com/ -- is an auto dealer
that provides used and new cars, car parts, and car services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 W. Adams St., Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: (312) 345-1718
Email: kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com
BEST PRACTICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cartegena Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JULIA CARTEGENA f/k/a JULIA HARMON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST PRACTICE MEDICINE,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. Case 2:23-cv-00029-BMM (D. Mont., May 11,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Cartegena was employed by the Defendant as a travel
paramedic.
BEST PRACTICE MEDICINE, LLC specializes in emergency medical
education, mobile high-fidelity medical simulation, and clinical
staffing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tim Charles Fox, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (689) 219-2220
Facsimile: (689) 219-2250
E-mail: TFox@forthepeople.com
- and -
ANDREW R. FRISCH
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, Florida 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
BHP GROUP: Lawyers Warn of Investors' Risk in Samarco Dam Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Rabe of Financia Review reports that lawyers behind a
multibillion-dollar class action against BHP over the fatal Samarco
dam disaster have arrived in Australia to meet with the federal
government and super funds to warn of the risk to shareholders.
Almost eight years after the collapse of the Mariana tailings dam
at BHP's co-owned Samarco mine in southern Brazil, the mining giant
remains locked in a lengthy UK class action suit involving 700,000
claimants.
London-based law firm Pogust Goodhead says the claim could amount
to GBP36 billion ($67 billion) and have sent representatives to
meet this week with major investors and federal Environment
Minister Tanya Plibersek.
Tom Goodhead, the law firm's global managing partner and chief
executive, said court action was only one element in its strategy
of pursuing BHP over the deadly 2015 disaster.
"I've come here to speak to people in BHP's backyard. . . As a
lawyer, there's only so much you can actually do in the courtroom
on this, to be honest," he said in Perth on Monday, before flying
to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane to meet with superannuation
funds, MPs and trade unions.
"Unless you really engage in politics and in the financial markets
in particular, especially with a company like BHP, then you're
never really going to see an effective resolution to something like
this."
The collapse of the Fundao dam in 2015 caused 40 million cubic
metres of mining waste to pour downstream into the villages of
Bento Rodrigues and Paracatu de Baixo, killing 19 people. It is the
worst recorded environmental disaster in the industry, both in
terms of the volume of tailings dumped and the magnitude of the
damage, with pollution stretching for 668 kilometres from the Doce
River to the Atlantic Ocean.
Mr Goodhead said BHP institutional shareholders should be concerned
over what he described as increasing liabilities associated with
the prolonged legal battle, set down for April next year.
He added the company should not be insulated in Australia from its
conduct overseas, and pointed to the ramifications faced by Rio
Tinto executives after the Juukan Gorge destruction.
"I think the way that BHP has treated Indigenous communities in
Brazil, in particular, stands in complete contrast to anything that
they ever could have got away with here in Australia or in Canada
or in the United States," he said.
"Imagine this had happened in the UK or imagine this had happened
in Australia. With it happening in Brazil as well, not happening in
the UK or Australia, the public awareness of it has diminished over
time."
"BHP is obviously an Australian national icon. I think that the
message is really that we would seek that government, that
shareholders and that civil society encourage BHP to do the right
thing."
BHP has argued the UK case is unnecessary because it duplicates
matters already covered by ongoing legal proceedings in Brazil.
A spokesman said BHP had funded more than $US6 billion ($8.9
billion) in financial compensation and reparation work, including
financial aid to more than 400,000 people.
"BHP denies the claims brought in the UK in their entirety and will
continue to defend the case," the spokesman said.
"BHP Brazil continues to work closely with Samarco and Vale to
support the reparation and compensation programs implemented by
Renova Foundation under the supervision of the Brazilian courts."
[GN]
BIG PICTURE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Certification Bid by July 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALLOWAY ET AL., V. BIG
PICTURE LOANS ET AL., Case No. 3:18-cv-00406-REP (E.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order that class
certification discovery shall take place according to the following
schedule:
-- Matt Martorello shall serve the Plaintiffs May 18, 2023
with all interrogatories and requests for
production on:
-- The Plaintiffs shall respond to Martorello's June 1,
2023,
interrogatories and requests for production
and shall serve any objections on:
-- The depositions shall take place in Richmond June 21,
2023,
or at another location of mutual consent and
the depositions may be taken virtually upon
consent of counsel on:
-- Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class July 3, 2023
Certification on:
-- Martorello shall file his response: July 17,
2023
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply: July 24, 2023
Big Picture Loans is a direct lender specializing in installment
loans, or personal loans.
A copy of the Court's order the dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/450OGJC at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLACKSTONE INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Bridges GIPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CAROLYN BRIDGES and RAYMOND CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BLACKSTONE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 22-2486 (7th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
complaint.
Carolyn Bridges and Raymond Cunningham provided their DNA to
Ancestry.com, the largest genealogy company in the world. A few
years later, Blackstone, Inc., acquired Ancestry in a deal
reportedly worth $4.7 billion. Bridges and Cunningham filed this
putative class action against Blackstone, alleging that the
acquisition resulted in a violation of Illinois' Genetic
Information Privacy Act (GIPA or Act). The district court concluded
that Bridges and Cunningham failed to state a claim. The Court of
Appeals agrees and affirms.
GIPA regulates the use of genetic testing information in both the
medical and commercial settings. This Court's focus is on Section
30 of the Act, which provides that no person or company "may
disclose or be compelled to disclose the identity of any person
upon whom a genetic test is performed or the results of a genetic
test in a manner that permits identification of the subject of the
test." Section 40, in turn, provides any person aggrieved by a
violation of this Act will have a right of action in an Illinois
court.
In July 2021, Bridges and Cunningham filed a putative class action
in Illinois state court alleging that Blackstone had violated
Section 30. Both Plaintiffs had purchased DNA testing products from
Ancestry and submitted saliva samples for genetic sequencing years
earlier.
In December 2020, Blackstone purchased Ancestry in a "control
acquisition"--commonly understood as an all-stock transaction.
Because Ancestry had allegedly paired the Plaintiffs' genetic tests
with personally identifiable information--including names, emails,
and home addresses--Bridges and Cunningham maintained that
Blackstone, as part of acquiring Ancestry, had compelled the
disclosure of their genetic identities in violation of Section 30.
Blackstone invoked the Class Action Fairness Act and removed the
case to federal court. The district court then granted Blackstone's
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court
concluded that the complaint, by focusing exclusively on
Blackstone's acquisition of Ancestry, did not adequately allege any
compulsory disclosure, as required by Section 30 of GIPA. The
district court further reasoned that even if a disclosure occurred
and was compulsory, the complaint failed to allege that the genetic
information could permit identification of the Plaintiffs because
the protected data was reportedly anonymized.
Having declined to amend their complaint, Bridges and Cunningham
now appeal.
Circuit Judge Michael Y. Scudder, writing for the Panel, notes that
the Court of Appeals reviews the district court's dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' complaint against a clean slate, accepting all
well-pleaded facts as true and crediting all plausible inferences
in the Plaintiffs' favor.
At the outset, the parties disagree over whether GIPA liability can
attach to a company like Blackstone that allegedly receives
protected information, rather than discloses that information. The
disagreement arises from Section 30's "disclose or be compelled to
disclose" language, with Blackstone contending that a recipient of
protected information cannot be held liable even when it compels
disclosure. The Plaintiffs, of course, urge the opposite
conclusion.
The dearth of Illinois precedent examining GIPA makes this inquiry
all the more challenging, but the Panel need not decide this issue
today, as the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim regardless,
Judge Scudder opines.
The Plaintiffs' theory of liability is limited and straightforward:
Blackstone compelled the disclosure of protected genetic
information through the act of acquiring Ancestry. Like the
district court, however, the Court of Appeals cannot plausibly
infer that a run-of-the-mill corporate acquisition, without more
alleged about that transaction, results in a compulsory disclosure
within the meaning of Section 30.
The fact that the acquisition took the form of an all-stock
purchase further cuts against the Plaintiffs' theory of liability,
Judge Scudder says. All the Court of Appeals can say with certainty
about Blackstone's all-stock acquisition of Ancestry is that a
change in ownership occurred--nothing more. Put simply, Judge
Scudder says he cannot infer from an acquisition alone--at least
one structured as a stock transaction--that Blackstone compelled
Ancestry to disclose genetic information. That inference requires
more well-pleaded facts.
Judge Scudder finds that the Plaintiffs' complaint was bare bones.
All that the complaint alleged is that Blackstone, with its deep
pockets, purchased Ancestry in a deal worth $4.7 billion. The
Plaintiffs focus on Blackstone's wealth and invite the Court of
Appeals to infer that the firm somehow forced or pressured Ancestry
to disclose protected information by virtue of its market power.
But that inference is far too attenuated for this Court to credit
based on the few facts alleged in the complaint, Judge Scudder
points out.
The Panel has a hard time seeing Blackstone's alleged financial
wherewithal--without more--as supporting an inference that the firm
violated Section 30 of GIPA. These allegations alone do not suffice
to state a claim, Judge Scudder holds.
Nor does it matter that Blackstone may have pursued the deal, at
least in part, to obtain Ancestry's genetic information, Judge
Scudder opines. True, the Plaintiffs' complaint identified a
Bloomberg news article reporting that Blackstone, as part of the
firm's broader investment strategy, planned to sell data from
unnamed portfolio companies to unaffiliated third parties.
But that does not salvage the pleading's deficiency, Judge Scudder
points out. The complaint still lacks a plausible allegation that
Blackstone compelled Ancestry to disclose protected information.
The Plaintiffs did not allege, for example, that any term of the
deal mandated prohibited disclosure. Without more, the Plaintiffs
have failed to state a claim under GIPA Section 30.
Finally, the Panel disagrees with the Plaintiffs on the relevance
of Section 5 as it relates to what constitutes compelling
disclosure within the meaning of Section 30. The Plaintiffs
maintain that the "requests for" language should inform how the
Court of Appeals interpret the "be compelled" language in Section
30. The upshot of this interpretation, in their view, would sweep
the acquisition into Section 30's ambit without requiring more
specific allegations.
But this introductory provision on legislative intent does not
graft new language into Section 30, Judge Scudder explains. The
triggering language in Section 30 is "disclose or be compelled to
disclose," which makes good sense--the provision is entitled
"Disclosure of person tested and test results." Furthermore, other
provisions in GIPA expressly contemplate "requests" and thereby,
give meaning to the "requests for" language in Section 5.
At bottom, like the district court, the Court of Appeals cannot
plausibly infer from the Plaintiffs' sparse allegations that
Blackstone compelled disclosure of protected genetic information
simply by acquiring Ancestry. And remember, too, Judge Scudder
points out, that the Plaintiffs chose not to amend their pleading
despite learning of its deficiencies.
The Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim under GIPA
Section 30, Judge Scudder holds. For these reasons, the Court of
Appeals affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 1, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26vctudz from Leagle.com.
BLUE DIAMOND: Court Strikes Henderson's Class Action Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SETH HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-289-MMH-PRL (M.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia
Morales Howard of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Ocala Division, strikes the Class Action Complaint.
The matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Plaintiff initiated
the action on May 8, 2023, by filing a seven-count Class Action
Complaint. Upon review, Judge Howard finds that the Complaint
constitutes an impermissible "shotgun pleading." A shotgun
complaint contains multiple counts where each count adopts the
allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count
to carry all that came before and the last count to be a
combination of the entire complaint. In the case, Counts II to VII
of the Complaint incorporate by reference all allegations of all
the preceding counts.
In the Eleventh Circuit, shotgun pleadings of this sort are
"altogether unacceptable." When faced with the burden of
deciphering a shotgun pleading, it is the trial court's obligation
to strike the pleading on its own initiative and force the
plaintiff to replead to the extent possible under Rule 11, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, Judge Howard strikes the Class Action Complaint. She
orders the Plaintiff to file a corrected complaint consistent with
the directives of her Order on May 23, 2023. Failure to do so may
result in a dismissal of the action. The Defendant will respond to
the corrected complaint in accordance with the requirements of Rule
15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/b6k59 from Leagle.com.
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Faces Basic Suit Over Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoppin Grinsell LLP of BusinessWire reports that Hoppin Grinsell
LLP, a litigation firm based in New York, announces that a
securities class action, captioned Basic et al. v. Bprotocol
Foundation et al., No. 1:23-cv-00533 (W.D. Tx.) is pending against
Bprotocol Foundation, its founders, and Bancor DAO ("Defendants").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas.
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants violated federal securities
laws and various state laws by offering and selling investment
contracts to Bancor liquidity providers, without registering under
applicable federal securities laws as an exchange or brokerdealer,
and without a registration statement in effect for the securities
it offered and sold. The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants
concealed and misrepresented material information concerning the
risks associated with providing liquidity to Bancor. The lawsuit
asserts claims on behalf of a proposed class of all U.S.-based
persons who provided liquidity to Bancor v3 between May 11, 2022,
and the present, and seeks damages and rescission on their behalf.
Former federal judge Joe Kendall is Texas local counsel in the
matter.
The federal securities claims are brought under Sections 5,
12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections
77e, 77l(a)(1), 77o, and Sections 5, 10(b), 15(a)(1), 20 and 29(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78e,
78o(a)(1), 78j, 78t, 78cc. The state claims include breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.
If you are a U.S. resident who provided liquidity to Bancor v3 on
or after May 11, 2022, you are a member of the proposed class. A
lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for members of a
class. Lead plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas no later than 60
days after the date on which this notice is published.
A class has not yet been certified in this lawsuit. Until a class
is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain
a lawyer. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may also
remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. Should
the Court certify a class in the lawsuit, your ability to share in
any potential recovery is not dependent upon your serving as lead
plaintiff.
Contacts
Timothy W. Grinsell
info@hoppingrinsell.com [GN]
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Sued Over Unregistered Sale of Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
MISLAV BASIC; NATHAN GRUBER; OREN GRUBER; KEVIN BOUDREAU; DANIEL
SCHWAIBOLD; ALEX THOMAS; GREGORY THOMAS; and BENJAMIN AYERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION; GALIA BENARTZI; GUY BENARTZI;
EYAL HERTZOG; YEHUDA LEVI; and BANCOR DAO, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00533 (W.D. Tex., May 11, 2023) alleges violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that during the class
period, the Defendants directly and indirectly: (a) without a
registration statement in effect as to that security, made use of
the means and instruments of transportation or communications in
interstate commerce or of the mails to sell the LP Program through
the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise, (b) without a
registration statement in effect as to that security, carried or
caused to be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce,
by any means or instruments of transportation, any such security
for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale, and (c) made
use of the means and instruments of transportation or communication
in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell through the
use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise, securities as to which
no registration statement had been filed.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unregistered
sale of securities, the Plaintiffs and members of the class have
suffered damages in connection with their respective investments in
the LP Program, says the suit.
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION is a corporation formed under Swiss law, with
offices in Zug, Switzerland, and Tel Aviv, Israel, engaged as a
blockchain-focused software development company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Timothy W. Grinsell, Esq.
Margaret B. Hoppin, Esq.
HOPPIN GRINSELL LLP
11 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: 646-475-9550
Email: tim@hoppingrinsell.com
margot@hoppingrinsell.com
BRITANNICA FLOOR: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BRITANNICA FLOOR COVERING, INC., and MICHAEL KAHOUD,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03526 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2023), is brought for
damages and equitable relief based upon the Defendants' flagrant
and willful violations of the Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to them
by: the overtime provisions of New York Labor Law and the
corresponding N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs ("NYCCRR"); the NYLL's
minimum wage provisions; the frequency of payment for manual
workers provisions of New York Labor Law; the requirement that
employers furnish employees with accurate wage statements on each
payday containing specific categories of information under the
NYLL; several public works contracts which guarantee the Plaintiffs
will be paid a prevailing wages and/or supplemental benefits; and
any other claim(s).
Throughout the Plaintiff's tenure, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff any overtime premium when they worked over 40 hours in a
single week or the statutory minimum wage. Further, throughout the
statutory period the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees on a weekly basis as required under
the NYLL. Also, the Defendants failed to furnish the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees with accurate wage statements on each
payday as the NYLL requires. The Defendants also failed to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees prevailing wages and/or
supplemental benefits, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants, a floor covering contractor,
as a general laborer.
Britannica Floor Covering was and is a domestic corporation created
under the laws of the state of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 583-7400
Email: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Mismanagement of Social Housing Units
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Wood, writing for Delta Optimist, reports that a social
housing advocate from Delta, who has recently launched a
class-action lawsuit against BC Housing, says she's disappointed an
audit of the government operator made public by the provincial
government only examined one partner provider -- that of Atira
Women's Resource Society.
Elizabeth Zbitnoff says she was hoping for more to come out of the
May 8 release of the Ernst and Young forensic audit.
"As soon as I watched the media release, I said to myself, 'What
about the rest of the non-profits? From my understanding, that's
what the forensic audit was supposed to be on, not just Atira. I'm
not surprised to see they kept it limited -- just my honest
opinion," said Zbitnoff.
The Ladner resident says the findings of conflict of interest
between Atira and former BC Housing CEO Shayne Ramsay "goes to the
bigger problem" -- that being systemic mismanagement of social
housing units, including her own.
Glacier Media reached out to BC Housing for comment but did not
hear back by publication.
Zbitnoff is one of a dwindling number of residents of Ladner
Willows, a townhouse complex that provides subsidized housing to
low and moderate income-earning people, as well as those with
disabilities.
The reason why it's a dwindling number is because the 40-unit
complex fell into disrepair, she told Glacier Media.
"It started to become where someone would move out and they didn't
re-rent it," said Zbitnoff, who claims there was "purposeful
neglect" on the part of BC Housing-appointed non-profit housing
provider Red Door Housing, starting in the 2010s.
"When I moved in (in 2007) the place was completely re-done and
brand new; the outside was impeccable. Power washing, you name it,"
said Zbitnoff.
But then, she claims, "everything stopped being maintained" and by
2018 numerous units were overcome with mould.
And so, the housing provider applied to re-develop the site. The
application failed at a public hearing last June, as City of Delta
councillors heard of concerns about how the provider had maintained
the previous units and problems with evictions and re-locating
residents.
"There was a lack of transparency," said Zbitnoff.
The proposal was to build a 150-unit apartment of non-market
housing.
Zbitnoff asserts BC Housing benefits from such proposals because
the additional units (which provide lesser subsidies) are used to
subsidize replacements of the existing ones. And opponents such as
her argue that through the process, residents face evictions, lose
ground-level and family-sized living spaces and there's no
additional "deep subsidy" units added to the stock.
"Only 20 per cent of this redevelopment was guaranteed as a deep
core subsidy," said Zbitnoff.
"The reason being, for redevelopment, is to ensure the providers
could be self-sufficient in the long run and they (government)
wouldn't have to provide as many subsidies," said Zbitnoff.
Ernst and Young did publish a review of BC Housing "financial
systems" in May 2022. It found "BC Housing has more repair projects
in the pipeline than it has funding for" and that there is "risk
that funds allocated will be insufficient to maintain the housing
stock at an acceptable [Facility Condition Index] resulting in
un-liveable or poor-quality housing for residents."
All in all, Zbitnoff and fellow Red Door Housing tenant Janna
Martin, found a law firm to launch a class-action lawsuit against
BC Housing, Red Door Housing and cities where the provider
operates.
"At all material times, BC Housing knew or ought to have known the
Properties suffered from severe deficiencies …which made it
unsafe, unhealthy and unfit for habitation, as a result of the age
of the structure and years of neglect," the claim states.
The claim names as defendants the municipalities of Delta, Surrey,
Coquitlam, Vancouver, Burnaby, Maple Ridge and Port Coquitlam, as
they are allegedly responsible for the enforcement of bylaws
regarding health and safety of buildings.
The claim alleges "systemic failures" on the part of the
defendants, which underscores the class-wide basis of the claim.
Deficiencies Zbitnoff and Martin are claiming include: chronic
verminous infestations; lack of heat, hot water and other basic
amenities; growth of toxic mould; unsafe electrical wiring; unsafe
plumbing; and deficiencies such as holes in walls, floors, ceilings
and broken windows.
When Glacier Media contacted Red Door Housing for an opportunity to
comment, a manager said their lawyer was unaware of the claim and
has yet to have an opportunity to respond.
According to Zbitnoff, their lawyers Rakinder Sahota and Patrick
Dudding have yet to serve the defendants since the claim was filed
in BC Supreme Court March 17 in Victoria.
When Red Door Housing launched its application for redevelopment of
Ladner Willows in 2018 and faced the same criticisms, the
non-profit claimed it had done mould remediation; however, the
complex was part of the leaky condo crisis of the early 1990s. The
non-profit also stated funding to maintain the units had been
inadequate for the past 15 years.[GN]
BUFFALO WILD: Class Action Suit Over Chicken Wings Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Zack Smith and Caroline Heckman, writing for The Heritage
Foundation, report that when is a chicken wing not a chicken wing?
No, it's not an existential question, but it's a question that a
Chicago man and his lawyers are asking a federal court to resolve
in a somewhat absurd case against Buffalo Wild Wings.
It all started (as so many good stories do) with an order of
chicken wings . . . or something labeled as chicken wings. But to
hear Aimen Halim tell it, Buffalo Wild Wings duped him. To his
apparent horror, the restaurant made his order of boneless wings
not from wing meat but from breast meat.
Halim, with his discerning palate, claims that if he had known
about this "deceptive" practice, he wouldn't have bought them or at
least would have paid less for them. He then did what any
"reasonable" person would do: He filed a class-action lawsuit
against Buffalo Wild Wings for false advertising and is seeking
financial compensation for the "injuries" Buffalo Wild Wings caused
to him with its deceptive marketing.
It should be a slam-dunk case, right? After all, Buffalo Wilds
Wings responded to the lawsuit with a tweet saying, "It's true. Our
boneless wings are all white meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain
no ham. Our buffalo wings are 0% buffalo."
But apparently Halim's not persuaded. Will the court be?
Interestingly, this is not the first time Buffalo Wild Wings has
come under fire for its Boneless Wings. In 2020, a man from
Nebraska gave a speech to his local city council about their
Boneless Wings, making the same claim that they're misleadingly
labeled because they're not made of wing meat. Buffalo Wild Wings
responded then via tweet as well, disagreeing with the man that its
Boneless Wings aren't "wings," offering him free traditional wings
for a year, and making a donation to the local Boys and Girls
Club.
Now that seems like an appropriate resolution!
Sadly, Halim's case has the potential to be yet another example of
lawyers being the true beneficiaries of class-action lawsuits
instead of the consumers whose interests they supposedly
represent.
For example, several years ago, disgruntled plaintiffs claimed that
their footlong Subway sandwiches weren't really a foot long. This
travesty came to light after an Australian teenager posted a photo,
which went viral, to Facebook showing that his sandwich was only 11
inches. Oh, the horror! So, of course, in the United States, those
who suffered this grave harm filed class-action lawsuits.
The case settled in 2016 and resulted in the 10 named plaintiffs
receiving just $5,000 in incentive awards ($500 each) for their
services representing the class of "harmed" individuals. The other
class members essentially received bupkis.
Their lawyers, on the other hand, made out like bandits and
received $520,000 to cover their costs, expenses and attorney's
fees. The left-wing district judge who approved the settlement,
Lynn Adelman, has a long history of issuing troubling decisions and
making inflammatory statements.
Fortunately, Ted Frank, who objected in the district court and who
objects to the ridiculous settlements in many class-action cases,
appealed the original settlement to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals, which rejected it as being worthless to the plaintiffs and
only benefitting the attorneys.
In fact, Judge Dianne Sykes, who wrote the unanimous opinion for
the three-judge panel, said that "A class action that seeks only
worthless benefits for the class and yields [only] fees for class
counsel is no better than a racket and should be dismissed out of
hand." And, she said, "That's an apt description for this [the
Subway sandwich] case."
It's likely an apt description for the Buffalo Wild Wings case
too.
The numbers support the conclusion that lawyers are the real
winners in most class-action lawsuits, instead of consumers. The
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (despite its constitutionally
problematic status) analyzed more than 500 class-action lawsuits
where attorneys received close to half a billion dollars, while the
average consumer got about $30. Another study by Jones Day had
similar findings, that class-action settlements "often award no
monetary relief to class members yet award class counsel
significant amounts of attorneys' fees."
That will probably be the outcome for Halim's case against Buffalo
Wild Wings too if any recovery is made. He would probably be better
off just enjoying Buffalo Wild Wings food—regardless of what he
calls it. [GN]
BUILDER SERVICES: Carapia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Jose Carapia, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. BUILDER SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Florida
Corporation, TOPBUILD HOME SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation,
and TOPBUILD CORP., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00472
(M.D. Tenn., May 10, 2023), is brought for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") brought against the Defendants for
unpaid overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and Class Members typically worked 40 or more hours
per week for Defendants during all times material to this action.
The Defendants have had a common policy, plan and practice of
failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week at the applicable FLSA overtime rate of
pay within weekly pay periods during all times material to this
Complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members performed work in excess
of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods during all times
material to this lawsuit without being paid the applicable FLSA
overtime rate of pay for such overtime work.
Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members have not received one
and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 within weekly pay periods during the 3-year period
preceding the filing of this Collective Action. The Defendants knew
they were not compensating the Plaintiff and Class Members for
their compensable overtime at the applicable FLSA overtime rates of
pay within weekly pay periods during all times material without a
good faith basis for their failure. The Defendants failed to keep
accurate time and pay records of the Plaintiff and Class Members in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a gutter/insulation
installer.
The Defendants are a nationwide contracting firm that specializes
in the sale and installation of gutters, insulation, mirrors,
shower doors, garage doors, fireplaces, mantels and storage
systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS: Taylor Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiffs v. BUREAU OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00850
(UNA) (D.D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia grants the Plaintiff's in forma
pauperis application and dismiss his complaint without prejudice.
The matter is before the Court on its initial review of the
Plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis ("IFP").
At the outset, Judge Contreras notes that the matter has been filed
as a class action. But he says a pro se litigant can represent only
himself in federal court. Even if the Plaintiff could file the
matter as a class action, he says the complaint would not survive.
The prolix complaint totals 41 pages and is quite difficult to
follow. The Plaintiff sues the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
United States, purports to bring his action pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 706, and cites,
without context, myriad other legal authority. He demands
"1E100,000,000" in damages and seeks various forms of equitable
relief.
The purpose of this action, as far as it can be discerned, appears
to be twofold. The Plaintiff most primarily attempts to challenge
the District's determination to dismiss, with prejudice as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim, a miscellaneous action
that plaintiff filed in 2020. He also contends that his petition
for writ of certiorari in that matter was denied by the Supreme
Court, yet another determination that he seeks to overturn.
Although somewhat unclear, it appears that the Plaintiff is also
challenging the District's dismissal of yet another case, namely,
In Re Taylor, 22-cv-00744 (TNM), 2022 WL 1001232. The second
purpose of the action appears to be "another bite at the apple,"
against the Bureau of Indian Affairs, by once again shoehorning the
same frivolous and baseless claims, already at least twice
dismissed, into the instant pleading.
First, Judge Contreras explains that Federal Rule 8(a) requires
complaints to contain (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction and (2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. The instant complaint falls squarely into this category,
Judge Contreras holds. Over the course of the complaint, he says
the Plaintiff references wildly vacillating topics. Neither the
Court nor the Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify the
Plaintiff's claims, which is particularly important because res
judicata is decidedly applicable; as noted, the Plaintiff has
already attempted, albeit ineffectively, to litigate many of the
underlying claims.
Second, Judge Contreras says the Plaintiff has no viable cause of
action under the APA. The Plaintiff has not clearly identified any
final agency action. Third, the United States possesses sovereign
immunity from damages suit, except to the extent that it expressly
consents to suit. Finally, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to revisit actions taken by the Supreme Court.
For all these reasons, Judge Contreras grants the Plaintiff's IFP
application and dismisses the complaint without prejudice. A
separate order accompanies his Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://rb.gy/ksrlu from Leagle.com.
C&W FACILITY: Ramirez Suit Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH RAMIREZ, et al., v.
C&W FACILITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-11319-JVS-PVC
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Ruth Ramirez and Jorge Ruiz Quezada
move the Court for an order:
1. granting final approval of the joint stipulation of class and
representative action settlement.
"All non-exempt employees of the Defendant who worked for the
Defendant in California during the Class Period (the "Class
Period" is November 3, 2016 through October 3, 2022)."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: non-exempt employees
who
worked at Amazon.com, Inc. locations and non-exempt employees
who were unionized.
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives for the
Settlement
Class;
3. appointing counsel for the Plaintiffs, Moon & Yang, APC, and
Melmed Law Group P.C., as Class Counsel;
4. approving the use of Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the
settlement administrator; and
5. authorizing distributions from the common fund.
The Plaintiffs negotiated a settlement that resolves claims and
recovers money for 1,574 Settlement Class Members. This settlement
is fair and reasonable, especially given the claims and the
potential defenses to them and to class certification. The
Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant final approval of the settlement,
grant the motion for an award of fees and costs set for hearing
concurrently, and adopt the proposed order submitted herewith that
resolves both motions.
-- Settlement Amount
The Defendant will pay a maximum of $2,500,000.00, referred
to
as the Gross Settlement Amount ( GSA), resulting in an
average
gross payment per Class Member of $1,588.31.
-- Class Size
A total of 1,574 individuals are Class Members. There are
128,529 work weeks worked by the Class Members
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pC6ACj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
- and -
Johnathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Prairie Pointe Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Accounts,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Prairie Pointe Orthodontics,
P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Capital Accounts, LLC, John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:23-cv-00468 (M.D.
Tenn., May 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Capital Accounts LLC -- https://usecapital.com/ -- specializes in
the recovery of outstanding accounts receivable.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
Joey P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC
223 Rosa L Parks Ave., Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 800-6225
Fax: (615) 994-8625
Email: tony@hsglawgroup.com
joey@hsglawgroup.com
CARDINAL GROUP: Judge Hears Arguments in Urban Infinity Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Tauber, writing for Denverite, reports that a judge heard
arguments over whether to certify the case as a class action suit.
When Brandon Smith moved to Denver in April of 2021, he was
recovering from ACL surgery. Smith moved into an apartment on the
fourth floor of Mint Urban Infinity, a set of nine buildings with
561 units in Virginia Village, with the assurance that the building
had an elevator.
But the elevators rarely worked, Smith said, and that was just the
start of his problems at the complex.
Over the past few years, Smith and other tenants at Mint Urban
Infinity have raised the alarm about broken AC during hot summer
months, broken doors, piled up trash, a week without hot water and
a string of other maintenance issues.
"It was a nightmare to live in Urban Infinity," Smith said. "It was
just constant stress in a place that I should feel safe. The one
place people should feel safe is in their home, and if that's an
apartment, they should feel safe there, and nobody felt safe."
Now, Smith is suing property management company Cardinal Group
Management, property owners Glendale Properties I and Glendale
Properties II and Mapletree Investments, a real estate investment
company based in Singapore.
But he's not just suing on behalf of himself; Smith hopes to turn
the case into a class action lawsuit to involve other tenants.
Tenants filed the suit in 2021, but the case took a step forward on
May 18, when lawyers went before Denver District Court to argue
over class action certification, which will decide whether or not
the case can move forward as a class action.
If a judge approves, the lawsuit could come to represent people who
lived in more than 500 units between 2018 and 2022 (a new
management company took over in the fall of last year), and
potentially anyone who paid certain move-out fees to the management
company while tenants.
Jason Legg, one of the tenants' lawyers, said class action
certification would be a big deal in a case like this. It would
mean the difference between potential restitution for hundreds of
tenants, versus a handful of people with the time and resources to
go to court.
"It's extremely rare for tenants to bring class actions against
their landlords, but we've begun to do so because we're seeing
systemic abuses and violations of tenants' rights," Legg said.
Tenants have complained for years about conditions at Mint Urban
Infinity apartments.
The complex's broken air conditioning conditions made headlines
during the especially hot 2021 summer, and for a gas line break
that led to a week without hot water. During the May 18 hearing,
tenants and property staff testified to piled up trash, pests,
overflowing dumpsters, faulty fire safety equipment and other
maintenance issues.
Attorneys for the management company and owners said they were
working on resolving the issues and attributed many of the
maintenance problems to supply chain slowdowns brought by COVID-19.
The attorneys also argued that since the issues affected people
differently, a class action lawsuit would not be appropriate.
Cardinal Group Management and the company's lawyers declined to
comment on the case directly to Denverite.
Attorneys for the tenants said that all landlords were dealing with
supply chain issues during the pandemic, and that many of the
problems at Mint Urban Infinity began before then.
Smith said he talked to hundreds of fellow tenants when he lived at
the complex, and that he knows the problems are universal, which is
why he is seeking a class action.
"Talking to these people, the consensus was they had all the same
issues, and that's why we're seeking class action," Smith said.
"It's not that 'Susan had difficulty getting to the sixth floor
without an elevator because she's old.' It's, 'Everybody had a
problem getting upstairs, constantly, move-in, move-out, groceries,
whatever.' Everything applied to everybody."
Vivian Szejer lived on the fourth floor of one of the buildings,
and said she broke her wrist tripping down a flight of stairs when
the elevator was broken. Szejer was undergoing cancer treatment at
the time, and struggled to climb the stairs and carry groceries.
She called the apartment complex "dirty and filthy."
"Sometimes trash would accumulate by the dumpsters for more than a
week before the trash would come and pick up, and it had nothing to
do with COVID. That was not new," she said.
When the hot water went out, Szejer said she rarely received
communication from management and only got help when she reached
out to City Council. Her daughter, Sara Morgan, said the doors to
the buildings frequently broke, and that people experiencing
homelessness would often sleep inside the building and live in the
storage units.
"They definitely weren't taking care of the problems," Morgan said
of building management.
For Szejer, conditions at Mint Urban Infinity reflect bigger
challenges with housing in Denver. She added that she was afraid to
leave because she worried that any other apartment at her
price-point would have similar or worse problems.
"Sadly, more and more apartment complexes in Denver were coming
forward with issues that they were going through and I didn't want
to jump from the frying pan into the fire," Szejer said.
And so, like many others struggling with housing, Szejer left
Denver. She now rents a house in Loveland and is "loving every
second" of it.
If the judge grants class action certification, the case will go to
trial. If not, the tenants could appeal or move forward to trial
with just the four original tenants bringing the suit.
The judge's decision could take weeks and will be crucial in
determining the scope of the case.
"The idea why class actions are so important is that it's
vulnerable people who can't typically afford a lawyer," Legg said.
"It's the only real way to get substantial justice for a broadly
impacted group of people, and so this issue is really important."
In response to lawsuits like this one, some landlords have begun
inserting clauses in leases requiring tenants to waive their right
to class action suits as a condition of signing their lease. State
Rep. Steven Woodrow, one of the lawyers representing tenants in the
Mint Urban Infinity case, sponsored a state law that would prohibit
clauses like this in leases. It's currently awaiting Gov. Jared
Polis' signature.
Smith feels confident about his chances, but he is also thinking
bigger. Denver-based Cardinal Group Management manages dozens of
properties all across the country, many of which are targeted
toward lower income earners and students who cannot afford to go to
court. Smith said that once he started his case, he heard from
people across the country with similar issues with the management
company.
"I would ideally like to see a bigger investigation, either
nationally or state by state," he said. "They made the wrong person
angry." [GN]
CARVIN WILSON: Locke Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Al Locke, Elijah Johnson, and Saeeda Johnson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Carvin Wilson
Software, LLC d/b/a Carvin Software, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00808-SRB (D. Ariz., May 10, 2023), is brought against
Carvin Software for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' names, Social
Security numbers, and financial account information (the "Private
Information") from hackers.
On May 2, 2023, Carvin Software filed official notice of data
security incident with the Maine Attorney General. Carvin Software
also sent out data breach notice letters (the "Notice") to
individuals whose Private Information was compromised as a result
of the cyber attack. Based on the Notice, Carvin Software detected
unusual activity on some of its computer systems on or around March
29, 2023. Defendant's investigation revealed that an unauthorized
party had access to certain company files, including the Private
Information of Plaintiffs and over 187,000 other individuals,
between February 22, 2023 and March 9, 2023 (the "Data Breach").
As a result of Defendant's inability to timely detect the Data
Breach, Plaintiffs and "Class Members" (defined below) had no idea
for weeks that their Private Information had been compromised, and
that they were at significant risk of experiencing identity theft
and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm.
This substantial and imminet risk will remain for their respective
lifetimes. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach
included highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data
thieves, including but not limited to names, Social Security
numbers, and financial account information that Carvin Software
collected from Plaintiffs' and Class Members' employers and
maintained.
There has been no assurance offered by Defendant 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.
Therefore, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and are at an
imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering
ascertainable losses in the form of harm from 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 Plaintiffs bring
this class action lawsuit to address Carvin Software's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it
collected and maintained, and its failure to timely detect the Data
Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs relied on Carvin Software to keep their Private
Information confidential and securely maintained.
The Defendant, based in Gilbert, Arizona, is a staffing software
solutions and consulting services company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daisy Mazoff, Esq.
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: dmazoff@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
CASCADE LIVING: Kastel Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Kastel and Stormie Hoy, Individually and for Others
Similarly Situated v. CASCADE LIVING GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00684 (W.D.
Wash., May 10, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and
other damages from Cascade Living Group Management, LLC (CLG) in
violation the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Oregon wage laws,
the Washington Minimum Wage Act (WMWA), and the Washington Wage
Rebate Act (WWRA).
The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But
CLG did not pay for all the hours they worked. Instead, CLG
automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from these employees' work
time for so-called meal breaks. The Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class Members were thus not paid for that time. But CLG fails to
provide Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members with bona fide
meal breaks. Instead, CLG requires Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class Members to remain on-duty throughout their shifts and
continuously subjects them to interruptions during their unpaid
"meal breaks." CLG's auto-deduction policy violates the FLSA,
Oregon wage laws, the WMWA, and the WWRA by depriving Plaintiffs
and the Putative Class Members of wages for all hours worked,
including those worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for CLG as a Resident Care Coordinator and as
a Traveling Caregiver.
CLG operates senior living and care communities across the United
States, including in Oregon and Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: 206.624.6711
Email: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Rossen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centene Management
Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ina Rossen, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Centene Management
Company, LLC, Health Net, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 23CV001316
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 9, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Centene -- https://www.centene.com/ -- is the largest Medicaid
managed care organization in the country and provides a portfolio
of services to government sponsored healthcare programs.[BN]
CHAMPS SPORTS: Gamez Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Gamez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Champs Sports d/b/a Foot Locker Retail New York, Inc.,
Case No. 172827946 (Fla. 13th Judicial Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty.,
May 10, 2023), is brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act ("FTSA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic
sales calls.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and the
Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class
members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party" who received
the Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 422–7782
Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
Email: ben@theKRfirm.com
CLEVELAND BROTHERS: MacMichael Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert MacMichael, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Cleveland Brothers Holdings,
Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00328 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on May 9,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00756-JPW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
Cleveland Brothers -- https://www.clevelandbrothers.com/ --
provides new and used Cat equipment, including machinery, parts,
service, and rentals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: cab@colevannote.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ernest F. Koschineg, Esq.
CIPRIANI & WERNER
450 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Phone: (610) 567-0700
Email: ekoschineg@c-wlaw.com
CO.EXIST NUTRITION: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Co.Exist Nutrition,
LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Co.Exist Nutrition, LLC doing
business as: 22 Days Nutrition, Case No. 1:23-cv-03871 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Co.Exist Nutrition, LLC doing business as 22 Days Nutrition --
https://22daysnutrition.com/ -- is a plant-based health food
company and provides personalized meal-planning services, protein
powders, and other health food products to their customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
COLUMBUS FAMILY: Morrison Conditional Status Bis Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY MORRISON, v. COLUMBUS
FAMILY HEALTH CARE LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03460-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification, court-ordered corrective notice, and
court-authorized notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs.
The Court conditionally certifies the following class of opt-in
plaintiffs:
"All current and former Home Health Aides employed by the
Defendant
between September 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, the Court orders the Defendant to produce, within 14
days from the date of this 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 shall be provided 60 days from the date of
mailing the notice and opt-in consent forms to opt into this
lawsuit.
The Defendant, operating out of Columbus, Ohio, employed the
Plaintiff as a home health aide from October 2010 to September
2022. 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.
The Defendant is a corporate entity that is in the business of
providing home healthcare services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LUwKaM at no extra charge.[CC]
COMPLIANCE STAFFING: Murphy Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Murphy, individually and for others similarly situated v.
COMPLIANCE STAFFING AGENCY, LLC d/b/a JENNMAR SERVICES, Case No.
2:23-cv-00775-MPK (W.D. Pa., May 10, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid wages and other damages from Compliance Staffing Agency, LLC
d/b/a the Defendant Services (the Defendant) in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(PMWA) and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
(WPCL).
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.
But the Defendant does not pay them for all the hours they work.
Instead, the Defendant only pays the Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members for the number of hours the Defendant bills its
clients for their work (based on the clients' pre-determined work
schedules), regardless of the number of hours these employees
actually work (or the Defendant's "billable pay scheme"). The
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members, however, regularly work
beyond these pre-determined work schedules before and/or after
their scheduled shifts "off the clock" to complete their job duties
and responsibilities in accordance with the Defendant's (and its
clients') policies, procedures, and expectations. But the Defendant
does not pay the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for their
routine pre- and post-shift "off the clock" work. the Defendant's
billable pay scheme violates the FLSA, the PMWA and the WPCL by
depriving the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of wages,
including overtime pay, for all hours worked, including those
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Jennmar as a Foreman/Crew Leader assigned
to Jennmar's client, Hanson Aggregates (Hanson), in Pennsylvania.
Jennmar is an employment and staffing agency that "serves the
industrial, coal, oil & gas, medical, administrative, and
distribution industries" across the United States, including in
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Phone: 412-766-1455
Facsimile: 412-766-0300
Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
bill@goodrichandgeist.com
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Griffin to File More Briefing on Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRICILLA GRIFFIN, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS, an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-0885 WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge William
B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California orders the counsel to file a supplemental briefing
addressing how the settlement amount compares to the maximum
potential value of the claim.
The Court has received the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of
the class action settlement. Judge Shubb finds that the counsel has
disregarded the Court's explicit instructions to present additional
information demonstrating the settlement's adequacy, including the
full potential value of the class claims and how the settlement
amount compares to that value, among other things. Accordingly, the
Court still requires more information to assess whether the
proposed settlement provides adequate relief.
The counsel was to file with the Court supplemental briefing on May
23, 2023, addressing how the settlement amount compares to the
maximum potential value of the claims, along with explanation of
the underlying facts and calculations used to reach those figures.
The Counsel will also provide further discussion of the strengths
and weaknesses of the case, beyond the general risks inherent in
class action litigation already discussed in the motion. The Court
will not presume the reasonableness of the settlement and will not
give deference to any of the counsel's conclusions that lack
adequate explanation and factual support.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/9lkx9 from Leagle.com.
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Certification Bid & Briefing Due Nov 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OGP, LLC v. CONTANGO
RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00382-JFH-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the
Hon. Judge John F. Heil, III entered an amended class certification
scheduling order as follows:
1. Motions for Leave to Amend or Add Parties closed.
2. Documents previously produced by the parties shall be deemed
authenticated except as to those objected to June 27, 2023.
3. Private Mediation to be completed by August 1, 2023.
4. Joint Report on the status of the Private Mediation August 8,
2023.
5. The Plaintiff's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures and Reports for
class
certification purposes August 22, 2023.
6. The Defendant's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures and Reports for
class certification purposes September 28, 2023.
7. The Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Reports for class
certification
purposes October 24, 2023.
8. Class Certification Motion and briefing November 7, 2023.
9. Response to Class Certification Motion and briefing December
13,
2023.
10. Class Certification Discovery Cutoff December 20, 2023.
11. Reply in support of Class Certification Motion January 9,
2024.
Contango is an operating subsidiary of Crescent Energy.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41AELaI at no extra charge.[CC]
CREPINI LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crepini, LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Crepini, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03885
(S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Crepini -- https://crepini.com/ -- is a family business that
creates zero/low carb products that consumers rave about because
they taste great and are good for any occasion.[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
CRUNCH TECH INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crunch Tech, Inc. The
case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Crunch
Tech, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03863-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y., May 9,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Crunch Tech, Inc. are breakfast innovators, cereal annihilators,
sogginess discriminators, and we're about to flip this whole game
on its head.[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
CRUNCHBASE INC: Casar Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Casar and Michael Fink, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
CRUNCHBASE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00950-JG
(N.D. Ohio, May 10, 2023), is brought the Defendants unlawful
collection of personal information.
The Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class (the "Class" or
"Class Members") seek statutory damages, an injunction, and other
relief from Crunchbase for violations of the Ohio Right of
Publicity Statute ("ORPS"), and Ohio common law. ORPS prohibits
using an individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, image,
likeness, or distinctive appearance for commercial purposes without
prior written consent.
Users of Crunchbase's online platform can obtain personal
information of various individuals, including their identifying
information ("profiles"), based on particular search queries. The
initial view of an individual's profile contains a name and job
title. To view a full profile and to obtain contact information
relating to that individual, a visitor to Crunchbase's website must
either enter into a monthly subscription, paid yearly, or a free
seven-day trial, which converts to a monthly subscription unless
cancelled.
The Plaintiffs and the Class have no relationship with Crunchbase.
More importantly, the Plaintiffs and the Class never provided
Crunchbase with written consent to use their identity and other
personal information to advertise subscriptions to its platform.
Despite failing to obtain written consent from Plaintiffs and the
Class, Crunchbase nevertheless utilized their personal identifying
information for the purpose of enticing users of its platform to
enter into paid subscriptions for full access to profiles contained
in its platform. In other words, Crunchbase used Plaintiffs' and
other Class Members' names and other identifying information for
commercial purposes without their written permission in violation
of ORPS and Ohio common law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs discovered that their identity was used in
Crunchbase's platform.
Crunchbase provides an internet-based business search platform for
prospecting new business opportunities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 W. Algonquin Rd. Ste 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: (847) 368-1500
Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
CVENT HOLDING: Juan Monteverde Investigates Blackstone Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Cvent Holding Corp. (NASDAQ:CVT), relating to its sale to equity
funds managed by Blackstone Inc. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/cvent-holding-corp. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Midwest Holding Inc. (NASDAQ:MDWT), relating to its proposed sale
to Antarctica Capital. Under the terms of the agreement, MDWT
shareholders are expected to receive $27.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/midwest-holding-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Charah Solutions, Inc. (OTC PINK:CHRA), relating to its proposed
sale to SER Capital Partners/ Under the terms of the agreement,
CHRA shareholders are expected to receive $6.00 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/charah-solutions-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
DAYTON, OH: Dismissal of Morris v. Mimms With Prejudice Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEON A. MORRIS, SR., Plaintiff v. MAYOR JEFFERY MIMMS,
JR., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-208 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Dayton,
recommends that the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with
prejudice.
The Plaintiff, a frequent filer in this Court and a prisoner at the
North Central Correctional Institution, has filed a pro se civil
rights complaint and amended complaints in the Court against
Defendants Green County Adult Probation Department, Greene County
Adult Common Pleas Court, and Josh Mixon. The Plaintiff has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of the
complaint, as amended, to determine whether the complaint, or any
portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.
The Plaintiff brings the action against Defendants Mayor Jeffery
Mimms Jr., Treasurer John McManus, and Sheriff Streck. In the
complaint, he alleges that in 2019 and 2020 that the federal
government declared Montgomery County, Ohio a national disaster and
funds were provided to help citizens recover. According to him, the
Defendants used more funds on lights, on bridges, some road
repairs, and refused to use funds to rebuild blighted properties in
those poverty areas of Montgomery County Dayton, Ohio. Without
factual elaboration, he asserts that this is a designed plan to
keep those that live in those poverty areas criminal minded. In his
amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the areas that were
discriminated against were mainly black, low income, and poverty
ridden.
As relief, the Plaintiff seeks for the Real Change Program to have
access to $20 million to eliminate poverty and homelessness, as
well as to provide community resources regarding skilled trades and
drug rehab.
As an initial matter, Judge Silvain says the complaint should be
limited to alleged violations of the Plaintiff's own rights. To the
extent that the Plaintiff has filed a purported class action, he
holds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) generally does
not permit pro se plaintiffs without legal training to serve as
class representatives. In this case, the Plaintiff has not moved
for class certification or otherwise demonstrated that he would be
an adequate class representative. Therefore, the complaint should
be limited to alleged violations of the Plaintiff's own federal
rights.
Similarly, it also appears from the face of the Plaintiff's
complaint that he intends to include the Real Change Program as a
plaintiff to this action. However, to the extent that the Plaintiff
claims that the Defendants have somehow violated the rights of the
Real Change Program or seeks to bring this action on its behalf,
Judge Silvain holds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to raise the
claims of others. The Plaintiff may not assert the rights of others
in the case. He therefore understands Plaintiff to be the sole
plaintiff to the action.
Judge Silvain further holds that the Plaintiff's allegations are
insufficient to state a claim with an arguable basis in law over
which the federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction. To the
extent the Plaintiff seeks to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of
the Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), he says the complaint
reveals such jurisdiction is lacking. Both the Plaintiff and the
Defendants are citizens of Ohio. The complaint does not allege that
their citizenships are diverse. Therefore, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship over any
state law claims the Plaintiff may be alleging.
In addition, Judge Silvain finds that the Court is without federal
question jurisdiction over the complaint. He is unable to discern
from the facts alleged in the complaint any federal statutory or
constitutional provision that applies to give rise to an actionable
claim for relief.
To the extent the Plaintiff's complaint alleges the Defendants
violated his right to equal protection, the complaint fails to
state a claim for relief under the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Silvain finds that the Plaintiff has
failed to allege any facts whatsoever showing that the Defendants
treated him differently or denied him any rights because of his
membership in a protected class. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's
conclusory allegations regarding the Defendants' alleged spending
decisions amounted to a "designed plan to keep those that live in
those poverty areas criminal minded," is insufficient to plausibly
suggest that defendants intentionally discriminated against him.
The Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that show he was treated
differently than any other person under similar circumstances.
Finally, the Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state an
actionable claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Judge Silvain says
the Plaintiff has not pleaded that any of the defendants were
motivated by a racial or class-based discriminatory animus.
Moreover, the Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to support
any inference that the defendants were involved in a conspiracy, or
in other words, that the defendants "shared a common discriminatory
objective. In the absence of any factual allegations to support his
vague and conclusory conspiracy claim, the Plaintiff's complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The complaint otherwise provides no factual content or context from
which the Court may reasonably infer that the Defendants violated
plaintiff's federal rights. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's complaint
should be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Finally, insofar as the Plaintiff is alleging claims under Ohio
law, Judge Silvain should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over those claims.
In view of his analysis, Judge Silvain recommends that (i) the
Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); and (ii) the
Plaintiff's pending motions (Doc. 4, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, 26) be
denied.
Judge Silvain certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3)
that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting his
Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and
therefore denies the Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file
specific, written objections to the Report & Recommendation ("R&R")
within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. That period
may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either
side for an extension of time. All objections will specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to and will be accompanied by a
memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party will
respond to an opponent's objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections
in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Report &
Recommendations is available at https://rb.gy/59cay from
Leagle.com.
DELTESS CORP: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deltess Corp. The
case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Deltess
Corp. doing business as: Ostrich Chairs, Case No. 1:23-cv-03864
(S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Deltess Corp. doing business as Ostrich Chairs --
https://ostrichchairs.com/ -- offers an Ostrich Beach Chair which
is both a tad wider and a touch taller than other beach
chairs.[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
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 12, 2023, that the company continues to defend
the cybersecurity securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed against DISH Network and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
DISH Network's securities during the February 22, 2021 to February
27, 2023 class period.
In general, the complaint alleges that DISH Network's public
statements during that period were false and misleading and
contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that we
allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and information
technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer
data and our operations were susceptible to widespread service
outages.
DISH Network intend to vigorously defend this case.
DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 12, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Jones 401(k) class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against DISH Network, DISH Network's Board of Directors,
and DISH Network's Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary
breaches arising from the management of our 401(k) Plan.
The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.
On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted,
and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion.
As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations
regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom
Funds.
DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case.
DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Class Suit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 12, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Owen-Brooks class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a
putative class action complaint against DISH Network in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. She purports to
represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United
States who had private information stolen as a result of the
February 23, 2023 Cyber-Security Incident, as well as a North
Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals.
On behalf of the putative classes, she alleges claims for
contractual breaches, negligence, violation of the North Carolina
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (on behalf of the North Carolina
subclass only) and unjust enrichment, and seeks monetary damages,
injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment.
DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case.
DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.
DISH NETWORK: Owen-Brooks Files Suit in D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISH Network
Corporation. The case is styled as Susan Owen-Brooks, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. DISH Network
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01168-SP (D. Colo., May 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Other Contract.
DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dish.com/-- is an American
television provider and the owner of the direct-broadcast satellite
provider Dish, commonly known as Dish Network, and the over-the-top
IPTV service, Sling TV. Additionally, Dish offers mobile wireless
service, Dish Wireless.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Enger Saliman, Esq.
SALIMAN LAW LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Phone: (720) 907-7652
Email: mark@salimanlaw.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by July 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C. et al v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01139 (D.D.C., Filed April 24, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered an order setting
class certification:
-- The Defendant shall respond to the Complaint by June 26, 2023.
-- The Defendant shall respond to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification by July 10, 2023.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus -
Prison Condition.[CC]
DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Expanded-Range Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Bitter and Geoff Weiss, writing for Business Insider, report
that if you've ever noticed inconsistencies in how DoorDash charges
fees, a lawsuit recently filed against the delivery service might
help explain why.
A proposed class-action suit claims that the delivery service tacks
on extra fees to orders placed through iPhones compared to
otherwise identical orders from users with Android smartphones. The
suit also alleges that customers who use DashPass, the company's
$9.99-a-month service, are charged an extra fee on each order,
which eats away at the savings that they get from the subscription.
"The claims put forward in the amended complaint are baseless and
simply without merit," a DoorDash spokesperson told Insider. "We
ensure fees are disclosed throughout the customer experience,
including on each restaurant storepage and before checkout.
Building this trust is essential, and it's why the majority of
delivery orders on our platform are placed by return customers. We
will continue to strive to make our platform work even better for
customers, and will vigorously fight these allegations."
The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed by
Ross Hecox, a single father in Maryland who uses DoorDash and
subscribes to DashPass. Also named in the complaint are Hecox's two
children, Reid and a minor listed as "R.E.H.," both of whom have
used DoorDash in the past.
The lawsuit's key claim concerns the "expanded range fee." The
charge isn't defined on a list of fees for customers on DoorDash's
website. Customers and Dashers have debated the reason for the fee,
which is applied to some orders with delivery addresses near the
pickup location and doesn't appear to be passed on to delivery
workers.
"In a test on the DoorDash Platform, however, DoorDash applied the
Expanded Range Fee to a DashPass account, but not to a standard
account when each account placed the same order at the same time to
the same restaurant for delivery to the same home," the complaint
reads.
In an example, the complaint shows two identical orders from
Chipotle: one placed using DashPass, the other without it. Only the
DashPass order is assessed a $0.99 expanded-range fee, despite both
accounts using the same delivery address.
The expanded-range fee also applies to some orders made through
regular DoorDash accounts when customers order using an iPhone,
according to the lawsuit. In one case, the same order from a Panera
Bread was charged the $0.99 fee on an iPhone but not on an Android
device.
According to the lawsuit, "DoorDash charges the expanded range fee
on iPhone users more often than Android users and charges iPhone
users more for 'delivering' (likely because studies reveal iPhone
users earn more)."
"These tactics are simply money grabs," it continues.
In other cases, iPhone users were charged a slightly higher
delivery fee, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit asks for damages worth $1 billion "for all consumers
who fell prey to DoorDash's illegal pricing scheme over the past
four years."
The suit is also sparking a lively conversation on TikTok, given
the popularity of DoorDash drama on the platform.
In one video with 2.3 million views, a legal analyst who goes by
the user name Lawyer Angela and says she covers class-action suits
and settlements showcased screenshots from the complaint, including
two Chick-Fil-A orders (above) where an iPhone user was charged $1
more than an Android user.
Scores of commenters were convinced they'd been impacted and asked
to be tagged once the suit was resolved. "As an avid DoorDash
orderer, this means they owe me approximately $1,425,737.56," one
joked.
Others balked at the suit's claim that iPhone users were in a
higher-income bracket and thus being charged higher fees. "Not me
being unemployed with an iPhone," one wrote.
Some viewers were surprised to learn about the expanded-range fees,
which Lawyer Angela said the complaint likened to a "scam."
"Omg I never even look at the fee breakdown just click submit order
bc I'm a hungry dash pass user," another commenter wrote. "I feel
so violated."
Delivery services' transparency around their fees has become a
major issue, including in Washington, DC. In February, a group of
Democratic US senators sent letters to Uber, Grubhub, and DoorDash
asking about the services' so-called "junk fees" that raise prices
for consumers in an opaque or deceptive way, The Washington Post
reported.
President Joe Biden's administration is also pushing back on junk
fees at a variety of companies, from home-internet services to
concert-ticket providers. [GN]
DST SYSTEMS: Bid to Stay Injunction Tossed in Hamilton Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON HAMILTON, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09019-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST's motion to stay
the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OglZ5o at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Alden Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY ALDEN v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-9186-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BrOh5z at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Allen Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allen v. DST Systems Inc.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-09080( W.D. Mo., Filed Sept. 29, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST's motion to
stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its
burden of proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BmECNJ at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Barkley Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUREE BARKLEY, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09158-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O8vjIM at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Bay Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN BAY v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09144-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST's motion to stay
the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nX9QaT at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sarette Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN SARETTE, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-9198-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44VQG5Z at no extra charge.[CC]
E. GLUCK CORPORATION: Cody Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E. Gluck Corporation.
The case is styled as Annette Cody, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. E. Gluck Corporation d/b/a
www.armitron.com, Case No. 3:23-cv-02286-LB (C.D. Cal., May 10,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
E. Gluck Corporation -- https://egluck.com/ -- is an American watch
manufacturer headquartered in Little Neck, New York.[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
EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Wins in Part Bid to Amend Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's motion to amend in the lawsuit styled JESSY MANGAHAS,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. EIGHT ORANGES INC. DBA THE BAO; CHIBAOLA, INC. DBA ULUH; JOANNE
HONG BAO, individually, and RICHARD LAM, individually, Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-4150 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Jessy Mangahas (along with opt-in plaintiffs) moves,
pursuant to Rules 15 and 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, to file a second amended complaint.
The action was initiated by complaint filed on May 20, 2022. On
Aug. 18, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the operative amended complaint.
Plaintiff Jessy Mangahas is an employee of Defendant Eight Oranges
Inc., d/b/a The Bao, located at 13 St. Marks Place, in New York
City and Chibaola Inc., d/b/a Uluh, located at 152 Second Avenue,
in New York City (collectively, the "Restaurants"). The Plaintiff
brings this case as a putative class action and a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), on behalf of a collective or class of servers, runners,
bussers, bartenders, and barbacks (collectively, "Tipped Workers")
who worked at The Bao and Uluh.
The Plaintiff asserts FLSA collective action claims on behalf of
Tipped Workers employed at the Restaurants from May 20, 2019, to
the date of final judgment in this matter, and New York Labor Law
("NYLL") class action claims on behalf of Tipped Workers employed
at the Restaurants between Oct. 5, 2015, and the date of final
judgment in this matter. She alleges that the Defendants violated
the tip credit provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL.
The Complaint alleges a slew of other labor law violations,
including that the Defendants would take unlawful deductions from
Tipped Workers' compensation, such as the value of any customer
walk outs, plate and glass breakage, and incorrect customer orders,
and that the Defendants would also deduct an hour from the Tipped
Workers' hours for lunch at The Bao regardless of whether the
worker took an hour off from work. The Defendants required Tipped
Workers to purchase their t-shirt uniforms, failed to pay Tipped
Workers the spread of hours premium pay required by the NYLL, and
failed to provide Tipped Workers with proper annual wage notices or
accurate wage statements required by the NYLL.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' conduct violated (1) the
minimum wage provisions of the FLSA (First Cause of Action); (2)
the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA (by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and members of the FLSA collective at a rate of 1.5 times
the full minimum wage for hours in excess of forty per week)
(Second Cause of Action); (3) the misappropriated tip provisions of
the FLSA (Third Cause of Action); (4) the minimum wage provisions
of the NYLL (Fourth Cause of Action); (5) the overtime wage
provisions of the NYLL (Fifth Cause of Action); (6) the tip
misappropriation provisions of the NYLL (Sixth Cause of Action);
(7) provisions of the NYLL that required reimbursement for the
purchase of the t-shirts (Seventh Cause of Action); (8) the spread
of hours provisions of the NYLL (Eighth Cause of Action); (9) the
annual time of hire wage notice provisions of the NYLL (Ninth Cause
of Action); and (10) the wage statement provisions of the NYLL
(Tenth Cause of Action). The Plaintiff also brings individual
claims for retaliation under the FLSA (Eleventh Cause of Action),
and under the NYLL (Twelfth Cause of Action).
By opinion and order of Oct. 18, 2022, the Court granted the
Plaintiff's motion to have this case conditionally certified as a
collective action under FLSA and authorized the dissemination of
notice to the Tipped Workers. The Court also denied the motion of
individual defendant Joanne Hong Bao to dismiss the complaint as
against her for failure to state a claim for relief. Section 216(b)
notice went out to putative collective members on Jan. 4, 2023, and
the notice period closed on March 6, 2023. To date, twenty-seven
plaintiffs have joined this action, including Mangahas.
The Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order entered in this case
on Sept. 2, 2022, provides that any motions by the Plaintiff to
amend will be made by Sept. 28, 2022 (save for the addition of
opt-in plaintiffs, which would be based on the notice period
deadline if the Court granted the motion to conditionally certify a
collective). It also provided for fact discovery to be completed no
later than Aug. 29, 2023, and all discovery to be completed by Oct.
13, 2023. Discovery deadlines were extended by three months by this
Court at a conference held in this matter on April 25, 2023.
The Plaintiff first filed a letter motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint on March 20, 2023. The Court denied that
letter motion without prejudice to renewal by formal motion. On
March 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a formal motion to file a
second amended complaint along with a memorandum of law and a
declaration in support of the motion. The Defendants filed a
memorandum of law in opposition to the motion on April 12, 2023.
The Plaintiff filed a reply memorandum of law on April 19, 2023.
The proposed second amended complaint makes several revisions to
the amended complaint. It adds food packers to the list of
tip-ineligible positions at the Restaurants (in addition to the
already alleged managers, expeditors, soup dumpling cooks and
dessert cooks). It adds Pitchaya Wohlfahrt as a named plaintiff and
asserts a claim of retaliation in violation of the FLSA and NYLL on
behalf of her stemming from the Defendants' termination of her
employment on March 1, 2023, following her joinder to the case on
Feb. 2, 2023. Finally, it asserts that the Defendants filed a
frivolous defamation lawsuit against Mangahas and two other opt-in
Plaintiff on March 9, 2023, in retaliation for the filing of this
lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, on March 9, 2023, by Chibaola and asserts causes of action
for defamation per se, defamation, and tortious interference with
Uluh's business. It alleges that on Sept. 8, 2022, false and
defamatory comments were published in a Chinese-language news
outlet widely read in the New York Chinese-speaking community,
named Sing Tao Daily ("Singtao"). The article alleges that Uluh has
cockroaches and other hygiene problems.
The complaint alleges that the defendants, including Mangahas and
two others, who are opt-in plaintiffs here, were the source of the
statements and planned to use the defamatory statements and their
dissemination in the news to harm Uluh. The allegation is based on
information provided to Uluh by two confidential informants, who
were asked to join the scheme and declined. The state court
complaint is verified by Richard Lam, the President of Chibaola and
a defendant in the federal lawsuit in front of this Court.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has failed to establish
good cause for the amendment and any amendment would be futile,
cause undue delay, and prejudice Defendants. The Defendants argue
that the Plaintiff has failed to identify why it could not have
identified food packers as additional tip-ineligible positions
earlier, that the addition of the second class representative
should have been pursued earlier, that Ms. Wohlfahrt was terminated
for non-retaliatory reasons based on the fact that she was unable
to memorize the menu, and that the defamation lawsuit was not
retaliatory and was based on well-pled facts.
The Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part, Judge
Liman rules. The motion to add Ms. Wohlfahrt as a named plaintiff
and her allegations of retaliation are granted.
Judge Liman notes that there is a difference between filing a
consent to join a FLSA collective action and being a named
plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging FLSA and NYLL claims on behalf of a
putative class. The consent allows the opt-in to join in the FLSA
collective and binds her to its resolution.
Judge Liman opines that the Plaintiff has shown good cause for the
joinder of Ms. Wohlfahrt as a named plaintiff and the Defendants
have not identified any prejudice. There also is no reason to deny
Ms. Wohlfahrt the opportunity to litigate in this case her claims
for FLSA and NYLL retaliation. At this stage of the litigation, the
Court must take the allegations as true and, taking them as true,
Ms. Wohlfahrt's retaliation claims in the proposed second amended
complaint are not futile and state a claim for relief.
The Court reaches the same conclusion with respect to the addition
of the allegations regarding the food packers. The Defendants have
argued that the Plaintiff will not be able to show that the packers
were tip--ineligible and that the packers performed customer-facing
functions but, as previously stated, the Court must take the
allegations as true.
Finally, the Court denies the motion to amend to include
allegations with respect to the lawsuit in New York State Supreme
Court. Judge Liman opines that the Plaintiff does not allege facts
to support that the state court lawsuit is either baseless or
frivolous. It identifies statements that are defamatory on their
face and contains allegations of fact directly linking the
defendants named in that lawsuit to the making of the statements.
The Plaintiff will have to litigate whether the Defendants' claim
has merit and whether it is retaliatory in state court. This Court
will not open a separate front for litigation over the Singtao
article in federal court.
Accordingly, Judge Liman holds that the motion to amend is granted
in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff was to file a second
amended complaint limited to the amendments permitted by this
Opinion and Order by no later than seven days after the date of
this Opinion and Order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. No. 64.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 1,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4vabyx2n from
Leagle.com.
ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Real Estate Settlement Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the real estate settlement class suit.
The Company and its subsidiary, ESSA Bank and Trust ("ESSA B&T")
were named as defendants, among others, in an action commenced on
December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who sought to pursue the suit as
a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly
situated. The plaintiff alleged that a bank previously acquired by
the Company received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of
making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.
In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the
court's ruling.
In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court
reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case
against the Company and remanded the case to the district court in
order to continue the litigation. The litigation is now proceeding
before the district court.
On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the
complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar
claims.
On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Fact and expert discovery is now complete, and the
Company and ESSA B&T have filed motions seeking to have the case
dismissed (in whole or in part) and/or the class de-certified, as
well as for other relief. Plaintiffs have opposed the motions.
The Company and ESSA B&T will continue to vigorously defend against
plaintiffs' allegations.
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based
in Pennsylvania.
EXECUTIVE LE SOLEIL: Bid to Toss & Strike Nunez Class Claims Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALFREDO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and JOSEPH TEJADA, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXECUTIVE LE SOLEIL NEW
YORK LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 4262 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing and to strike their class
allegations.
Alfredo Nunez and Joseph Tejada sued their former employer, the
Defendant, for failing to pay its manual laborers with the
frequency required by Section 191 of the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"). The Plaintiffs bring untimely wage claims on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of similarly situated employees.
The Defendant, a Delaware company, operates the Executive Hotel Le
Soleil New York in midtown Manhattan. It employed Nunez as a
bellhop/night auditor at Le Soleil from August 2015 until May 2016.
Similarly, the Defendant employed Tejada as a bellhop at Le Soleil
from April 2018 until March 2020. Both men worked for the Defendant
in non-exempt, hourly roles. Each spent more than 25% of their
workdays performing physical tasks at Le Soleil, including carrying
guests' luggage, opening the hotel door for guests, cleaning and
vacuuming the hotel lobby, and delivering sundries to guest rooms.
The Defendant paid the Plaintiffs twice per month throughout their
respective employments. The Plaintiffs allege that because they
qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL, they were entitled to
weekly, rather than bi-weekly, pay. They further allege that they
were time and again injured by the Defendant's failure to pay them
timely wages, inasmuch as its conduct routinely deprived them on a
temporary basis of monies they were owed.
The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of a putative class of
individuals employed by the Defendant as manual laborers at Le
Soleil from Oct. 8, 2015, to the present. They define the putative
class as "similarly situated employees who performed work for
Defendant in non-exempt, hourly positions in capacities that
required them to perform physical tasks for more than 25% of their
workdays. The Plaintiffs believe this class to include hundreds of
employees.
The Plaintiffs allege that common questions of law and fact,
including whether the Defendant compensated its employees bi-weekly
and whether that practice is lawful, predominate over any
individual considerations. They further maintain that their claims
are typical of those of the putative class because all were subject
to the Defendant's policies and willful practices of failing to
compensate employees in compliance with applicable law.
The Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in the action on May 24,
2022. The Court subsequently granted the Defendant's motion for an
extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint,
and on July 22, 2022, the Defendant filed a letter detailing the
grounds for its intended motion to dismiss and to strike the class
allegations. The Plaintiffs filed a responsive letter on July 27,
2022. The Court held a conference on Aug. 16, 2022, at which
conference the parties discussed the anticipated motion. Following
the conference, the Court entered the parties' proposed schedule
for briefing the motion.
In line with that schedule, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended
Complaint on Sept. 16, 2022. The Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss and accompanying memorandum of law on Oct. 21, 2022. The
Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for additional time to file
their opposition and they filed such opposition on Nov. 15, 2022.
It then granted the Defendant's request for additional time to file
its reply and it filed such reply on Dec. 2, 2022. The Plaintiffs
filed notices informing the Court of recently issued supplemental
authorities on Jan. 1, 2023, and April 18, 2023, respectively.
Judge Failla denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
standing. She opines that the Plaintiffs pleaded more than a bare
procedural violation. If their allegations are borne out, the
Defendant routinely paid half of the Plaintiffs' wages a week late.
During those periods of deprivation, the Plaintiffs could not
spend, invest, or otherwise utilize funds that they earned and to
which they were entitled under New York law. The Plaintiffs were
personally harmed by those temporary deprivations. They thus have
alleged a concrete injury cognizable in federal court. Because the
Plaintiffs alleged a harm that is "concrete and particularized,"
the case is properly the province of this federal court.
Judge Failla the Defendants' motion to strike the class
allegations. She opines that the Court may ultimately agree with
the Defendant that determining which Le Soleil employees qualify as
manual workers under the NYLL requires an individualized inquiry
into each employee's job title and duties that is incompatible with
Rule 23's commonality and typicality requirements. But she will not
do so on the limited record before the Court today. If the
Defendant believes that information unearthed in discovery supports
its position, it may renew its arguments at the class certification
stage. But at this time, she denies the Defendant's motion to
strike and the case may proceed as a putative class action.
Because the Plaintiffs alleged cognizable injuries and adequately
alleged a class claim, the Defendant's motion is denies in full.
The Defendant will file an answer to the Amended Complaint on May
31, 2023. Additionally, on June 14, 2023, the parties are ordered
to meet and confer and file a joint letter indicating whether they
wish to participate in the Southern District's mediation program or
a settlement conference before a magistrate judge. If the parties
are not interested in alternative dispute resolution and wish to
proceed directly to discovery, they will include with their joint
letter a proposed case management plan.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket
entry 20.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/jtw6n from Leagle.com.
FCA US: Class Action Settlement in Victorino Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM
TAVITIAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting
preliminary approval of class action settlement.
The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class:
"All persons who, prior to the Preliminary Approval Date,
purchased
or leased in California, from an authorized dealership, a new
2013-
2015 Dodge Dart vehicle equipped with a Fiat C635 manual
transmission built on or before November 12, 2014, primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes."
Excluded from this definition are
(1) all owners or lessees of Class Vehicles who have filed and
served litigation against FCA US asserting problems with the
clutch in Class Vehicles that was pending as of the Notice
Date
and who do not dismiss their actions before final judgment
and
affirmatively elect to opt-out of the Settlement. However,
owners or lessees of Class Vehicles who dismiss such
litigation
and affirmatively opt-in to the Settlement shall be members
of
the Class for all purposes;
(2) FCA US's officers, directors, employees, affiliates and
Affiliates' officers, directors and employees; their
distributors and distributors' officers, directors, and
employees; and FCA US Dealers and FCA US Dealers’ officers
and
directors;
(3) judicial officers assigned to the Action and their immediate
family members, and any judicial officers who may hear an
appeal
on this matter;
(4) all entities and natural persons who have previously executed
and delivered to FCA US releases of their claims based on
clutch
failure in the Class Vehicles;
(5) all parties to litigation against FCA US alleging clutch
failure
in Class Vehicles in which final judgment has been entered;
and
(6) all those otherwise in the Class who timely and properly
exclude
themselves from the Class as provided in the Settlement.
-- Settlement Terms
Warranty Coverage Extension FCA has agreed to a 12-month
extended warranty, to begin the first day after the Effective
Date, expanding coverage for the repair or replacement of the
clutch slave cylinder under FCA's Powertrain Limited
Warranty.
This warranty extension shall be automatically provided to
every
class member without a claim submission process and without
regard to the age or mileage of the class member's vehicle.
Mr. Victorino alleges that 2013-2015 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped
with a Fiat C635 manual transmission built on or before November
12, 2014, have a defective clutch system that can cause the clutch
to fail and stick to the floor, preventing drivers from shifting
gears and controlling the vehicles speed.
The Plaintiff filed the operative FAC on June 19, 2017, alleging
five causes of action against Defendant for violating California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), violating California’s unfair
competition law (UCL), breaching California's implied warranty law
under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breaching federal
implied warranty law under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA),
and unjust enrichment.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nYE51k at no extra charge.[CC]
FCA US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kendrick Extended to July 5
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA KENDRICK, v. FCA
US LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-12995-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Matthew F. Leitman entered an order that all Class Certification
briefing deadlines shall be extended by days:
-- The Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification
by
July 5, 2023.
-- The Defendant to file its Response in Opposition by August 2,
2023.
-- The Plaintiffs to file their Response in Support by August
16,
2023.
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The
Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks
and commercial vans.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pGCPjX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen D. Liddle, Esq.
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com
ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
mrobb@lsccounsel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
Ryan R. Kemper, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 552-6000
E-mail: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
tazar@thompsoncoburn.com
rkemper@thompsoncoburn.com
- and -
Stephen W. King, Esq.
KING & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
355 S. Old Woodward, Suite 100
Birmingham, MI 48009
Telephone: (248) 792-2398
E-mail: sking@kingandmurray.com
FEDERAL BUREAU: Seeks June 16 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA MARTIN, v. FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00618-APM
(D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending
the time in which to respond to the Complaint and to the
Plaintiff's Motion for class certification.
On March 7, 2023, the Plaintiff Martin filed a Complaint against
FBI and Christopher Wray, in his official capacity as Director of
FBI. The Complaint brings individual and class constitutional
claims alleging that certain FBI asset seizure notices violate the
due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
On April 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b), the Defendants'
opposition deadline is May 10, 2023.
Accordingly, the Defendants respectfully request that the deadline
for the Defendants' responsive pleading be extended to June 9,
2023, and that the deadline for the Defendants' opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be extended to June 16,
2023.
Federal Bureau of Investigation is the domestic intelligence and
security service of the United States.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O7HVzC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian M. Boynton, Esq.
Anthony J. Coppolino, Esq.
Christian S. Daniel, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
1100 L Street, N.W., Rm. 11004
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 514-5838
E-mail: christian.s.daniel@usdoj.gov
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Jackson, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 607329/2023 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., May 8, 2023), is brought pursuant to Civil
Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") to recover statutory damages for
violations of New York Labor Law ("New York Labor Law") by failing
to provide timely wages.
The Defendant failed to properly pay the Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid manual workers their wages within seven calendar days
after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. Thus,
Defendant failed to provide timely wages to Plaintiff and all other
similar manual workers. The Plaintiff and Class Members are manual
workers who depend upon their wages for sustenance and suffer harm
that is particularly acute when their wages are delayed, and they
are temporarily deprived of their earned wages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver at
the Defendant's location in Medford, New York from December 2021
until April 2022.
The Defendant is the nation's largest wholesale distributor of
residential and commercial plumbing supplies and pipe valves and
fittings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (631)257-5588
FINANCE OF AMERICA: Miller Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finance of America
Reverse, LLC. The case is styled as Tamara Miller, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Finance of America
Reverse, LLC doing business as: American Advisor Group, Case No.
8:23-cv-00839-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal., May 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Finance of America Reverse LLC -- https://www.far.com/ -- is a
lender of reverse mortgages in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq.
THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM
1880 Century Park East Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 551-5221
Fax: (310) 496-2840
Email: aaron@aftergoodesq.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Partly Obliged to Produce Docs in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE FIRSTENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, This
document relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Civil Action 2:20-cv-3785 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants
in part and denies in part the Joint Motion to Compel brought by
the Plaintiffs and Defendant Michael Dowling against Partners for
Progress, Inc.
The case is a consolidated class action brought on behalf of all
purchasers of securities in FirstEnergy between Feb. 21, 2017 and
July 21, 2020. The Plaintiffs seek relief under the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
FirstEnergy, certain of its current and former employees, and the
investment banks which underwrote two FirstEnergy debt offerings
during the Class Period. The Movants bring the instant Motion to
compel documents withheld by Partners for Progress, Inc. ("PFP")
based on attorney-client privilege.
The Movants issued subpoenas to PFP in May 2022, requesting
information about the formation and operation of PFP, and
communications related to its receipt and expenditure of funds.
These subpoenas have been the source of much objection, conferral,
and Court intervention. The Movants first sought relief from the
Court because they said PFP's search was not diligent, it had not
produced a privilege log, and its claims of privilege were not
substantiated or had otherwise been waived. The Court agreed that
PFP had not conducted a diligent search for documents, nor produced
an appropriate privilege log—and ordered it to do both. But it
held questions of privilege in abeyance to allow for additional
production, proper cataloguing of documents in a privilege log,
further conferral by the parties, and supplemental briefing.
The parties submitted such briefing but the disputes had shifted
significantly over time and that conferral was still ongoing.
Accordingly, the parties were allowed additional time to confer and
a briefing schedule was set for a renewed Motion to Compel. That
Motion was filed and fully briefed.
In a prior Order, the Court issued an interim ruling on questions
raised in the Motion about the completeness of PFP's production, so
that document production would not be further delayed. It also
entered an Order under Rule of Evidence 502(d), so that PFP could
produce unredacted law firm invoices and attorney service narrative
statements to Movants.
Now, Judge Jolson has conducted an in camera review of the
documents PFP withheld on the basis of privilege and resolves the
remainder of the Joint Motion to Compel.
The present Motion centers on whether PFP has properly withheld and
redacted documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege. As a
threshold matter, the Movants say that PFP has waived privilege
regarding all documents shared with FirstEnergy executives. Next,
they say that documents authored by Michael VanBuren -- who serves
in a dual-role as the director and treasurer of PFP and as an
attorney at Calfee Halter & Griswold LLP, the law firm which
represents PFP and formerly represented FirstEnergy -- may only be
withheld if the predominant purpose of those communications was to
render legal advice. Finally, the Movants say that PFP has
over-redacted certain emails and invoices, though this dispute has
been substantially narrowed by recent unredacted production under
the Court's Rule 502(d) Order.
First, the many communications on PFP's privilege log were shared
with FirstEnergy employees. The Movants say these communications
should be categorically produced because -- regardless of any
underlying existence of attorney-client privilege -- such privilege
was between PFP and Calfee, and was waived by disclosure to third
parties at FirstEnergy.
Judge Jolson opines that the common-interest exception precludes a
finding of third-party waiver with regard to communications
exchanged between PFP and FirstEnergy. But this is merely a
threshold consideration. The underlying communications themselves
must contain advice protected by the attorney-client privilege to
be withheld from production. To this point, the Movants question
whether the predominant purpose of Michael VanBuren's
communications with PFP and FirstEnergy was to provide legal
advice.
Next, the Movants say that notes and communications authored by
Michael VanBuren regarding PFP likely contain non-privileged
business information because VanBuren was not only a Calfee
attorney, but also the director and treasurer of PFP.
Judge Jolson finds that the following documents have a
predominately legal purpose and are therefore properly withheld:
PFP_PAPER-000273, PFP_PAPER-000274, PFP_PAPER-000380,
PFP_PAPER-000413, PFP_PAPER-000931, PFP_PAPER-000933,
PFP_PAPER-000935, PFP_PAPER-000958, PFP_PAPER-000966,
PFP_PAPER-000986, PFP_PAPER-001014, PREPROD_00000375,
PREPROD_00000435, PREPROD_00000445, PREPROD_00000457,
PREPROD_00000490, PREPROD_00000505, PREPROD_00000524,
PREPROD_00000539, PREPROD_00000545, PREPROD_00000548,
PREPROD_00000556, PREPROD_00000558, PREPROD_00000641,
PREPROD_00000649, PREPROD_00000657, PREPROD_00000853,
PREPROD_00000885, PREPROD_00000901, PREPROD_00000923,
PREPROD_00000933, PREPROD_00000947, PREPROD_00000959,
PREPROD_00001024, PREPROD_00001049, PREPROD_00001085,
PREPROD_00001138, PREPROD_00001155, PREPROD_00001178,
PREPROD_00001223, PREPROD_00001232, PREPROD_00001284,
PREPROD_00001288, PREPROD_00001302, PREPROD_00001412,
PREPROD_00001442, PREPROD_00001453, PREPROD_00001469,
PREPROD_00001923, PREPROD_00001924, PREPROD_00003762. Additionally,
for the following documents, handwritten notations by VanBuren
containing legal advice may be redacted so that the rest of the
document may be produced: PFP_PAPER-000340, PFP_PAPER-000347.
This conclusion is not universal, however, Judge Jolson opines. She
says many of the withheld documents show VanBuren acting
predominately as a director and treasurer of PFP. When VanBuren
provided updates about tax filing, billing, and the flow of money
in and out of PFP, he was not rendering the type of advice that can
be furnished only by a lawyer. Accordingly, Judge Jolson finds that
all other documents withheld for privilege and produced for in
camera review -- aside from those specifically enumerated -- must
be produced to Movants. She orders PFP to produce these documents
to the Movants within 14 days.
Finally, the Movants say that PFP made overbroad redactions to
Calfee invoices and emails regarding provision of Calfee's services
to PFP.
Judge Jolson finds that PFP has produced unredacted invoices and
attorney client service statements. To the extent it continues to
redact attorney-client advice from certain emails, those emails are
not presently before the Court. Because these emails were logged on
the portion of PFP's privilege log entitled Documents Produced with
Redactions (as opposed to those Documents Withheld for Privilege),
they were not produced to the Court for in camera inspection.
However, given the rulings Judge Jolson has made in the present
Opinion and Order, PFP should have sufficient guidance to
distinguish what constitutes legal advice and can be properly
redacted from what must be produced in its entirety. Accordingly,
she orders PFP to review the redactions consistent with the rulings
in her Opinion and Order and produce any unredacted emails as
necessary to the Movants within 14 days.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/544i4 from Leagle.com.
FORWARD AIR FINAL: Jatindranath Sues Over Improper Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Jatindranath, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. FORWARD AIR FINAL MILE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01173 (D.
Colo., May 9, 2023), is brought seeking to represent have suffered
improper deductions from their pay and have not been paid the full
statutory minimum wage for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff and other Drivers are classified as independent
contractors and work through intermediaries, but in reality, the
Drivers are employees of Defendant and Defendant controls the
delivery process. The Plaintiff and the Drivers do not operate
independently established businesses. Drivers, including Plaintiff,
frequently are not paid for all hours worked at an hourly rate at
or in excess of the minimum wage rates established by state and
federal law. In the event of a customer complaint or a claim of
damage to an item, a deduction is taken from Drivers' pay. The
deduction for a customer complaint or damage claim may be several
hundred dollars. Drivers are required to pay Defendant a "fine" of
up to hundreds of dollars for not adhering to their schedules or
completing all deliveries. These "fines" violate the state and
federal statutory minimum wage guarantees. Plaintiff and the
Drivers typically work between four and six days per week, and
approximately ten to twelve hours per day. In many weeks, Drivers
have earned less than the federal and state minimum wage because
the "fines" and other deductions lower their wages below the
statutory minimum, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Driver from September
2022 until March 2023.
The Defendant operates a last mile services business, providing
last mile delivery and installation services to customers of Home
Depot and similar box stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Gonzales, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Phone: (970) 214-0562
Email: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com
- and -
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 994-5800
Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
bmanewith@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
FOX CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm PA of GlobeNewsWire reports that Rosen Law Firm,
a global investor rights law firm, continues its investigation of
potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Fox
Corporation (NASDAQ: FOX, FOXA) resulting from allegations that FOX
may have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public. The prospective class includes those who
purchased FOX call options and/or sold put options.
SO WHAT: If you purchased FOX securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=13327 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: In the wake of the 2020 U.S. Presidential
Election, Dominion Voting Systems sued FOX for defamation.
Dominion's lawsuit alleges that FOX defamed Dominion's business by
endorsing, repeating or broadcasting a series of "verifiably false
yet devastating lies about Dominion." Dominion claims that various
statements that were made on FOX News, including that Dominion
committed election fraud by rigging the 2020 election, that
Dominion's software and algorithms manipulated vote counts in the
2020 election, that Dominion was founded for the purpose of rigging
elections, and that Dominion paid kickbacks to government officials
who used its machines, were defamatory and false. Dominion and Fox
eventually agreed to settle the case for $787 million.
Beginning in February 2023, specific details emerged of internal
discussions at FOX in the wake of the 2020 election, revealing that
FOX's senior leaders understood that claims to the effect that
Dominion and other entities had rigged the 2020 election were
false. As a consequence, FOX faces significant potential legal
liability.
As a result of ongoing revelations about FOX’s legal exposure in
the Dominion lawsuit, FOX's Class A stock has declined from a
closing price of $37.03 on February 17, 2023 to a closing price of
$32.52 on March 15, 2023, a 12% decline. FOX's Class B stock has
declined from a closing price of $34.22 on February 17, 2023 to a
closing price of $29.83 on March 15, 2023, a 12% decline.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Quinones Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN QUINONES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled Julian Quinones, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10933-WGY, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
On June 3, 2021 and June 22, 2021, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director, David
Lucchino.
On March 21, 2022, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
lawsuit, Quinones et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. et al. and
on May 16, 2022, the Company's Chief Development Officer, Dr. Carl
LeBel, was added as a defendant.
The Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), due to allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions about the Company's Phase 2a clinical trial (FX-322-202)
for its product candidate FX-322 in the Company's public
disclosures between October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, damages in connection with
the Company's allegedly artificially inflated stock price between
October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021 as a result of those allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions, as well as interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on July
15, 2022. This matter is at the very early stages of the legal
process, and as a result, the Company is not able to estimate the
range of possible loss. Since an estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time, no accruals have been
recorded as of September 30, 2022.
On June 21, 2022, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed a lawsuit
brought by two purported stockholders against the Company and
others. For previously reported information on this lawsuit, refer
to Part I, Item 3, "Legal Proceedings" of the Company's 2021 Form
10-K. On August 16, 2022, these same two purported stockholders of
the Company filed a similar lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court
against (i) the Company, (ii) Computershare Inc., and (iii)
Computershare Trust Company, N.A., entitled The Gregory J.
Parseghian Revocable Trust, et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc.,
et al. The lawsuit alleges causes of action against the Company for
breach of the statutory duty of care, negligence, conversion, and
unjust enrichment, based on allegations that actions were taken to
prevent the purported stockholders from selling their shares in the
Company.
On July 15, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge William G. Young on Mar. 29, 2023. The Court found
that Quinones has failed to plead sufficient facts to establish
that the challenged statements are false and misleading, except for
two. For those statements, however, Quinones has failed to allege
sufficient facts to support a strong inference of scienter.
The appellate case is captioned Quinones v. Frequency Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1393, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 1, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JULIAN QUINONES, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
230 Park Ave., 17th Flr.
New York, NY 10174
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
- and -
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
Jacob B. Lieberman, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
156 S. Main St
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
- and -
Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq.
ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
P.O. Box 67101
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
Telephone: (617) 999-6473
Defendants-Appellees FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Jeff G. Hammel, Esq.
Kevin M. McDonough, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
(212) 906-1246
- and -
William Jason Trach, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
200 Clarendon St., 27th Fl.
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 880-4514
GARAGE CARS LLC: Barrett Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Barrett, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Garage Cars, LLC doing business
as: The Garage, Case No. 2383CV00216 was removed from the Plymouth
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on May 9, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-11018-NMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The Garage is a full service professional auto repair shop.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolina K. Tumminelli, Esq.
Kevin V.K. Crick, Esq.
RIGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP, PLLC
100 Cambridge St., Suite 1400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (844) 574-4487
Fax: (888) 622-3715
Email: k.crick@rightsprotect.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq.
BENNETT & BELFORT PC
24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300
Cambridge, MA 02141
Phone: (617) 737-8865
Fax: (617) 342-4850
Email: eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com
GARDEN GROVE: June 12 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCE BURKLUND, as an
individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
California public school district; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 8:22-cv-01132-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order continuing class certification schedule as follows:
Current Date Proposed
Date
Deadline to file Motion for May 12, 2023 June 12,
2023
Class Certification:
Deadline to file Opposition to May 29, 2023 June 28,
2023
Motion for Class Certification:
Deadline to file Reply to June 6, 2023 July 6,
2023
Opposition to Motion for
Class Certification:
Hearing for Motion for June 12, 2023 July 17,
2023
Class Certification:
On January 31, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Ex Parte
Application for an Order Continuing the Existing Class
Certification Schedule.
On February 1, 2023, this Court entered the Order Granting the
Plaintiff's Notice of Ex Parte Application Continuing the Existing
Class Certification Schedule, with the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification to be filed no later than May 12, 2023.
Garden Grove operates 67 schools that serve Garden Grove, Anaheim,
Cypress, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Stanton, and Westminster.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I9zBM6 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: sepideh@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Hailey Oberst, Esq.
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA,
RUUD & ROMO
12800 Center Court Drive, Suite 300
Cerritos, CA 90703-9364
Telephone: (562) 653-3200
Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
E-mail: hailey.oberst@aalrr.com
GEICO ADVANTAGE: 5th Cir. Affirms Angell Class Suit Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims Journal reports that GEICO must defend itself against a
class-action lawsuit that alleges it failed to include the cost of
sales taxes and purchasing fees when it paid total loss auto
collision claims in Texas, depriving policyholders of actual cash
value.
A panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 12, 2023
affirmed a District Court decision to certify a class of plaintiffs
that GEICO said includes "tens of thousands" of policyholders.
The appellate panel rejected GEICO's argument that the plaintiffs
lacked standing and that the class certification was inadequate
because the five named plaintiffs alleged they were underpaid for
different types of purchasing fees, which consist of registration
fees, title fees and sales taxes.
"GEICO's failure to remit any of the three purchasing fees amounts
to the same harm—a breach of the policies," the panel's opinion
says. "Whether GEICO is liable to plaintiffs for any of the
purchasing fees is dependent on an interpretation on the same
language in the policies and how the policies calculate ACV."
Philip Angell, Steven Brown, Tonnie Beck, Tammy Morris, and Dawn
Burnham filed suit against five GEICO insurers in March 2020,
alleging the insurers shortchanged them for the cost of purchasing
fees. Their attorneys filed a motion for class certification in
July 2021. The following November, the US District Court for the
Southern District of Texas certified a class consisting of all
policyholders who filed a total loss claim from March 5, 2016 until
the state the class was certified. The court later clarified the
certification to include only policyholders who filed total-loss
claims for collision or comprehensive coverage.
GEICO appealed the class certification to the 5th Circuit. The
insurer argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to file a
class-action lawsuit because their claims were dissimilar. Only one
of the plaintiffs alleged they were not compensated for the cost of
sales taxes. None alleged they were owed for title fees. The 5th
Circuit panel, however, said the plaintiff's complaints were
"sufficiently aligned" to be representatives of the class.
GEICO also argued that the District Court's ruling violated Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which requires that to qualify as a
class action the class members must make substantially the same
claims. The panel said that argument is substantially the same as
GEICO's argument about standing and fails because the plaintiffs do
allege substantially the same harm and would rely on the same legal
theories.
The panel also rejected GEICO's arguments that the six named
plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives because of the
dissimilar claims. [GN]
GENERAL FREIGHT: Florexil Sues Over Untimely Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Wiltone Florexil, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GENERAL FREIGHT EXPERTS, INC., GENERAL
FREIGHT EXPERTS, LLC, and TRR CARGO LLC, Case No.
0:23-cv-60876-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2023), is brought alleging
that the Defendants violated the Truth in-Leasing regulations and
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to
properly and timely compensate drivers.
General Freight Experts, Inc. typically provides only a rate
confirmation document, but this document does not suffice to
confirm that the proper rate is being paid to the drivers. 52. On
information and belief, the reason that General Freight Experts,
Inc. does not provide proper documentation is because it fails to
pay drivers all compensation owed under the Independent Contractor
Agreement; for example, by failing to pass on all accessorial
charges to drivers.
General Freight Experts, Inc. does not properly and timely
compensate drivers as provided in the Independent Contractor
Agreement. General Freight Experts, Inc. often withholds drivers'
compensation, despite the drivers complying with all requirements
for compensation provided for in the Independent Contractor
Agreement.
Additionally, General Freight Experts, Inc. does not compensate
drivers at the promised/contractual rate. General Freight Experts,
Inc. also makes improper and undisclosed deductions from drivers'
compensation for not submitting all paperwork relating to
assignments, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a contractor driver for the Defendants from
January to March 2023.
General Freight Experts, Inc. is a trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq.
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Rachel Smit, Esq.
Brook Lane, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 607-3260
Fax: (617) 488-2261
Email: oz@fairworklaw.com
hillary@fairworklaw.com
rachel@fairworklaw.com
brook@fairworklaw.com
GENERAL MILLS: Court Denies Schweinsburg's Bid to Alter Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LORETTA SCHWEINSBURG, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS,
INC.; GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00403-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment
pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As detailed in the Court's Nov. 7, 2022 Order, the Plaintiff filed
this putative class action in the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Diego on Feb. 23, 2022. She challenged the
Defendants' use of partially hydrogenated oils ("PHO" or "PHOs") in
its Hamburger Helper products. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff
refers to the Defendants' Hamburger Helper, Tuna Helper, and
Chicken Helper products collectively as the "Hamburger Helper"
products.
The Plaintiff alleges: (i) violations of the unfair and unlawful
prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (ii)
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. She sought to
represent a class of all citizens of California, who purchased
Hamburger Helper, Tuna Helper, and/or Chicken Helper containing
partially hydrogenated oil in California between Jan. 1, 2000, and
Dec. 31, 2016. The Defendants removed the Plaintiff's action to
this Court on March 28, 2022.
On March 29, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, alleging
she lacked Article III standing to proceed in federal court. The
Defendants filed a brief in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to
remand, arguing that while she has admitted she has suffered no
economic injury and, thus, fails to state a claim on the merits
under either the UCL, or for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, the Plaintiff has alleged consumption levels of
PHOs, and resulting physical harm, sufficient to give rise to
Article III standing on an immediate physical injury theory.
The Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Defendants argued the
Plaintiff's claims are preempted by federal law, noting no fewer
than nine federal courts have dismissed similar complaints on these
grounds, all of which were filed by the Plaintiff's counsel, Mr.
Greg Weston. The Defendants further argued that the Plaintiff's
claims should be dismissed because: (1) they are barred by the
four-year statute of limitations; and (2) she failed to allege
economic injury.
On Nov. 7, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand
and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. Judge
Montenegro found the Plaintiff's claims were preempted by federal
law and joined numerous other courts across the Ninth Circuit which
have dismissed nearly identical claims on conflict preemption
grounds. The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand as
futile. The Plaintiff's instant motion to alter judgment followed
on Dec. 5, 2022.
Having reviewed the parties' filings, the Court declines at this
time to reach the merits of the Plaintiff's motion. As the
Defendants note in their opposition, the Plaintiff has failed to
comply with the procedural requirements of Civil Local Rule
7.1(i)(1), which required her to file with her motion for
reconsideration an affidavit of a party or witness or certified
statement of an attorney setting forth the material facts and
circumstances surrounding each prior application.
The Plaintiff argues in her reply brief that such affidavit was not
required because she did not file a motion for reconsideration, but
a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e).
The Court rejects the Plaintiff's argument. Indeed, other courts in
this District have applied Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) in similar
circumstances, including where the party seeks relief under Rule
59(e), Judge Montenegro says.
For the reasons discussed, Judge Montenegro holds that the
Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff is
ordered to file "an affidavit of a party or witness or certified
statement of an attorney setting forth the material facts and
circumstances surrounding each prior application" as contemplated
by Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) on May 22, 2023.
To the extent the Plaintiff files her affidavit or certified
statement, the parties need not refile their briefing on the
Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment pursuant to Rule 59. The
Defendants may, but are not required to, file a short response to
the Plaintiff's affidavit or certified statement on or before June
12, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 1, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/cfuhjeat from Leagle.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Court OKs White Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROY WHITE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00410-CNS-MEH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting the Plaintiff
White's motion for class certification.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Plaintiff
White's class as proposed in the Motion for Class Certification is
certified for the implied warranty claim.
The Plaintiff Roy White is named as a representative of the class.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), DiCello Levitt
LLC and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. are
appointed as class counsel.
The Plaintiff White filed suit against the Defendant General Motors
LLC in February 2021, alleging that several vehicles sold by the
Defendant suffered engine defects. Specifically, the Plaintiff
White alleged that he and others similarly situated purchased or
leased one or more "model year 2011–2014 GM vehicles,
manufactured on or after February 10, 2011, fitted with GM's
defective Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines."
The Plaintiff White moves for certification of a class defined as
follows:
"All purchasers and lessees of a 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche,
2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban,
2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2011-2014 GMC Sierra, 2011-2014
GMC Yukon, and 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL manufactured on or
after February 10, 2011, that was equipped with a Generation IV
5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine that was purchased or leased
in
the State of Colorado."
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BmLSsC at no extra charge.[CC]
GEO GROUP: Adelanto Immigrant Detainees Sue Over Cleaning Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selene Rivera, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that his face contorted with concern, Cesar Hernandez sat down at a
coffee shop in northern Moreno Valley, greeted a reporter politely,
then suddenly covered his mouth and coughed for a few seconds
before he was able to speak.
"Sorry," said Hernandez, 37. "It's the cough that keeps bothering
me."
The Mexico native cleared his throat and continued.
"My story is the story of many immigrants whose concern now is our
health and the fear of what may happen to us in the future."
Hernandez is one of seven people who are part of a class action
lawsuit filed on March 20 by the Social Justice Legal Foundation
against GEO Group Inc., a private prison corporation that operates
in the United States, Australia, South Africa and the United
Kingdom.
The lawsuit alleges that GEO Group engaged in a "months-long
poisoning" of more than 1,300 detainees at the Adelanto Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Processing Center in San Bernardino County
when its employees recklessly sprayed a cleaning agent during in
the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, purportedly to prevent
the spread of infection, inside what the lawsuit characterizes as
the center's poorly ventilated facilities.
The lawsuit states that, "prior to the pandemic, although
improperly used in poorly ventilated spaces, GEO staff primarily
used HDQ Neutral as a cleaning product. But starting in February
2020, GEO staff began using HDQ Neutral in wide-area spraying as a
purported COVID-19 safety measure. GEO staff sprayed HDQ Neutral
indoors directly into the air and on all types of surfaces."
The lawsuit adds that "HDQ Neutral was sprayed throughout all areas
of the Facility, including the front lobby, administrative areas,
living areas, food and microwave areas, day room, corridors, intake
units, and medical units. In the living areas, GEO staff would
spray onto all surfaces including on soft, porous surfaces like
mattresses and sheets."
As a result, the lawsuit alleges, the immigrant plaintiffs suffered
multiple effects of their exposure to the chemical HDQ Neutral,
including nosebleeds, blood in the mouth and saliva, headaches and
dizziness. One female former detainee said she still suffers from
headaches and nosebleeds since being released nearly three years
ago. The defendants seek to hold GEO liable for compensatory
damages and payment of medical follow-up expenses and expenses over
the next five years.
Hernandez, who in September 2020 was picked up by ICE and brought
to the detention center, is among those who say they still are
living with the effects.
"At Adelanto Detention Center my nightmare began, and it still
hasn't ended," Hernandez said, adding that doctors recently found
blood clots in his lungs, a result of prolonged exposure to the
chemical, he believes. He is currently being treated with
anticoagulants that cost $540 a month. Hernandez doesn't have
health insurance.
"This lawsuit bears witness not only to my story, but to more than
a thousand people," he said.
According to the lawsuit, in the wake of the pandemic, GEO Group
staff began spraying the chemical throughout the facility in
February 2020 and continued through April 2021.
By the time Hernandez arrived at the detention center, the
pinkish-red chemical with a distinctive bleach odor was used every
30 minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, he said.
GEO Group Inc., which has been the subject of controversy and
criticism over the years for the management of its facilities,
including allegations of mistreatment of inmates and inadequate
staffing, issued a statement denying the lawsuit's allegations and
asserting that its cleaning products are used securely at all ICE
processing centers.
"GEO uses cleaning products that are regulated by the EPA (United
States Environmental Protection Agency) and are always used in
accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines, as well as all
applicable sanitation standards established by the Federal
Performance-Based Detention Nationals," the statement read.
GEO Group said that its cleaning products are used safely across
the country in many different settings, including hospitals,
nursing homes, youth centers, and colleges and universities.
For several years, GEO Group has been locked in a legal battle with
the state of California, which is seeking to shut down all private
prisons. In October 2021, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that California must exempt federal immigration
detention centers from its ban on for-profit prisons.
GEO Group said that the Adelanto lawsuit's allegations "are part of
a radical politically motivated campaign to attack ICE contractors,
abolish ICE and end federal immigration detention."
ICE declined to comment on the lawsuit, issuing a statement that
"ICE does not comment on ongoing or pending litigation."
According to the safety data sheet for Spartan Chemical Co. Inc.,
the company that manufactures and distributes the product,
inappropriate exposure to HDQ Neutral causes redness and pain on
exposed skin, as well as blistering and swelling.
The company also warns that contact of HDQ Neutral with the eyes
can cause permanent damage to the conjunctiva and tissue damage and
that inhalation can lead to coughing, as well as as irritation or
damage to the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. Long-term
exposure to the product has been linked to infertility, birth
defects, asthma, and other respiratory and reproductive harm.
Spartan suggests the use of gloves, goggles when using the product,
not inhaling fumes, diluting the chemical with water and limiting
its use to places with good ventilation.
However, a July 2020 report issued by the EPA after it conducted a
virtual inspection of the Adelanto facility stated that GEO
employees and detainees volunteering to work on cleanup applied HDQ
Neutral inside the facility without receiving proper safety
instructions.
The EPA advised GEO Group "to take all necessary action to ensure
that any further use of pesticides takes place in accordance with
the directions and precautionary statements on the pesticide label,
and in full compliance with the provisions of FIFRA [the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act]. Failure to do so
could subject you to further enforcement action."
As Hernandez coughed, he continued to share his story of how he
ended up at Adelanto.
One morning in mid-September 2020, the father of two was awakened
at his Riverside home by loud knocking and men shouting, "Open the
door. We are the police. Come out of your home." In fact, Hernandez
said, the men were ICE agents.
The agents told Hernandez, who worked as chief maintenance engineer
at Ayres Hotel & Spa Moreno Valley, that they had a warrant out for
his arrest. Without further words, they transported him to the
Adelanto Detention Center, the largest ICE detention facility in
the United States, with a capacity of 2,690.
"The torment loop started when I stepped into the center,"
Hernandez said.
Every detainee had to quarantine for 21 days in a dormitory with
five, six or seven others, after which detainees were transferred
to mostly two-person cells. During his first days at the center
Hernandez realized HDQ Neutral was being sprayed every 30 or 45
minutes on staircase handrails, door knobs, showers, sinks,
telephones, tables and straight into the air, he said.
"This left white spots all over the place, stains that we all
recognized and that nobody wanted to touch," Hernandez said. At
mealtimes, some detainees tried to cover their food to keep it from
being contaminated.
Every time GEO workers sprayed the chemical, Hernandez said, his
nose and eyes itched, he had trouble breathing and felt nauseous.
Each night, GEO staff sprayed the pink liquid in or around bunk
beds and cells where people were sleeping, Hernandez said. When
detainees asked why, the response was, "We are just doing our
job."
"There was no reason for them to treat us worse than animals,"
Hernandez said.
The lawsuit comes two years after the Inland Coalition for
Immigrant Justice, a nonprofit organization that advocates for
immigrant rights in Southern California, filed a complaint against
Adelanto in May 2020, alleging that HDQ Neutral was used more than
50 times a day inside the center.
In September 2020, a federal judge upheld the complaint and ordered
GEO Group to stop using HDQ Neutral, but the company apparently
continued its practices, said Eddie Torres, policy coordinator for
the Inland coalition.
"The complaints were not from an organization just to discredit the
Geo Group company, but because we wanted to hold them accountable
for using a toxic product in an irresponsible way, and because the
lives of many are still at risk," Torres said.
Pilar González Morales, managing attorney of the Social Justice
Legal Foundation, said that it is imperative that the government
apply strict measures to regulate the use of the chemical, which
she said has been used at some other GEO-operated detention
centers.
González Morales said the lawsuit is part of a movement aimed at
allowing immigrants to avoid being held in detention centers while
waiting for their cases to be heard in immigration courts.
"This type of practice is a sign that detention centers are
useless," she said.
Hernandez spent five months in detention before being released in
February 2021. But he said that his health has deteriorated so much
that he no longer can work as a handyman, because common chemicals
such as paint thinners or those used to unclog drains aggravate his
condition. He had to stop working in November. For now, his wife
covers most of the household expenses by working as a nutrition
coach.
Another detainee, Miriam Scheetz, 59, said she still suffers from
nose bleeds and chronic headaches since being held at Adelanto from
March 2019 to August 2020.
When she entered the center, the guards gave her the job of
cleaning tables, the dining room and bathrooms, for about six hours
a day, six days a week, for $19 a month. Prior to the pandemic, the
use of HDQ Neutral diluted with water was commonly used for
cleaning, Scheetz said. But when the pandemic began, GEO workers
asked her to use the liquid in its pure form, she said.
"I had to obey, but we were never given instructions on how to use
the product, we never wore goggles or gloves to cover ourselves,
despite our request," she said.
"The guards said that the liquid was to kill viruses, and I
answered them, 'But the virus is not me.' They were ignoring me,"
she said.
Just a few days later, Scheetz said, she began to suffer from
dizziness, nausea, vomiting, blood in her saliva, and headaches.
Over the following months her visits to doctors became continuous,
but she was prescribed only ibuprofen.
The Victorville resident said that there were people who, as soon
as they opened the chemical canisters, had a headache. Others
attributed the discomfort to the stress of long confinement.
"Once I passed out, they put me under observation, but neither a
doctor nor a nurse ever came." The guards only came once, and "they
threw my food on the floor," she said in a telephone interview.
Holly Cooper, co-director of the UC Davis Law School Immigration
Law Clinic and a nationally recognized expert on immigration
detention issues, said that she thinks that "it's very common for
the prison system, including immigration detention centers, to have
a system that is unhealthy for detainees."
"In the case of GEO, the company was notified that the chemical was
causing adverse reactions in the detainees. The federal government
sanctioned it, the state government conducted an inspection, and
they persisted in doing so. At that time, it is cruel intent to
continue the practice when you have been told there are
consequences," Cooper said.
Ingrid Eagly, professor of law at the UCLA School of Law and
director of the Faculty of Criminal Justice Program, said ICE and
GEO have a responsibility to make sure that people in their care
are safe and that their civil rights are respected.
"This is just one example of what people say lives inside those
places," Eagly said. "Politicians have a lot of homework to do."
[GN]
GERI KRUCKENBERG: Summary Judgment in Quad Cities TCPA Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, QUAD CITIES INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION,
INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. GERI KRUCKENBERG, D.C.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 4-22-0536 (Ill. App.), the Appellate
Court of Illinois, Fourth District, affirms the trial court's entry
of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.
In August 2011, Plaintiff Quad Cities filed a class action
complaint against the Defendant, alleging Kruckenberg violated the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (47 U.S.C. Section
227 et seq. (2006)) by sending an unsolicited fax advertisement to
Quad Cities and other similarly situated recipients.
Quad Cities filed a two-count class action complaint against
Kruckenberg based on an unsolicited fax advertisement that Quad
Cities received in October 2005. Count I alleged that Kruckenberg
violated the anti-junk-fax provisions of the TCPA by sending faxes
to local businesses without their prior consent. Quad Cities sought
statutory damages in the amount of $500 per violation. Count II
stated a claim for conversion and sought recovery of the costs
associated with receiving the unsolicited fax—for example, ink,
paper, employee time, etc.
In June 2021, Kruckenberg filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that because the company she hired to send the faxes,
Business to Business Solutions (B2B), acted outside the scope of
its authority, she was not liable for the violations. In May 2022,
the trial court granted Kruckenberg's motion for summary judgment.
Quad Cities appeals, arguing the trial court erred by entering
summary judgment in favor of Kruckenberg because the court
improperly concluded that B2B had made promises or representations
to Kruckenberg that it would send faxes only to persons who gave
prior permission to receive them.
The Appellate Court disagrees and affirms.
As an initial matter, Quad Cities argues that the trial court erred
by considering Kruckenberg's undated "declaration," which she had
attached to her motion for summary judgment, because it was
contradicted by her subsequent testimony at a second deposition,
taken in December 2021. Kruckenberg responds that the court
properly entered summary judgment in her favor based on the content
of the fax disclaimer alone.
Because the Appellate Court agrees with Kruckenberg, it need not
address the court's consideration of her declaration. Reading the
disclaimer as a whole, the Appellate Court finds that B2B was
clearly (and intentionally) giving the false impression that it had
the consent of the fax recipients. A reasonable person is entitled
to rely on the implied promise that a business will comply with the
law and industry standards. This implied promise, combined with the
explicit and misleading disclaimer at the bottom of the fax,
generated a reasonable expectation that B2B would send faxes only
to consenting recipients. Indeed, B2B was counting on this
impression to further its fraudulent scheme. By placing the
disclaimer on Kruckenberg's ad, B2B represented to Kruckenberg that
it would act within a certain scope of authority.
Additionally, the Appellate Court finds that B2B completely
controlled to whom the faxes were sent and used its own list of
numbers to select recipients. Moreover, Quad Cities provides no
evidence that Kruckenberg could have obtained the list of numbers
or selected the recipients of the fax. B2B's supplying the numbers
and complete control over choosing recipients supports the
conclusion that B2B was the "sender" for liability purposes under
the TCPA.
The Appellate Court concludes that the trial court properly entered
summary judgment in favor of Kruckenberg. Accordingly, it affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/q8z0r from Leagle.com.
GIVAUDAN SA: Faces Candle Makers Antitrust Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Competency Policy International reports that a New York candle
company has initiated a class action lawsuit against four global
fragrance manufacturers, claiming that these firms colluded to
raise prices and stifle competition in the American fragrance
retail sector.
On April 18, a class action lawsuit was filed by Our Own Candle
Company Inc. against Givaudan SA, International Flavors &
Fragrances Inc., Symrise AG and Firmenich SA in a New Jersey
federal court. The lawsuit alleges violations of antitrust laws.
The lawsuit alleges that the four companies collaborated to raise
prices and limit competition in the fragrance product market for
U.S. retailers.
Our Own has alleged that the companies have violated antitrust laws
under the Sherman Act by conspiring to increase and maintain the
prices of fragrance products since Jan. 2018.
According to Our Own, the companies may have initially increased
prices due to the increase in raw material costs, but they
continued to maintain the prices even as the material costs
decreased. [GN]
GOLDMAN SACHS: New York District Court Stays Chen-Oster Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, H. Cristina Chen-Oster, Shanna Orlich, Allison Gamba,
and Mary De Luis, Plaintiffs v. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 10 Civ. 6950 (AT)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York stays the matter until further order
of the Court.
On May 8, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement. Accordingly,
Judge Torres adjourns the May 16, 2023 final pretrial conference
sine die, vacates the June 7, 2023 trial date, and stays the matter
until further order of the Court.
In addition, Judge Torres holds in abeyance the Court's decision on
the parties' motions in limine, the Defendants' requests to redact
and/or seal certain pretrial materials, the Defendants' request to
strike two of Plaintiffs' trial witnesses, and the Plaintiffs'
request to strike eight of the Defendants' trial witnesses.
The parties are reminded that they may consent to proceed before
the Hon. Robert W. Lehrburger, who would then oversee the approval
of the class action settlement. If the parties consent to Judge
Lehrburger's jurisdiction, they will file a fully executed Notice,
Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge
form, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/754 and attached
to this order, on the docket. The parties are free to withhold
consent without negative consequences.
If the Court approves that form, all further proceedings will then
be conducted before Judge Lehrburger rather than before Judge
Torres. An information sheet on proceedings before magistrate
judges is also attached to the Order. Any appeal would be taken
directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as it
would be if the consent form were not signed and so ordered.
Judge Torres directs the Clerk of Court to stay the case and
terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 1407 and 1410.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/qeatt from Leagle.com.
GOOGLE LLC: Collects Patients' Private Health Info, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Giles Bruce, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Google is collecting the private health information of patients
across the United States, a federal lawsuit alleges.
The class-action complaint was filed May 17 in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District Court of California by two plaintiffs
known as John Doe: one from Wisconsin and a patient of La Crosse,
Wis.-based Gundersen Health System, another from Maryland who is a
patient of Columbia, Md.-based MedStar Health.
They claim Google's code, which is present on 94 percent of
healthcare provider websites, tracked, collected and monetized
their health information, violating federal, state and common law.
In the lawsuit, they cite Google's own generative artificial
intelligence chatbot, Bard, confirming the "impropriety of its
conduct."
They seek actual damages and any profit Google made from the data,
as well as equitable and declaratory relief, including injunctive
relief.
A Google spokesperson told Becker's the company is reviewing the
lawsuit. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Content ID Class Action Trial Scheduled June 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
Music Tech Policy's Chris Castle, in an article for Hypebot,
discusses the class action lawsuit led by seven-time Grammy winner
jazz composer and band leader Maria Schneider that would force
YouTube to give independent artists and labels diest access to its
Content ID takedown system.
In the time of the great assault on creators by Big Tech, there
have been relatively few artists who put it all on the line and let
it ride whatever the outcome. You could probably count them on one
hand. One of those artists is the great Maria Schneider, the
seven-time Grammy winner jazz composer and band leader who we have
been proud to publish on MTP from time to time. (Maria was also the
only songwriter to speak out against the absurd Title I of the
Music Modernization Act, now failing on a grand scale–if they'd
just listened to Maria.). As a great man once said, when your
grandchildren ask what did you do to stand and be counted, if you
stand in the breach you won't have to say you shoveled shit in
Louisiana.
Let's understand something about suing Google. They don't intend to
just win, they definitely do. What they really intend to do is beat
you to a pulp and to bankrupt you and your family and your children
and your children's children pour encourager les autres.
They will never admit this but if they don't, you know why. They
are liars.
In this way they are not much different from Disney or Trump or any
other litigious corporation. Normally you wouldn't blame someone
for wanting to win, but that desire doesn't usually come with a
Google-sized helping of condescending sanctimonious virtue
signaling. Not to mention every litigator's dream superpower, the
ability to shape public opinion for the case through search
manipulation. Google takes jury nullification to a whole new level.
If you don't think they're doing it, think again.
Maria's case is heading to trial in June 2023. This is a big deal,
and it's the kind of thing you would think that the music industry
trades would be covering–but they're not. Instead, we find an
article on Torrentfreak (a site that always seems to have the wrong
side) which has been pushed out a few places.
There are many issues important to all of us in this case,
particularly YouTube's porous repeat infringer policy which is at
the heart of many DMCA safe harbor defenses. Simply put, I really
don't think it ever occurred to the drafters of the DMCA that Big
Tech intended for there to be billions of takedown notices sent. I
remember the look on Congressman Berman's face when it was
disclosed by a Google shill at a Congressional hearing that YouTube
alone received tens of millions of notices (this was quite a while
ago). I really thought he was going to vomit as the depraved
reality sunk in. If you ask the original drafters of the DMCA safe
harbor if it was their intention to create a business in monetizing
the arbitrage of takedown notices, I don't think they would have
answered with a nice crisp, "why yes, that's exactly our plan."
Torrentfreak tells us:
Interestingly, YouTube says that it won't pursue a DMCA safe harbor
defense if the court denies a pending class-certification motion
and the matter proceeds as an individual action instead. If YouTube
does attempt a safe harbor defense, the plaintiffs insist that
YouTube will fail. One of the requirements for protection is the
reasonable implementation of a repeat infringer policy; not the
case here, the plaintiffs claim.
"[YouTube's] exclusion of private and unlisted videos and search
result de-duplication prevents copyright owners from gathering
information necessary to submit takedown requests; it fails to
issue copyright strikes for the billions of infringements
identified by Content ID; it assesses strikes against channels, not
users, even though one user can have multiple channels," their
brief reads.
My bet is that the reason Google doesn't intend to raise safe
harbor unless there's a class action is that they are happy to use
their public company cash machine lawfare to crush a songwriter
like they do routinely at the Copyright Royalty Board. And they
know their repeat infringer policy is out of compliance and is only
to be raised in case of emergency, like class certification.
So stay tuned, but don't expect to see any coverage in the trades.
You'll need to read Torrentfreak. Or MTP. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: London Court Dismisses Privacy Breaches Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Lomas, writing for TechCrunch, reports that Google has
prevailed against another U.K. class-action style privacy lawsuit
after a London court dismissed a lawsuit filed last year against
the tech giant and its AI division, DeepMind, which had sought
compensation for misuse of NHS patients' medical records.
The decision underscores the hurdles facing class-action style
compensation claims for privacy breaches in the U.K.
The complainant had sought to bring a representative claim on
behalf of the approximately 1.6 million individuals whose medical
records were -- starting in 2015 -- passed to DeepMind without
their knowledge or consent -- seeking damages for unlawful use of
patients' confidential medical data. The Google-owned AI firm had
been engaged by the Royal Free NHS Trust which passed it patient
data to co-develop an app for detecting acute kidney injury. The
U.K.'s data protection watchdog later found the Trust had lacked a
lawful basis for the processing.
In a judgement issued on May 19 by the Royal Courts of Justice in
London, Justice Heather Williams dismissed the case on the grounds
that it did not meet the bar for bringing a representative action,
which requires the claim to be based on general circumstances that
apply to the entire class rather than on individual circumstances,
finding therefore that the claim would be bound to fail.
The complainants had attempted to scale this legal wall by seeking
only "lowest common denominator damages" for each member of the
claimed class -- meaning they were suing for compensation
calculated by considering "the irreducible minimum harm" suffered
by all members.
However even this lowered bar did not pass muster, as the justice
identified "many relevant variables" between members of the class
and judged there to be overwhelming challenges to any attempt to
redrawn the class to try to establish a viable claim -- concluding
there is "a fundamental and inherent difficulty in identifying a
viable claim for any class members if this claim is brought as a
representative action on the basis of common circumstances".
The law firm representing claimant, Andrew Prismall, was contacted
for comment but at press it had not responded.
A Google DeepMind spokesperson sent this statement welcoming the
ruling: "We are pleased that the Court has decided to put an end to
these proceedings. As we have argued, this claim is unfounded and
without merit."
This is not the first time a class-action style privacy damages
claims against Google has run aground in the U.K. Back in 2021, the
Supreme Court definitively blocked another representative action
which had been brought by a consumer rights campaigner in relation
to a workaround Google had allegedly applied to override iPhone
users' privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser between 2011 and
2012.
An earlier attempt by Prismall to bring a representative claim
against Google and DeepMind under U.K. data protection law was
abandoned following Google's aforementioned Supreme Court win. He
then went on to refile the claim, under the common law tort of
misuse of private information, only for that case to be dismissed
on May 19.
While a class action lawsuit filed in recent years against TikTok,
alleging abuse of children's data, was also withdrawn last year in
the wake of Google's Supreme Court win. The claimant in that case
was reported as saying the decision had created an enormous amount
of legal uncertainty around privacy class actions, leading to cost
risks that the litigation funders and insurers were no longer
willing to bear -- which meant parents would have been exposed if
they'd chosen to go ahead (hence they did not).
Bringing a legal claim for damages as an individual also remains
prohibitively expensive. So the lack of a clear (low risk) route
for U.K. citizens to pursue class-action style litigation over
privacy harms means there are very limited options for them to
obtain redress for misuse of their data.
Back in 2017, the UK's data protection watchdog did not even issue
a financial penalty for the NHS Trust it found had unlawfully
passed patients' records to DeepMind. Nor was the tech giant
ordered to delete patients' data. And while Google subsequently
went on -- in 2021 -- to decommission the app, DeepMind had been
able to ink deals with a number of NHS Trusts to use a piece of
software developed using unlawfully processed personal data. So
complaining to the national privacy regulator in the hopes it will
meaningfully sanction rule breakers is no sure-fire route to
successful outcomes for Brits either.
It's an increasingly different picture in the European Union where
a Collective Redress Directive was passed back in 2020 that's due
to enter into force next month. This law is aimed at bolstering
consumer rights by making it easier for the bloc's citizens to
bring representative actions and sue collectively over breaches of
their rights.
Add to that, another incoming change to EU product liability rules
is intended to make it easier for people to sue for damages caused
by software and AI systems, including for breaches of fundamental
rights like privacy.
A recent judgement by the Court of Justice of the EU also
established that the bloc's data protection framework does not set
a threshold for harm for a breach compensation claim.
This report was updated with details of the TikTok lawsuit [GN]
GRANITE STATE: Greniers Seek Initial Nod of Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RITA GRENIER and EDWIN
GRENIER, Individually and on behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. GRANITE STATE CREDIT UNION, DOES 1 THROUGH 5, Case No.
1:21-cv-00534-LM (D.N.H.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order:
1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement reached
between
the Plaintiffs and the Defendant;
2. approving the proposed plan of notice to the Class;
3. appointing an administrator to provide the notice and
administration program outlined in the Settlement Agreement,
motion and accompanying memorandum; and
4. setting a schedule of dates as set forth in the motion and
accompanying memorandum for further action on this Settlement
Agreement, including a hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Granite operates as a financial cooperative. The Union provides
financial solutions such as loans, investment, deposit accounts.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 8, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Oc8yUo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christine M. Craig, Esq.
SHAHEEN & GORDON PA
353 Central Ave, Ste 200
Dover, NH 03821
E-mail: CCraig@ShaheenGordon.com
- and -
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
Sherief Morsy, Esq.
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
MCCUNE LAW GROUP, MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO
VERCOSKI KUSEL WECK BRANDT, APC
One Gateway Center, Suite 1500
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 888-1203
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com
sm@mccunewright.com
rdm@mccunewright.com
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Transfer Hicks Suit to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York California denies Grimmway's Motion
to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 in the lawsuit
styled ELIZABETH HICKS, an Individual on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff v.
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Corporation with Headquarters in
California; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22-CV-2038 JLS (DDL) (S.D. Cal.).
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant, a California agricultural corporation, misrepresented
the environmental impact of its farming practices through its
advertising and "Inaugural Report on Environmental, Social and
Governance Actions" ("ESG Report").
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's statements
about "regenerative farming," its Environmental, Social, and
Governance ("ESG") commitments, and preserving natural resources
were false, deceptive, and misleading.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's method of growing its
goods is causing severe harm to the ecosystem, and to its neighbors
and communities. She purports to represent a class of consumers,
who would not have purchased (or would not have paid a premium) for
the Defendant's products had they known of its allegedly misleading
statements.
The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") asserts three causes of action:
(1) false advertising in violation of California Business &
Professions Code; (ii) unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business
practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code
Sections 17200, et seq.; and (3) violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA").
The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action by filing a
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego on Sept. 29, 2022. The initial complaint
limited the proposed class to California residents. On Nov. 22,
2022, however, the Plaintiff filed the FAC, which expanded the
proposed class to include any out of state resident in the state of
California who purchased Grimmway goods/products.
The Defendant then removed the case to this Court on Dec. 22, 2022,
contending that the FAC's expanded class definition resulted in
minimal diversity between the Parties such that removal was
appropriate pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.
The Defendant filed the instant Motion on Dec. 23, 2022, requesting
that the Court transfer the Plaintiff's putative class action to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
where it is headquartered. The Defendant concurrently filed a
Motion to Strike Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand the putative
class action back to state court, as well as a Motion to Amend the
Operative Complaint and a Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery. This
Order solely addresses the Defendant's Transfer Motion.
Despite the Plaintiff contending elsewhere that this action should
be remanded to state court, there is no dispute, in relation to the
present Motion, that both the Southern and Eastern Districts are
proper venues, Judge Sammartino says. Accordingly, the only
question for the Court is whether transferring the case to the
Eastern District would serve the convenience of the Parties and the
interests of justice.
The Defendant requests that the Court transfer the class action to
the Eastern District because its farming activities, as well as the
environment allegedly harmed by said activities, are in the Eastern
District. Moreover, essentially all of the witnesses (both party
and non-party) and evidence (both documentary and physical) are
located in the Eastern District.
Having analyzed the factors established by the Ninth Circuit, the
Court concludes that transferring this action to the Eastern
District is not appropriate.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff's choice of forum weighs against
transferring the case to the Eastern District. The weight accorded
to this factor is not significant, as the Plaintiff purports to
represent a nationwide class of consumers, but neither is it
minimal, as both Parties have significant contacts with the
Southern District and there is no evidence of forum shopping.
Judge Sammartino finds that the convenience of the Parties weighs
slightly against transfer. The Court agrees with the Defendants
that many potential witnesses are likely located in the Eastern
District, but the Defendant fails to specify who those witnesses
are, where they are located, and the relevancy of their testimony
to the case.
The Court finds that much of the evidence in this case will consist
of the Defendant's internal communications, advertising, and
business operations. Environmental reports will also likely play a
significant role in this action. Most, if not all, of this evidence
will be comprised of electronically stored information, however,
which is relatively easy to obtain in any district. Accordingly,
the Court concludes that the factor on convenience of the witnesses
is neutral. The Court also finds other factors neutral.
Judge Sammartino opines that the Plaintiff's choice of forum weighs
against transfer, and the convenience of the Parties slightly
weighs against transfer. All other factors are neutral.
Consequently, the Court concludes that transferring this case to
the Eastern District would not serve the convenience of the Parties
or the interests of justice.
In light of this, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to
Transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 1, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4hrw7au9 from Leagle.com.
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Remand of Hicks Suit to State Court Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH HICKS, an Individual on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff
v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Corporation with Headquarters in
California; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22-CV-2038 JLS (DDL) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies
the Plaintiff's:
a. Motion for Leave to Amend the Operative Complaint;
b. Motion to Remand to State Court; and
c. Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant, a California agricultural corporation, misrepresented
the environmental impact of its farming practices through its
advertising and "Inaugural Report on Environmental, Social and
Governance Actions." Specifically, she alleges that the Defendant's
statements about "regenerative farming," its Environmental, Social,
and Governance commitments, and preserving natural resources were
false, deceptive, and misleading. According to her, the Defendant's
method of growing its goods is causing severe harm to the
ecosystem, and to its neighbors and communities.
The Plaintiff purports to represent a class of consumers who would
not have purchased (or would not have paid a premium) for
Defendant's products had they known of Defendant's allegedly
misleading statements. The First Amended Complaint asserts three
causes of action: (1) false advertising in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 et seq.; (2) unlawful,
unfair, or fraudulent business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.; and (3)
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California
Civil Code Sections 1750 et seq.
The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action by filing a
complaint in the Superior Court of San Diego County on Sept. 29,
2022. She filed the FAC in Superior Court on Nov. 22, 2022. The
Defendant removed the case to this Court on Dec. 22, 2022. After
removal, it filed a Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404 and a Motion to Strike Pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 425.16. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed
the instant motions. On May 1, the Court denied the Defendant's
Motion to Transfer, finding that transferring the case to the
Eastern District would not serve the convenience of the Parties or
the interests of justice.
Judge Sammartino's Order solely addresses the Plaintiff's Motions
for Leave to Amend the Operative Complaint, to Remand to State
Court, and for Jurisdictional Discovery. She first addresses the
Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the FAC. The Plaintiff
contends that a grammatical error resulted in an expanded class
definition, which the Defendant improperly seized upon to remove
the case to federal court. The Plaintiff wishes to amend the
putative class definition to reflect her intention that the case be
litigated in state court.
There is no dispute between the Parties that the putative class
includes more than 100 members. Accordingly, the Court will turn to
the two remaining requirements for federal jurisdiction under CAFA:
minimal diversity and at least $5 million in controversy.
Judge Sammartino finds that the Defendant has met its burden of
showing that minimal diversity exists between the parties.
Moreover, the Plaintiff has not submitted any contrary evidence
regarding the amount in controversy. Accordingly, she is satisfied
that the Defendant has met its burden of showing by a preponderance
of the evidence that more than $5 million is at stake in the case.
The Plaintiff argues that the home-state and local controversy
exceptions apply, as more than two-thirds of the putative class
members are citizens of California.
Judge Sammartino holds that the Defendant has met its burden of
showing by a preponderance of the evidence that CAFA's requirements
for federal jurisdiction are satisfied. The Plaintiff, on the other
hand, has offered no credible evidence that any of the exceptions
to federal jurisdiction under CAFA are applicable. Therefore, the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court is denied.
The Plaintiff seeks limited discovery to prove that the Home State
Exception applies, and to investigate yjr Defendant's unsupported
assertion that the amount in controversy is met. Specifically, she
moves for discovery to determine "residency/citizenship" via GE's
own records including, inter alia, purchase receipts, customer
contact and address lists, and vendor records. She notes that the
Defendant has already suggested it can provide certain sales
information for review in order to determine the amount in
controversy.
Judge Sammartino finds that the Defendant has met its burden of
showing that CAFA's minimal diversity and amount-in-controversy
requirements for federal jurisdiction are satisfied. She finds that
jurisdictional discovery related to CAFA's exceptions to federal
jurisdiction is inappropriate. Therefore, the Plaintiff's proposed
discovery would not yield jurisdictionally relevant information and
would conflict with congressional intent. Consequently, her Motion
for Jurisdictional Discovery is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/cer60 from Leagle.com.
HAPPY STATE BANK: Gallens Files Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Happy State Bank. The
case is styled as Moses A. Gallens, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. Happy State Bank, Case No. 3:23-cv-01069-B
(N.D. Tex., May 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Happy State Bank -- https://www.happybank.com/ -- is a financial
partner to serve personal and business banking needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Must Face Weehawken Tenants' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron Zeitlinger, writing for The Jersey Journal, reports that a
class-action lawsuit by a group of tenants at a Weehawken luxury
apartment complex over security is moving forward after an
appellate court panel affirmed an earlier ruling that the agreement
to waive such suits was unenforceable.
The panel rejected the argument by Hamilton Cove's owner, Hartz
Mountain Industries, that the lawsuit, which stemmed from a claim
made to prospective renters that there was around-the-clock
security, should be dismissed because the tenants' lease includes a
clause that waive their right to file or take part in a
class-action lawsuit against the property.
The lawsuit was brought by William Pace and Robert Walters on March
31, 2022, and it says Hamilton Cove's advertising claim of
providing "elevated, 24/7 security" at its three buildings was
false. The suit was filed by the Costello and Mains law firm, and
handled by Lauren Bess and Miriam S. Edelstein.
After moving into the 573-unit complex on the Hudson River
waterfront, Pace and Walters found in June 2020 that the
apartments' security cameras were broken and that in at least one
building, a front desk greeter/mailroom attendant was stationed at
the front of the building just six hours a day on weekdays (11
a.m.-5 p.m.) and less time on weekends.
By February 2022, the front desk greeter's weekday hours were
extended to 9 p.m., with more consistent staffing on weekends, but
the building never provided the "24/7″ security as promised, the
lawsuit said. In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Hamilton Cove
argued that the tenants were allowed to file lawsuits individually,
but in their lease agreements they waived any right to file or
participate in class action.
In the 16-page appellate court ruling released on May 17 the panel
said the waiver could not be enforced because the tenants had not
been offered arbitration.
"Considering our longstanding, fundamental public policy favoring
class actions, we hold there is no societal interest in enforcing a
class action waiver in a contract that does not contain a mandatory
arbitration provision and conclude that the class action waivers in
this case are unenforceable as a matter of law and public policy,"
the ruling said.
The lawsuit asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
the installation of working cameras and around-the-clock security
as initially promised, and for the management to refrain from
advertising amenities and services that are not delivered. In the
event the 24/7 security and working security cameras are not in
place at the time of the court order, the lawsuit ask for a
reduction in rent to compensate tenants. [GN]
HAWAII: Appeals Attorney Fees Ruling in E.K. Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION is taking an appeal from a
court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
request for administrative fees and attorneys' fees in the lawsuit
entitled E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State of
Hawaii Department of Education, Defendant, Case No.
1:10-cv-00436-SOM-RT, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the certified
class action, originally filed in 2010, was filed to address the
denial by the State of Hawaii Department of Education ("DOE") of
services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
("IDEA") to individuals that the DOE viewed as having "aged out" of
being eligible to receive services. Originally assigned to a
different district court judge, the case went to the Ninth Circuit,
which held that the individuals had been prematurely denied
services. On remand, the matter was settled, with the DOE agreeing
to deposit $8.75 million into an interest-bearing bank account
("Services Fund") and to pay the class counsel $1.5 million in
attorneys' fees and costs, an additional $250,000 in attorneys'
fees with court approval, and such other attorneys' fees as class
counsel might request from the court with notice to DOE counsel.
As of July 2022, the Services Fund had a balance of $285,779.15,
with approximately $95,000 in pending disbursements. The DOE
argues, and the Court agrees, that any additional attorneys' fees
must be paid out of the Services Fund because the DOE has no
further obligation under the Settlement Agreement.
On July 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees to
seek $238,241.50 in fees. The Plaintiffs' motion divides the
requested fees into 23 "Tasks." When fees are requested as
attorneys' fees but appear administrative in nature, Judge Susan
Oki Mollway does not convert the request to one for administrative
fees. She reasons that the Court has already given the Plaintiffs a
second chance to seek fees. Ultimately, she awards $2,425.50 for
the administrative work reflected in Category 1 and $140,865.90 in
attorneys' fees for Categories 3 through 23. Nothing is awarded for
Category 2, which involves "write offs" for which the Plaintiffs
are not seeking fees.
In sum, Judge Mollway concludes that when she considers the
administrative fees sought, her best estimate is that 30% of those
fees are not sufficiently supported. In reducing the administrative
fees by 30%, she is considering not only the issues with the
timesheets identified but also an hourly rate greater than $25 but
less than $50 per hour.
With respect to the attorneys' fees sought, Judge Mollway awards
60% of the amount sought, concluding that an overall reduction of
40% recognizes issues of concern with the timesheet entries and the
numerous instances in which the Plaintiffs did not show that the
tasks performed needed to be done by attorneys charging attorneys'
hourly rates. She does not reach these percentages lightly.
Judge Mollway says the 60% award recognizes that the Plaintiffs'
counsel has clearly performed commendable work on behalf of
individuals who benefitted from the legal services provided. She
also recognizes that there may well have been efficiencies in
having knowledgeable counsel handle certain matters. But she has to
deal with the submissions in the record support, and many of the
entries were problematic. Moreover, the fees were initially sought
as administrative fees, presumably because of the administrative
nature of much of the work.
For these reasons, Judge Mollway grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for administrative and attorneys' fees. She
awards a total of $143,291.40 from the Services Fund.
The appellate case is captioned E. K., et al v. EDU-HI, Case No.
23-15648, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on May 1, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant State of Hawaii Department of Education Mediation
Questionnaire was due on May 8, 2023;
-- Appellant State of Hawaii Department of Education opening
brief is due on June 26, 2023;
-- Appellees R. T. D., Hawai'i Disability Rights Center and E.
R. K. answering brief is due on July 26, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Janna Wehilani Ahu, Esq.
DENTONS US, LLP
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 441-6181
- and -
Paul D. Alston, Esq.
Erika L. Amatore, Esq.
Richard M. Crum, Esq.
Kristin Liisa Holland, Esq.
DENTONS US, LLP
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-1800
Defendant-Appellant STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION is
represented by:
Kevin M. Richardson, Esq.
Ryan W. Roylo, Esq.
Carter K. Siu, Esq.
AGHI - OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAWAII
235 S. Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 586-1255
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Burger Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Reynolds Burger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, AND
ASRC FEDERAL DATA SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01215-RDB (D.
Md., May 8, 2023), is brought action against HMS and ASRC Federal
for their failure to secure and safeguard her and approximately
254,0001 other individuals' personally identifying information
("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"), including, without
limitation, names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, Social
Security numbers, Medicare information, including Medicare
Beneficiary Identifier numbers, Medicare Entitlement, Enrollment,
and Premium Information, and Banking information, including routing
and account numbers.
ASRC Federal provides services to federal health agencies,
including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS").
ASRC Federal is a contractor for CMS, a federal agency within the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS").
On December 16, 2022, CMS notified individuals via postal letters
that their PII and PHI stored on HMS's corporate network had been
exposed in a ransomware attack (the "Data Breach"). As a direct and
proximate result of Defendants' failure to implement and follow
basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' most
sensitive and confidential PII and PHI are now in the hands of
cybercriminals.
The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a significantly increased
and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar
forms of criminal mischief—risks which may last the rest of their
lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote
substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves,
to the extent possible, from these crimes. Moreover, Plaintiff and
Class Members have lost the inherent value of their data, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Medicare beneficiary and entrusted Defendants
with her sensitive and confidential PII and PHI.
Healthcare Management Solutions, LLC offers management consulting,
clinical data validity and reliability testing, software
development, data collection, analysis, reporting, model
application, feasibility studies, and project management
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Ulwick, Esq.
KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
One South Street, Suite 2600
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: 410 752-6030
Email: julwick@kg-law.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: mboltax@hausfeld.com
- and -
Brian M. Knowles, Esq.
KNOWLES LAW FIRM, PC
768 St. Andrews Blvd.
Charleston, SC 29407
Phone: (843) 810-7596
Fax: (877) 408-1078
Email: brian@knowlesinternational.com
Web: www.knowlesinternational.com
- and -
Robert M. Turkewitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. TURKEWITZ, LLC
768 St. Andrews Blvd.
Charleston, SC 29407
Phone: 843-628-7868
Fax: 843-277-1438
Email: rob@rmtlegal.com
HIGHERDOSE LLC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Higherdose LLC. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Higherdose LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03477-PKC-TAM (E.D.N.Y., May 9,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HigherDOSE -- https://higherdose.com/ -- is a wellness brand.[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
HIGHLAND WHOLESALE: Abarca-Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highland Wholesale
Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Abarca-Hernandez,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Highland Wholesale Foods, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0004714 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 9,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Highland Wholesale Foods, Inc. --
https://www.highlandwholesalefoods.com/ -- wholesales canned goods.
The Company offers canned fruits, vegetables, sauces, beans, pasta,
meats, and peanut butter.[BN]
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Suit Over Cannabis Abatement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Burns of Lost Coast Outpost reports that United State
Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman on May 12, 2023 dismissed a
federal class action lawsuit brought by the nonprofit Institute for
Justice on behalf of a group of Southern Humboldt property owners
who alleged that the county's cannabis code enforcement practices
were illegal.
Specifically, the claim argued that the county's administrative
processes to abate illegal weed grows violated the plaintiffs'
constitutional right to due process; levied exorbitant and
unjustified fines and fees; and deprived plaintiffs of their
alleged constitutional right to have a jury present at an
administrative hearing.
The lawsuit, which was filed last year, named the County of
Humboldt as a defendant along with all five county supervisors by
name and county Planning Director John Ford, in their professional
capacities.
Having read Judge Illman's 52-page decision, I think it's fair to
say he effectively laughed this case out of court. His ruling
repeatedly and comprehensively rebukes the arguments put forward by
plaintiffs' attorneys, describing their reasoning variously as
"implausible," "baseless," "unreasonable," "ineffectual" and
riddled with "gross mischaracterizations."
Here's just one example of his upbraiding:
Despite the [first amended complaint's] length, overlooking its
irrelevant content, and its conclusory and implausible assertions -
and in light of the materials of which the court is taking judicial
notice - it becomes clear . . . that the underlying facts do not,
and simply can not, entitle these Plaintiffs to any relief against
these Defendants.
Here's another:
Spanning 70 pages, with more than 600 numbered paragraphs, the
[complaint] is overwhelmingly dominated by legal arguments couched
as factual allegations, unreasonable inferences, unwarranted
deductions, conclusory assertions, unjustified labels, and
hyperbole. As to the relatively small number of paragraphs that do
contain actual allegations of fact, the vast majority of that
content is either irrelevant or simply implausible.
He takes the plaintiffs' allegations one by one. Regarding a claim
that they had been subjected to "excessive fines and fees," Judge
Illman proceeds to describe each one's individual circumstances
before noting, "No party has actually paid a fine."
Regarding a claim that the county routinely denies land-use permits
to landowners with outstanding abatement orders, Judge Illman
writes, "Plaintiffs concede that they have not actually received
any such final decisions by having had any such land-use permit
applications rejected."
Regarding the demand for a jury trial he writes," [T]here is no
right to a jury trial in the sort of administrative hearing at
issue here - something which Plaintiffs appear to vaguely
concede."
Furthermore, he observes, the county's code enforcement regulatory
framework "expressly provides for full-fledged judicial review
after the conclusion of the administrative phase of the
proceedings."
The allegation that the plaintiffs have been denied due process,
meanwhile, gets dismissed for failure to state a claim. Attorneys
for the plaintiffs listed ten examples of the county's alleged
failure to provide adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard,
but Judge Illman concludes, "all either implausible, irrelevant,
conclusory, or are based on unreasonable inferences or unwarranted
deductions."
Ultimately he dismissed every last claim with prejudice, meaning
the suit cannot simply be refiled in U.S. District Court's Northern
District of California, where it was heard.
But in a press release published on Redheaded Blackbelt, attorneys
with the Institute for Justice vow to appeal the decision to the
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The press release says the judge "accepted as true many of the
county's factually incorrect statements," and attorney Jared
McClain adds, "We disagree with the court's decision and will
continue to fight for justice on appeal, ensuring that the rights
of Humboldt County property owners are protected."
In an emailed statement, Humboldt County Public Information
Specialist Cati Gallardo said, "While we were disappointed that a
small number of residents chose this route in an attempt to resolve
their existing violations, we are pleased by the court's decision.
The United States Magistrate Judge is direct in the rationale for
ruling on each count, and we appreciate the clarity provided by the
court. We look forward to resuming collaboration with property
owners to resolve these and other open cannabis-related cases."
[GN]
HYATT CORPORATION: $1MM Settlement in Bickerton Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order and Final Judgment
granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement in the lawsuit entitled ELI BICKERTON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYATT
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, HYATT CORPORATION DBA HYATT
OLIVE 8, a Delaware corporation, HYATT CORPORATION DBA GRAND HYATT
SEATTLE, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00397-RSL-TSF (W.D. Wash.).
The Court grants final approval of the Settlement based upon the
terms set forth in the Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement.
For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies the Class, as
defined in the Court's Nov. 21, 2022 Order Granting Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement as follows:
All individuals who resided in Washington State and who were
employed at Hyatt Regency Seattle, Grand Hyatt Seattle,
Hyatt at Olive 8 or Thompson Seattle by one or more Released
Parties on an hourly basis, at any time from February 11,
2017 through April 22, 2022 (collectively, "Class Members").
The Court finds that the Notice of Class Action Settlement, which
was mailed and emailed to all Class Members as ordered by the
Court, fairly and adequately described the terms of the proposed
Settlement Agreement. The Court further finds that the Notice of
Class Action Settlement fairly and adequately described the manner
in which Class Members could object to the settlement, and the
manner in which Class Members could opt out of the Class; was the
best notice practicable under the circumstances; was valid, due and
sufficient notice to all Class Members; and complied fully with
Rule 23(e)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"),
due process, and all other applicable laws.
The Court further finds that a full and fair opportunity has been
afforded to Class Members to participate in the proceedings
convened to determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreement
should be given final approval. Accordingly, the Court determines
that, since there were only four requests for exclusion, all 1,701
Settlement Class Members are bound by this final Order and will be
deemed to have released any claims described in the Settlement
Agreement (the "Released Claims").
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate as to the Class, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants,
and is the product of good faith, arm's-length negotiations between
the Parties, and further, that the Settlement Agreement is
consistent with public policy, and fully complies with all
applicable provisions of law.
Accordingly, the Court finally and unconditionally approves the
Settlement Agreement pursuant to FRCP 23(e)(2), and specifically
approves:
a. the $1,028,000 Total Settlement Amount;
b. the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount to Settlement
Class Members in the manner specified in and subject to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement with the following
modification: as discussed during the final approval
hearing, a postcard will accompany the Settlement checks,
informing Class Members that the enclosed check is the
payment they are entitled to as a result of the Class
Action settlement;
c. the Class Representative Service Award of $15,000 to the
Class Representative;
d. Class Counsel's requested fees award of $257,000, which is
twenty-five percent (25%) of the Total Settlement Amount,
and is to be paid from the Total Settlement Amount;
e. Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation
expenses of $7,764.951 to be paid from the Total Settlement
Amount;
f. payment to CPT Group, Inc., the Settlement Administrator,
of Administration Costs in the amount of $18,500 to be paid
from the Total Settlement Amount; and
g. and orders that in all other particulars the Settlement
Agreement be carried out by the Parties and the Settlement
Administrator subject to the terms thereof.
The Court orders that, following the Effective Date as defined in
the Settlement Agreement, the Parties and the Settlement
Administrator will carry out implementation schedule for further
actions and proceedings.
The action is dismissed with prejudice; provided, however, that
without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court retains
exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the case for purposes of
supervising, implementing, interpreting and enforcing this Order
and the Settlement Agreement, as may become necessary, until all of
the terms of the Settlement Agreement have been fully carried out.
Upon the Settlement Effective Date, the Plaintiff and all
Settlement Class Members will be and are enjoined from filing,
initiating or continuing to prosecute any actions, claims,
complaints, or proceedings with respect to the Released Claims.
Based on the Court's order granting final approval to the parties'
settlement, the Court also enters final judgment on the
Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Final Judgment dated May
1, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/56f99eem from
Leagle.com.
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settles Vehicle Theft Class Action for Over $200-M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit reached on May 19
brings benefits valued at more than $200 million to owners of
Hyundai and Kia vehicles rendered vulnerable to theft following the
automakers' failure to install basic security measures, according
to lead class counsel at Hagens Berman, Baron & Budd, Fegan Scott
and Humphrey, Farrington & McClain who the court-appointed to lead
this case.
"The benefits will upgrade eligible cars and bring monetary relief
to those who suffered damages due to Hyundai and Kia's actions."
The lawsuit stems from the automakers' failure to equip 2011-2022
models with an immobilizer, a common antitheft device in modern
cars which prevents most vehicles from being started unless a code
is transmitted from the vehicle's smart key. The lack of
immobilizer in affected vehicles spawned viral "Kia Challenge"
TikTok videos demonstrating simple measures "Kia Boys" take to
steal affected Hyundai and Kia vehicles using only a common USB
charging cord or similar metal object to start the engine.
According to the lawsuit, in addition to the lack of an
immobilizer, design flaws in the affected vehicles also allow
thieves to steal them in less than 90 seconds. Lack of adequate
security in the steering columns allows easy access to the ignition
assembly, while the ignition cylinders do not have a locking
mechanism and can be easily removed with minimal force.
If you purchased or leased a 2011-2022 Hyundai or Kia with a
traditional "insert-and-turn" steel key ignition system, click here
to find out more about the lawsuit.
"Benefits As Soon As Possible"
Attorneys say the settlement has been designed to address a
multitude of situations faced by owners of affected vehicles, which
total 9 million - 4.5 million Hyundais and 4.5 million Kias.
"The settlement will provide benefits as soon as possible to those
who have suffered out-of-pocket losses due to car thefts in Hyundai
and Kia cars without immobilizers," said Steve Berman, managing
partner at Hagens Berman and chair of the lead committee
representing affected vehicle owners in the lawsuit. "The agreement
also offers upgrades to fix the lack of immobilizer at the heart of
the issue, as well as payments to those who are not eligible for
the upgrade."
"Our goal in finalizing this settlement was to leave no one in the
dark," Berman added. "The owners of these cars have experienced
enough upset, and we worked to achieve a settlement that covers
many types of losses - from those who were lucky enough to have
never had their theft-prone car stolen, to those whose stolen cars
were totaled completely due to Hyundai and Kia's negligence."
What Hyundai and Kia Owners Can Expect
The settlement provides various benefits, outlined below:
Up to $145 Million for Out-of-Pocket Losses. This tier of payments
includes compensation for a range of out-of-pocket damages,
including total loss of vehicles up to $6,125, damage to vehicle
and personal property up to $3,375, insurance-related expenses and
other related expenses including car rental, taxi costs, ride share
costs or public transit payments not otherwise covered by
insurance.
The settlement will also reimburse affected owners for towing costs
as well as other fees and taxes related to replacement vehicles, if
the affected car was lost or stolen.
The settlement also includes payments to those whose vehicles
suffered crashes or were stolen and never recovered, as well as
coverage for speeding tickets, red light tickets or other penalties
or fines incurred arising from a stolen vehicle.
Finally, class members may also seek to recover losses related to
lost income or childcare expenses resulting from the implementation
of the software upgrade.
Software Upgrades. At no cost, owners of affected vehicles are
eligible for a software upgrade to effectively address the cars'
lack of an immobilizer. The software is designed to prevent the
vehicles from starting without the key being present.
Hyundai vehicles eligible for the software upgrade include:
2018-2022 Accent, 2011-2022 Elantra, 2013-2020 Elantra GT,
2018-2022 Kona, 2013-2022 Santa Fe, 2013-2018 Santa Fe Sport, 2019
Santa Fe XL, 2011-2019 Sonata, 2011-2022 Tucson, 2012-2017,
2019-2021 Veloster, 2020-2021 Venue, 2013-2014 Genesis Coupe and
2020-2021 Palisade.
Kia vehicles eligible for the software upgrade include: 2011-2022
Kia Sportage, 2011-2022 Kia Sorento, 2021-2022 Kia K5, 2011-2021
Kia Sedona, 2014-2021 Kia Forte, 2012-2021 Kia Rio, 2021-2022 Kia
Seltos, 2011-2020 Kia Optima and 2020-2022 Kia Soul.
Payments in Lieu of Software Upgrades. Owners of models that are
not able to receive the software upgrade will be eligible for
reimbursement of up to $300 for the installation of a glass
breakage alarm or anti-theft system, purchase of a steering wheel
lock, or other aftermarket modifications designed to deter or
prevent theft.
Settlement websites will soon be made available to class members
for more information.
"We believe this settlement offers comprehensive, welcome relief
for the class that will serve as a lesson to automakers to not
overlook such integral, basic safety features," said Roland Tellis
of Baron & Budd.
Fegan Scott's Elizabeth A. Fegan said, "Hyundai and Kia failed to
sell cars equipped with fundamental anti-theft features, and that
was not a victimless act. We are pleased with the settlement
reached and its immediate ability to hinder thieves, as well as
compensate victims of thefts that have already occurred."
"Plaintiffs' litigation at its best addresses real issues affecting
everyday people, and we believe this settlement achieves exactly
that," said Kenneth B. McClain of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain.
"The benefits will upgrade eligible cars and bring monetary relief
to those who suffered damages due to Hyundai and Kia's actions."
Class-action lawsuits filed nationwide have been consolidated into
multidistrict litigation as In re: Kia and Hyundai Vehicle Theft
Litigation, MDL No. 3052.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those
harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in
1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,"
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com.
About Baron Budd
Baron & Budd, P.C. is among the oldest, largest and most
accomplished plaintiffs' law firms in the country. The firm has
garnered national acclaim for its complex litigation work,
including automotive class action litigation against every major
automobile manufacturer for concealing safety defects. The firm
filed the first lawsuit involving the recall of tens of millions of
Takata-branded airbags and achieved a settlement valued in excess
of $1.5 billion. The firm was also involved in the Volkswagen
"Clean Diesel" litigation and helped achieve a settlement valued in
excess of $14 billion. For more information, visit
www.baronbudd.com.
About Fegan Scott
FeganScott is a national class action law firm dedicated to helping
victims of consumer fraud, sexual abuse, and discrimination. The
firm is championed by acclaimed veteran class action attorneys who
have successfully recovered $1 billion for victims nationwide.
FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful outcomes with
integrity and excellence while holding the responsible parties
accountable. More about the law firm and its successes can be found
at www.feganscott.com.
About Humphrey, Farrington & McClain
Humphrey Farrington & McClain is widely regarded as one of the best
trial law firms in the country. HFM has pioneered litigation
against asbestos suppliers, the tobacco industry and the food
flavoring industry. The attorneys at HFM have recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of plaintiffs across the United States and Canada
who have been harmed by powerful corporations in a wide range of
legal matters including consumer class actions, complex litigation,
wrongful death and personal injury actions. For more information
regarding the firm and its practice, visit: hfmlegal.com [GN]
IMPORT PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Byrd Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE BYRD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIUM GUARD INC.; and IMPORT PRODUCTS CO.,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01603-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 11,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Byrd was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
PREMIUM GUARD INC. specializes in designing, manufacturing, and
distributing products for automotive, diesel, power sports, and
specialty filter markets. [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
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Doheny Sues Over Age Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marykathryn Doheny, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORP., and KYNDRYL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03962
(S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2023), is brought on behalf of similarly
situated employees who have worked for Defendants who have violated
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended ("ADEA") in
connection with recent layoffs.
Kyndryl, which spun off from IBM in 2021, is the alter ego of IBM,
which itself has undergone an EEOC investigation, as well as
numerous lawsuits and arbitrations over the last five years, for
age discrimination in using layoffs to terminate systemically its
older workers in order to build a younger workforce. The Plaintiff
alleges that IBM is behind Kyndryl's practice of continuing IBM's
ongoing attempt to remove older employees from its workforce.
Plaintiff asserts that Kyndryl was not acting independently of IBM
when it terminated her and similarly situated employees, but rather
was executing IBM's plan to continue to attempt to reduce the
employment of older workers. Following a lengthy and successful
career at IBM, Plaintiff was moved to Kyndryl in September 2021 as
a Director of Global Software. In March 2023, Plaintiff was
suddenly informed she was being laid off as part of "Resource
Action." At the time of her separation, Plaintiff, who had an
excellent work record and led teams of software licensing, was one
of the oldest members of her team.
After being notified that she would be laid off, Plaintiff
attempted to utilize the services of Kyndryl's outplacement portal
which was provided to assist her in identifying a new job.
Throughout this process, Plaintiff was directed to IBM resources,
including the initial link which was an IBM URL. Further, when she
attempted to sign in to the portal, it requested her IBM employee
identification number and not her Kyndryl identification number.
It was thus clear that Kyndryl was rolling out a layoff as a part
of IBM's continued targeting of older workers for termination. Like
IBM had done, Kyndryl also continued its strategy of ensuring that
older employees exited the company after being selected for layoff
by preventing them from obtaining open positions at the company.
Plaintiff attempted to inquire about other open positions at the
company but did not receive responses to her inquiries, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is sixty-four years old who worked for IBM for 23
years as a Certified Client Executive organizing teams to support
IBM's clients, Ms. Doheny moved to Kyndryl in 2021, where she
worked for two years before her separation in March 2023.
IBM is an American multinational technology business that offers
services and goods ranging from computing, cloud platforms,
advanced analytics tools and others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
Matthew Patton, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 994-5800
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
mpatton@llrlaw.com
INTUIT INC: Eligible Users Set to Receive Settlement Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Loe, writing for WCNC, reports that in May 2022, attorneys
general for all 50 states and the District of Columbia announced
they had reached a $141 million settlement with Intuit, the creator
of TurboTax, over claims that it misled customers into paying for
free tax services.
The settlement requires that TurboTax refund millions of impacted
customers.
Since the settlement was announced, many VERIFY readers have asked
about how and when they will receive a payment. Recent Google
search data also show people are wondering if they'll receive a
check from the settlement.
THE QUESTION
Will eligible TurboTax users soon receive checks from a class
action settlement?
THE SOURCES
TurboTax settlement website
Attorneys general in multiple U.S. states
THE ANSWER
This is true.
Yes, eligible TurboTax users will soon receive checks from a class
action settlement.
WHAT WE FOUND
TurboTax customers who qualify for a class action settlement
payment can expect a check in the mail in the coming weeks,
according to the settlement website and attorneys general in
multiple U.S. states.
Checks will be mailed out starting the second week of May and will
continue to arrive throughout the month, state attorneys general
said in press releases on May 4. Some payments may not be mailed
until late May, the settlement website says.
Consumers are eligible for the settlement if they paid to file
their federal tax returns through TurboTax for tax years 2016
through 2018, but qualified for the Internal Revenue Service's Free
File program.
Intuit said the company "admitted no wrongdoing" as part of the
settlement agreement.
The amount of money that eligible TurboTax customers will receive
from the settlement is based on the number of tax years for which
they qualify. Most people are expected to receive about $30, though
people who filed their taxes for three consecutive years could get
up to $85.
People who are eligible for a payment do not need to file a claim.
Anyone who qualifies will be notified via an email from Rust
Consulting, the settlement administrator, and automatically receive
a check in the mail.
More than 4 million people in the U.S. will receive checks as part
of the multistate settlement, the settlement website says.
If you are eligible for the settlement and have not received a
check by mid-June, you can visit the settlement website and request
a reissued payment. You will need the claimant ID number in your
email notice about eligibility for the settlement.
People who would like to verify that a check they received in the
mail is valid can also do so on the settlement website. You will
need the claimant ID number and check number, which can be found on
the tear-off portion of your check. [GN]
IOWA: Gov. Responds to Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Kauffman, writing for Iowa Capital Dispatch, reports that
responding to a lawsuit over her decision to deny federally funded
unemployment benefits to tens of thousands of Iowans, Gov. Kim
Reynolds issued a statement on May 12 saying "the federal
government doesn't get to run the state of Iowa."
Reynolds comments follow the filing of a potential class-action
lawsuit over her 2021 decision to terminate pandemic-related
jobless benefits for unemployed Iowans months before the federal
funding for those benefits was scheduled to be shut off.
Although Iowa was one of at least 25 states, all led by Republican
governors, to take that step, the lawsuit claims Reynolds violated
an Iowa statute that requires the state to pay out all available
federal unemployment assistance to eligible Iowans.
On May 12, Reynolds released a brief written statement that didn't
address that specific allegation but reasserted her right to
terminate jobless benefits for Iowans.
"The federal government doesn't get to run the state of Iowa or
impose policies that damage our economy," the statement said.
"Paying people to stay home at a time when there are more jobs
available than people to fill them defies common sense. Iowans know
there is dignity in work."
In March 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress
passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act --
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 Sept. 4,
2021. However, in a May 10, 2021, memorandum, Iowa Workforce
Development Director Beth 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.
Lawyers for Karla Smith of Pleasantville and Holly Bladel of
Clinton allege the two women, along with 30,000 to 55,000 other
Iowans, were illegally denied unemployment benefits due to the
actions of Reynolds and Townsend.
The lawsuit alleges Iowa's Employment Security law 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 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. [GN]
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Seeks Leave to File Sur-reply in Erickson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erickson v. Jernigan
Capital, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR-KHP (S.D.N.Y.),
the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order allowing them to
leave to file sur-reply.
A sur-reply is warranted to address arguments in the Plaintiff's
reply that were either not raised previously and/or mischaracterize
the Defendants' arguments.
The Defendants asserted in their opposition that the Plaintiff
failed to "establish that damages are susceptible of measurement
across the entire class" in a manner consistent with his theory of
liability.
In reply, the Plaintiff presents one argument that is newly minted
(and thus improper) and another that, at best, grossly
mischaracterizes the Defendants' position. As to the former, the
Plaintiff argued (for the first time) that Comcast does not apply
to federal securities cases, citing an out-of-Circuit case squarely
at odds with cases in the Second Circuit. Then, as a fall back, the
Plaintiff plucks out-of-context snippets of expert testimony and
newly filed exhibits to recast the Defendants' damages argument as
a loss causation argument.
Jernigan is a commercial real estate finance company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MtA9PG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew L. Dirisio, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 294-6700
Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
E-mail: mdirisio@winston.com
JEWELRY ARTISANS: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Vazquez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
JEWELRY ARTISANS OF ORLANDO, INC. d/b/a Kissimmee Jewelers and
ALBERTO LOPEZ an individual, Case No. 6:23-cv-00855 (M.D. Fla., May
9, 2023), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid minimum
and overtime wages under the laws of the United States, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the Act").
While employed by the Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff worked
approximately an average of approximately 63.5 hours per week
without being compensated for her overtime wages at the rate of not
less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which she was
employed. The Plaintiff was employed as a jeweler sales
person/sales associate performing the same or similar duties as
that of those other similarly situated jeweler sales person/sales
associates whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours
per week without overtime wage compensation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.
The Defendants are Florida companies and a Florida resident having
their main place of business in Orange County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: julisse@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
JIMBO'S HAMBURGER: Choc Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Choc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CORPORATION #1 D/B/A JIMBO'S HAMBURGER PALACE; 228
WILLIS AVENUE FOOD LLC D/B/A JIMBO'S HAMBURGER PALACE; and MISAEL
VIVAR, Case No. 1:23-cv-03886 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023), is brought
seeking equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay
the Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages.
Although Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week during their employment with
Defendants, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs with overtime compensation of one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay or the applicable
minimum wage, whichever is greater, for the hours they worked over
40 per week. While employed with Defendants, Plaintiff was a
non-exempt employee under the NYLL, and was entitled to New York
State minimum wages, and overtime compensation. However, throughout
his employment, Plaintiff was not paid at least the applicable New
York State minimum wage rate for all hours worked. The Defendants
further failed to timely pay all of Plaintiff's wages on a weekly
basis as required by the NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cook at Jimbo's from
January 2019 until December 14, 2022.
The Defendants operate restaurants that do business as Jimbo's
Hamburger Palace.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Ave, Suite 1512,
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
Email: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com
JOSEPH R. BIDEN: Missouri Bid to Add Class Allegations OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STATE OF MISSOURI ET AL,
v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. ET AL., Case No. 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM
(W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Terry A. Doughty entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint to add
class allegations and for class certification.
The Plaintiffs have filed suit against a total of sixty-seven
government agencies and/or employees alleging that the Defendants
have coerced and/or have been significantly involved with social
media platforms in order to suppress free speech in violation of
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The
Plaintiffs have previously filed a Complaint, an Amended Complaint,
and a Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs have asked for leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint to add class certification allegations, add Dr. Hugh
Auchincloss as Director of NIAID, and drop the Plaintiffs' request
for injunctive relief against President Biden. The request is
opposed by the Defendants, who argue the Third Amended Complaint
would be futile and that the Plaintiffs have been dilatory in
adding a class certification request.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44XHTQY at no extra charge.[CC]
JOSH STEIN: ACLUNC Seeks Certification of Defendant Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. JOSH STEIN, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00302-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting certification of a defendant class.
The Plaintiff filed this case on April 10, 2023, asserting that the
Anti-Riot Act, as recently amended and expanded by House Bill 40,
North Carolina Session Law 2023-6, violates the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article
I, sections 12, 14, and 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against
Attorney General Joshua Stein and a class of North Carolina
district attorneys represented by District Attorneys Satana
Deberry, Avery Crump, and Lorrin Freeman, in their official
capacities.
The Plaintiff moves for certification of a class referred to as the
the Defendant District Attorney Class, to be defined as follows:
"All elected District Attorneys in North Carolina in their
official
capacities."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41H0u0F at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Davis, Esq.
Kristi L. Graunke, Esq.
ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA
LEGAL FOUNDATION
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919) 354-5071
E-mail: sdavis@acluofnc.org
kgraunke@acluofnc.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Kathryn H. Shields, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Raleigh, NC 27602
E-mail: kshields@ncdoj.gov
JUMP TRADING: Kim Sues Over Manipulation of Market Price
--------------------------------------------------------
Taewoo Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JUMP TRADING, LLC and KANAV KARIYA, Case No.
1:23-cv-02921 (N.D. Ill., May 9, 2023), is brought on behalf of all
persons who, during the period from May 23, 2021 to May 31, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased the digital assets UST or
aUST in the United States and were damaged thereby (the "Class"),
as a result of the Defendants scheming with Do Kwon and his company
Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd. ("TFL") to manipulate the market price for
UST and aUST and to conceal their manipulation, for their own
benefit, which ultimately resulted in the destruction of billions
of dollars' worth of assets held by the Class.
The Defendant Jump was an early partner and primary financial
backer of TFL. Between November 2019 and September 2020, Jump
entered into a series of agreements with TFL and its affiliates to
borrow tens of millions of LUNA tokens from TFL and to provide
market-making services for transactions in LUNA, UST, and aUST, in
exchange for the opportunity to purchase LUNA tokens at a steep
discount, which could then be resold into the market to further
Jump's own profit.
In May 2021, TFL's purported algorithm failed to keep the price of
UST pegged to $1. Rather than publicly acknowledging the inability
of TFL's algorithm to maintain UST's advertised peg price (which
was fundamental to the perceived market value of UST and aUST), TFL
and Kwon secretly schemed with Defendant Jump to manipulate the
market prices for UST and aUST by making secret, coordinated trades
to prop up UST to its $1 peg. As part of the scheme, Jump purchased
more than 62 million UST tokens between approximately May 23 and
May 27, 2021, causing UST's price to artificially inflate to $1 and
causing a corresponding rise in aUST's price.
To incentivize and reward Jump for its manipulation of the markets
for UST and aUST, TFL and Kwon agreed to modify the parties' prior
agreements and instead unconditionally convey to Jump more than
61.4 million LUNA tokens at a greater than 99% discount from their
then-current market price. Jump later resold those LUNA tokens into
the market at a staggering profit of over $1.28 billion. Jump's
manipulation of the market prices of UST and aUST, and its aiding
and abetting of TFL's and Kwon's effort to manipulate the markets
for UST and aUST, violated the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA").
In addition, during the Class Period, Defendants actively concealed
and aided and abetted TFL's and Kwon's concealment of Jump's May
2021 intervention to maintain the artificial $1 peg for UST. In
addition to directly trading UST and aUST tokens, Jump also helped
grow the market and investor base for UST and aUST through its
"Wormhole" bridge protocol, which was adopted by TFL in August 2021
as the preferred mechanism for transferring UST between the Terra,
Ethereum, Binance, and later Solana blockchains. But the artificial
peg could not be indefinitely maintained. By May 31, 2022, the
price of UST and aUST (as well as LUNA and the entire Terra
blockchain) had collapsed completely. As a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' misconduct, Class members have sustained
billions of dollars in economic losses and actual damages under
applicable law.
The Defendants' misconduct was not revealed until after the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed a complaint
against TFL and Kwon on February 16, 2023 (the "SEC Complaint").
Although the SEC Complaint did not affirmatively name Jump as the
party that aided and abetted TFL and Kwon in manipulating the
prices of UST and aUST in May 2021, referring instead to an unnamed
"U.S. Trading Firm," multiple individuals with knowledge of Jump's
May 2021 intervention to manipulate the prices of UST and aUST have
stated that the unnamed firm that aided TFL and Kwon in their
manipulation was in fact Jump Trading, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased UST and aUST during the Class Period in the
United States, and suffered losses as a result of Defendants'
conduct.
Jump Trading is also an SEC-registered broker-dealer and serves as
a market maker on certain exchanges. In court filings and
elsewhere, Jump Trading has described Jump Crypto as its
"cryptocurrency arm."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Chad Johnson, Esq.
Noam Mandel, Esq.
Jonathan Zweig, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832
New York, NY 10170
Email: chadj@rgrdlaw.com
noam@rgrdlaw.com
jzweig@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Eric I. Niehaus, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Email: ericn@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
Oscar Shine, Esq.
Babak Ghafarzade, Esq.
SELENDY GAY ELSBERG PLLC
1290 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10104
Email: jgoldstein@selendygay.com
oshine@selendygay.com
bghafarzade@selendygay.com
JUMP TRADING: Manipulated Stablecoin Price for $1.3-B Profit
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kaaru of Coingeek reports that Jump Trading manipulated the
price of UST stablecoin for months and made $1.3 billion in
profits, a new class-action lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit alleges
that it entered an agreement in 2021 with Terraform Labs and was
the unnamed trading firm in a lawsuit against Do Kwon's company by
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) earlier 2023.
The class-action lawsuit was filed in Illinois by Taekwoo Kim, a
New Jersey resident who purchased UST and "suffered losses as a
result of Defendants' conduct." UST and its sister token LUNA
crashed last May 2022, wiping out over $40 billion and sparking the
collapse of other digital asset giants.
Kim alleges that Jump was an early investor in Terraform Labs
(TFL), the Kwon-led company behind the Terra ecosystem. TFL loaned
out tens of millions of LUNA tokens to the trading firm to provide
market-making services for UST and Anchor UST (aUST). The agreement
also entitled Jump to purchase LUNA tokens at a steep discount.
In May 2021, a year before its collapse, UST failed to stay pegged
to $1 as TFL's algorithms failed. Rather than acknowledge it, TFL
and Kwon allegedly conspired with Jump to manipulate the price of
UST, according to the lawsuit.
"As part of the scheme, Jump purchased more than 62 million UST
tokens between approximately May 23 and May 27, 2021, causing UST's
price to artificially inflate to $1 and causing a corresponding
rise in aUST's price."
As a reward, TFL sold LUNA to Jump at a steep discount, sometimes
greater than 99%, from their then-current market price. The trading
firm would later sell these tokens for more than $1.28 billion in
profits.
Sources earlier this year revealed that at some point, TFL sold
LUNA to Jump at 40 cents while the token was trading at $90 in the
market, a 99.55% discount.
Jump Trading was the mystery trading firm in the SEC lawsuit
In February this year, the U.S. SEC filed a complaint against TFL
and Kwon for defrauding billions of dollars from investors. In the
complaint, the agency first revealed that a trading partner for TFL
had booked $1.28 billion in profit.
In his lawsuit, Kim says that "multiple individuals with knowledge
of Jump's May 2021 intervention to manipulate the prices of UST and
aUST have stated that the unnamed firm that aided TFL and Kwon in
their manipulation was, in fact, Jump Trading."
Kim alleges that Jump violated the Commodities Exchange Act by
aiding and abetting TFL's efforts to manipulate the price of UST.
He is seeking a judgment awarding him and other UST investors all
appropriate damages in an amount to be determined at trial. He is
also seeking injunctive relief that includes rescission,
disgorgement, and restitution.
U.S. prosecutors have tied Jump to Terra and TFL for months now. In
March, Bloomberg reported that U.S. prosecutors were scrutinizing
Telegram chats between employees of Jump, Jane Street, and FTX's
Alameda Research on bailing out UST through market manipulation.
Meanwhile, Jump Trading has been scaling back its operations in the
U.S. as regulatory scrutiny rises. Sources revealed that the
company plans to expand internationally. [GN]
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to August 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gamboa v. Kiss
Nutraceuticals et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01141 (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order granting the parties' renewed
second joint motion to amend scheduling order for a 3-month
extension:
-- Motion for Class Certification: Aug. 4, 2023
-- Response Brief: Aug. 25, 2023
-- Reply Brief: Sept. 8, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Kiss Nutraceuticals provides packaging solutions. The company
offers gummies, vitamins, tablets, confections, chewing gums and
mints, chocolates, and beverages.[CC]
KOHL'S INC: Faces Reimer Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Kohl's continues
to send promotional text messages to consumers who have requested
to opt out of receiving them, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Ruhi Reimer claims Kohl's ignored his requests to opt out
of receiving promotional text messages -- sending him no less than
74 unwanted texts in total.
Reimer argues Kohl's also continued to send him unwanted
promotional texts despite his number being listed on the National
Do Not Call Registry, an alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
"Despite Plaintiff's written request that Defendant cease all
telephonic communications with Plaintiff, Defendant continued to
send promotional text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone
number," the Kohl's class action states.
Reimer wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who,
within the last four years, received a promotional text message
from Kohl's -- or a third party acting on its behalf -- at a number
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without having given
written consent.
Kohl's invades privacy of consumers with unwanted promotional text
messages, class action says
Reimer argues Kohl's, by sending the allegedly unwanted promotional
text messages, has caused him a nuisance, invaded his privacy,
wasted his time and increased his risk of personal injury resulting
from the distraction they cause, among other things.
"Defendant willfully ignored Plaintiff's requests that Defendant
cease telephonic communications with Plaintiff and continued
sending invasive promotional text messages to Plaintiff's cellular
phone number," the Kohl's class action states.
The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting an award of
statutory damages for himself and all class members.
A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Kohl's by a
consumer arguing the company falsely advertises certain sheets it
sells as being made from bamboo, when they are actually made from
rayon.
The plaintiff is represented by Mohammed O. Badwan of Sulaiman Law
Group Ltd.
The Kohl's class action lawsuit is Reimer, et al. v. Kohl's Inc.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00597, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin. [GN]
KOHLS INC: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohls, Inc. The case
is styled as Ruhi Reimer, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kohls, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00597 (W.D.
Wis., May 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Kohl's -- https://corporate.kohls.com/ -- is an American department
store retail chain, operated by Kohl's Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
KROGER CO: White Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California stays the lawsuit styled
PHILLIP WHITE, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-08004-RS (N.D. Cal.), pending resolution of the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On April 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting this
action be dismissed under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff did not set the motion for hearing,
and no briefing schedule was generated in the docket. Several days
later, he filed an administrative motion requesting that the motion
to dismiss be decided on an expedited basis and/or that discovery
and all other proceedings be stayed pending resolution of that
motion.
Judge Seeborg notes that the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss is based
primarily on his concession that discovery has shown the maximum
recoverable damages do not meet the jurisdictional threshold under
the Class Action Fairness Act. Although he does not have an
unconditional right to dismiss because the Defendant already filed
an answer, there appear to be no circumstances under which this
action will not be dismissed in the near future.
The only question, Judge Seeborg says, is whether the dismissal
will be without prejudice, as the Plaintiff requests, or whether it
will be dismissed with prejudice or on other terms that the Court
considers proper.
Accordingly, Judge Seeborg rules that this action is stayed pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss. The Defendant may file any
opposition to the motion to dismiss. The motion will then be taken
under submission without reply or oral argument unless otherwise
ordered. The sealing motion will be adjudicated in conjunction with
the motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 1, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bddns4cn from Leagle.com.
LAST BRAND INC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Last Brand, Inc. The
case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Last Brand, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03934 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Last Brand is an online store selling fashion clothing &
accessories for men and women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LE ELEGANT BATH: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Le Elegant Bath, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Le Elegant Bath, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03897 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Le Elegant Bath, Inc., doing business as American Bath Factory,
manufactures clawfoot tubs, freestanding bathtubs, and
fixtures.[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
MAT KING: Deadline to Respond to Class Certification Bid Adjourned
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN LINDKE, v. MAT KING,
et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-11767-MFL-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew F. Leitman entered an order adjourning deadline by
which the defendants must respond to motion to certify class.
The Court said, "The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
amended complaint is now pending before the Court and is set for a
hearing on June 5, 2023. On May 5, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a
motion to certify class. The Court concludes that the most
efficient path forward for the Court and for the parties is to
delay the deadline by which the Defendants must respond to the
newly filed motion to certify class. The Defendants need not
respond to the Motion to Certify Class at this time. Instead, if
any portion of the pending Motion to Dismiss is denied, the
Defendants shall respond to the motion to certify class not more
than 28 days after the Court enters a written order resolving the
Motion to dismiss."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Icb3Sy at no extra charge.[CC]
MCKINSEY & CO: Canada to Join Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saba Aziz, writing for GlobalNews.ca, reports that the federal
government has said it will join a class-action lawsuit against
consulting firm McKinsey & Company over concerns about its role in
the country's opioid crisis.
The legal action was brought forward by British Columbia in
December 2021 over the firm's alleged marketing campaigns to boost
opioid sales.
That lawsuit also named all provinces and territories, as well as
Canada, as proposed class members, according to the office of
Carolyn Bennett, the federal minister of mental health and
addictions.
"The legal action by British Columbia against McKinsey & Company is
still at a very early stage and is ongoing," her office told Global
News in a statement May 18.
"Their certification process is scheduled to occur in winter 2024.
Should this class action be certified, the federal government will
also formally become a class member in it."
The firm was forced to pay nearly $800 million in settlements in
2021 over its alleged promotion of opioid sales as the crisis
gripped the United States.
At Ottawa's request, the B.C. government amended its legislation in
October 2022, so that Canada, in addition to B.C., has a
legislative basis for claiming damages from the pharmaceutical
industry in relation to the opioid crisis.
Bennett's office said it wants all governments to recover
health-care costs from any companies that acted inappropriately in
the marketing and distribution of opioids.
"We will continue to explore all options to ensure that companies
are held accountable for their role in the toxic drug and overdose
crisis if they acted inappropriately in the marketing and
distribution of opioids."
A soaring number of Canadians have been affected by the opioid
crisis in the country, with the number of deaths reaching an
all-time high in 2021.
A total of 7,560 Canadians lost their lives to opioids that year --
which means 21 deaths in a day. This was up from 3,747 in 2020,
representing a 101 per cent increase and a 162 per cent increase
from 2016.
McKinsey has also faced scrutiny about federal contracts it was
awarded following revelations the firm's work for Ottawa has
expanded rapidly since Justin Trudeau's Liberal government came to
power in 2015.
A House of Commons committee is currently studying those federal
contracts. [GN]
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Arthur Class Cert. Bid by June 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arthur, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04382 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 17,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Arthur case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach.
The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by
the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth,
phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank
account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health
information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42DC35N at no extra charge.[CC]
MECOX GARDENS & POTTERY: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mecox Gardens &
Pottery, Inc. The case is styled as Ness-Lee Vachnine, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Mecox Gardens &
Pottery, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03926-KPF (S.D.N.Y., May 10,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mecox -- https://mecox.com/ -- are dedicated to achieving an
overall balance between the indoor and outdoor living
environment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
META PLATFORMS: Court Orders to Pay Blogger Suit for $56,278
------------------------------------------------------------
Russian News Agency reports that The Meshchansky District Court of
Moscow on May 16, 2023 satisfied the lawsuit of a number of Russian
bloggers filed against Meta Platforms (recognized as extremist in
Russia) after the company left Russia, for 4.5 mln rubles
($56,278), founder of the council of bloggers and lawyer Valeria
Rytvina told TASS on May 16, 2023.
"The court satisfied our class action lawsuit filed against Meta
and recovered 4.5 mln rubles from the company," she said.
At the same time, Rytvina stressed that the losses of Russian
businessmen, from the point of view of the plaintiff, are not
connected with the ban of Meta resources, but with the actions of
the company itself.
Bloggers previously prepared a class action lawsuit against Meta on
behalf of individuals who have invested in targeted advertising
over the last three years and are now unable to use advertising
accounts due to the company discontinuing operations in the Russian
Federation. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: July 26 Class Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
NBC 5 reports that after over one million Illinois residents
received payouts in a class-action settlement with Facebook, the
social media giant may be forking out checks to residents all over
the United States as the result of another class-action
settlement.
Those who have had an active Facebook account may be owed a payout
as part of the $725 million settlement that was reached with
Facebook's parent company, Meta Platforms Inc.
The lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and alleges that Facebook made
users' data available to third parties without their permission.
The suit also alleges that the platform did not monitor or enforce
third-party access to the data they received.
This includes the collection of data by now-defunct political
consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which went on to be used for
political advertising on the platform.
According to the settlement's administrator, class-action members
include all Facebook users between May 24, 2007, and Dec. 22,
2022.
Additionally, how much you could receive, and what you'll need in
order to file a claim depends on several factors.
Here's what to know.
Who Is Eligible To File a Claim?
Anybody who was a U.S. Facebook user at any point between May 24,
2007 and Dec. 22, 2022 is eligible to file a claim.
How Do I File A Claim?
Individuals hoping to receive a payment as part of the class-action
settlement can file a claim here at any point through Aug. 25,
2023.
What Do I Need In Order to File a Claim?
In addition to providing some personal information, as well has the
preferred method of payment, class-action members will be asked to
submit their Facebook username, along with any phone numbers and
email addresses associated with the account.
How To Find Your Facebook Username
Your specific Facebook username can be found by logging onto your
Facebook account, and then navigating to: "Account" > "Settings
and Privacy" > "General Account Settings" > "Username."
How Much Money Could I Receive in a Payment?
The payment size for each individual ultimately depends on how long
each person was a Facebook user and how many users ultimately file
a claim before the deadline, the settlement administrator says.
Administrative and court costs will initially be deducted from the
overall settlement total, creating a "net settlement fund," which
payments will be paid out of from.
The amount each claimant receives will then be determined by the
length of Facebook usage and number of overall claimants.
Each eligible claimant will be assigned "one point for each month"
they had an activated Facebook account during that window. Once the
total number of claimants and their points have been determined,
along with the total settlement fund amount, each person will then
receive a designated amount, multiplied by their total number of
points.
Deadlines to Know
Individuals looking to object to or opt out of the settlement have
until July 26, 2023 to do so.
Those who do not file a claim, opt out or object to the settlement
are automatically part of the settlement, but are ineligible to
receive a payment unless a claim is filed.
The deadline to file a claim is on Aug. 25, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 7, 2023 at 11 a.m. CDT.
The latest lawsuit and settlement is different from the $650
million class action settlement reached with Facebook in Illinois
last year, which resulted in hundreds of dollars being paid out to
more than a million residents. [GN]
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Refuses to Add New Claim in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino of Law Times reports that the underlying claims in
a recent class proceeding involved universal life insurance
policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in the 1980s
and 1990s, specifically these four products: Universal Plus,
Universal Flexiplus, Universal OptiMet, and Interest Plus.
The class action began in 2010 and related to events "as early as
before the turn of the century." The court certified it on issues
narrower than originally pleaded.
The present case arose when the plaintiffs attempted to amend their
claim to add a new common issue about the insurer's alleged
increase of the "investment spread" annual rate charged against
Flexiplus policyholders' accumulation fund balances from 1.25
percent to 1.75 percent. They also asked for the certification of
this new issue.
The plaintiffs argued that the proposed new common issue had
already been pleaded and that there was no limitations period
defence because they could not have discovered the issue's
particulars earlier. Their expert report was proper, the plaintiffs
also claimed.
The defendant insurer asserted that the new cause of action was
time-barred and that a new certification motion was required. The
insurer also moved to strike certain allegedly irrelevant
paragraphs from the plaintiff's expert report.
New claim is out of time
In Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2023 ONSC 2554,
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs'
motion to amend. It granted the insurer’s motion to strike some
portions of the plaintiff’s expert report.
The court found the plaintiff's proposed new claim to be
time-barred, so it did not go further to consider whether it was
abusive. The claim was discoverable in 2016 when the plaintiffs
received a document attached to an affidavit filed by the insurer,
which included information that should have alerted them to the
investment spread issue, the court said.
The court refused to exercise its discretion to add a new common
issue, even assuming that the investment rate spread claim was not
time-barred and that it could add a new common issue without
requiring a full certification motion.
Most Read
Ontario's new construction adjudication regime not drawing expected
interest: Osler lawyer
Child should not be returned to Ohio under Hague Convention:
Ontario court
Clio and Vaultie team up as new client-ID-verification requirements
coming into effect in 2024
According to the court, allowing the amendment and the addition of
a new common issue would do the following:
-- fundamentally change the nature of an already certified action
-- expand the action to include duties of good faith and fair
dealing after this court and the Ontario Court of Appeal already
refused to certify other alleged breaches of the duties of good
faith and fair dealing
-- expand the factual matrix, which would require further
discoveries and further production that could take months to
finish
-- indefinitely delay the case proceeding by summary judgment
motions
-- go against two objectives of Ontario's Class Proceedings Act,
1992 because permitting the amendments would not make efficient use
of judicial resources and would not promote -- access to justice
since there would be a significant delay in the resolution of the
class action on its merits
The court presumed that the insurer would be prejudiced, given the
unexplained 12-year delay between the commencement of the
proceeding and the proposed amendment.
Next, the court ruled that striking portions of the plaintiff's
expert report relating to profitability would ensure that the
evidence would be relevant, prevent wasting the court's and the
parties' resources, and promote access to justice with minimal
delay.
The court struck those parts of the report for the following
reasons:
-- The evidence about profitability went beyond the common issues
-- The report focused on the insurer's alleged motive for the
increases allegedly made in breach of contract when the motive had
nothing to do with the common issues
No evidence suggested that the insurer's profit was relevant to the
actuarial principles underlying the increases in insurance costs or
administration fees
Retaining the irrelevant portions would require the insurer to
incur costs for extraneous issues, would require the court to
expend resources on such issues, and would lead to significant
additional discovery and further delay. [GN]
MICROSOFT CORP: Must Face Class Action Suit Over Source Code
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge kept alive on May 11 the bulk of a proposed class
action alleging that ChatGBPT-bot creator OpenAI and Microsoft's
GitHub ripped off software developer's source code to build
artificial intelligence tools Copilot and Codex, finding that the
threat the companies could use their code is enough to establish
standing. [GN]
MONARCH: Edwards Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch. The case is
styled as Mark Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Deltess Corp. doing business as: Ostrich
Chairs, Case No. 1:23-cv-00379-WO-JEP (M.D.N.C., May 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Monarch -- https://monarchnc.org/ -- is a statewide provider of
services for people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities, mental illness and substance use disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Schehr, Esq.
SCHEHR LAW PLLC
101 N. McDowell ST., Ste. Unit 200
Charlotte, NC 28204
Phone: (704) 900-0336
Fax: (980) 326-1717
Email: chris@schehrlaw.com
MONDELEZ INT'L: Class Cert Bids Deadline Set for Jan. 26, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WALLENSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MONDELĒZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia corporation, MONDELĒZ
GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, AND NABISCO,
INC., a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06033-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered a modified order
scheduling order as follows:
Exchange Initial Disclosures: May 26, 2023
Class Certification Motions and Class Jan. 26, 2024
Certification Expert Disclosures:
Oppositions to Motions for Class March 8, 2024
Certification and Rebuttal Expert
Disclosures:
Replies to Motions for Class March 29, 2024
Certification; Class Certification
Expert Rebuttals:
Class Certification Hearing: May 9, 2024
Close of Fact and Expert Discovery: June 27, 2024
Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions: Aug. 22, 2024
Pre-Trial Conference: Oct. 29, 2024
Trial: Nov. 12, 2024
Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding
and beverage and snack food company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Xle7o at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dave Fox, Esq.
Joanna Fox, Esq.
Courtney Vasquez, Esq.
FOX LAW, APC
201 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Suite 420
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Telephone: (858) 256-7616
Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
E-mail: Dave@FoxLawAPC.com
Joanna@FoxLawAPC.com
Courtney@FoxLawAPC.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark C. Goodman, Esq.
Christina M. Wong, Esq.
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 576-3000
Facsimile: (415) 576-3099
E-mail: mark.goodman@bakermckenzie.com
christina.wong@bakermckenzie.com
MPOWER ENERGY: Rhymes Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ayan Rhymes, Loveleen Kaur, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mpower Energy NJ,
LLC, Case No. ESX-L-2327-23 was removed from the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on May 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02556-JMV-ESK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Mpower Energy -- https://mpowerenergy.com/ -- offers clean, Clean
energy services for residential homeowners in your community at a
consistent, price-protected rate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica Lee Hunter, Esq.
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
18 Half Mile Road
Armonk, NY 10504
Phone: (570) 647-9815
Email: jlh@wittelslaw.com
- and -
Andrey Belenky, Esq.
KHEYFITS BELENKY LLP
80 Broad Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 203-5399
Email: abelenky@kblit.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Emma M. Lombard, Esq.
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
2000 Lenox Drive, Suite 203
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
Phone: (609) 989-5024
Email: elombard@eckertseamans.com
MVW HOLDINGS INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MVW Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. MVW Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03906 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MVW US Holdings, Inc. provides entertainment services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Emerson Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
National Instruments Corp. (NASDAQ:NATI), relating to its proposed
sale to Emerson Electric Co. Under the terms of the agreement, NATI
shareholders are expected to receive $60.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/national-instruments-corp. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Focus Financial Partners Inc. (NASDAQ:FOCS), relating to its
proposed sale to affiliates of Clayton Dubilier & Rice LLC. Under
the terms of the agreement, FOCS shareholders are expected to
receive $53.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/focus-financial-partners-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Univar Solutions Inc. (NYSE:UNVR), relating to its sale to
affiliates of Apollo Global Management, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, UNVR shareholders will receive $36.15 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/univar-solutions-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
NATIONAL WILDLIFE: E.D. Michigan Refuses to Dismiss Gaines Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SHERRY GAINES, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL WILDLIFE
FEDERATION, Defendant, Case No. 22-11173 (E.D. Mich.), Judge F. Kay
Behm of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order:
(a) denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss;
(b) granting the parties' motions to submit supplemental
authority; and
(c) granting motion for leave to file response.
The Plaintiff filed a proposed class action Complaint on May 30,
2022, and an Amended Complaint on Sept. 8, 2022. She alleges that
the Defendant, National Wildlife Federation (NWF), disclosed
detailed information about her minor son's Ranger Rick magazine
subscription data to data aggregators and list brokers who, in
turn, disclosed that information to advertisers, political
organizations, and others, resulting in a barrage of unwanted junk
mail. She brings a claim for violation of Michigan's Preservation
of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), and proposes a class action for all
those similarly situated.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint, asserting
that it fails to state a claim and that any such claims are, in any
event, barred by the statute of limitations. Also pending before
the Court are various motions to provide supplemental authority and
a response to those motions.
According to the Amended Complaint, the Defendant maintains a large
digital database comprised of all of its customers' information --
namely the Private Reading Information (or "PRI"), as well as
myriad other categories of individualized data and demographic
information such as age, child's age, ethnicity, gender, homeowner
status, and income.
The Amended Complaint alleges that during the relevant pre-July 31,
2016 period, the Defendant continuously rented, exchanged, or
otherwise disclosed the PRI of its entire database of subscribers
to various third parties. The Amended Complaint also alleges that
as far back as 2015 and continuing up until the present, including
throughout the entire relevant pre-July 31, 2016 period, the
Defendant "continuously" disclosed ("on a monthly basis") the PRI
of all its customers (including the Plaintiff) in three ways.
First, the Defendant disclosed mailing lists containing the
Plaintiff's (along with all of its other customers') PRI to data
aggregators and data appenders, who then supplemented the mailing
lists with additional sensitive information from their own
databases, before sending the mailing lists back to the Defendant.
Second, the Defendant disclosed the mailing lists to data
cooperatives, who in turn gave the Defendant access to their own
mailing list databases. Third, the Defendant rented and/or
exchanged its mailing lists -- enhanced with additional information
from data aggregators and appenders -- to third parties, including
other consumer-facing companies, direct-mail advertisers, and
organizations soliciting monetary contributions, volunteer work,
and votes.
By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing the PRI of the
Plaintiff and its other Michigan-resident subscribers during the
relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, the Amended Complaint
maintains that the Defendant violated the PPPA. The Plaintiff seeks
$5,000 for herself and each class member pursuant to PPPA Section
5(a) and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to PPPA
Section 5(b).
The parties have moved to provide the Court with supplemental
authority and additional briefing on recently issued decisions
pertinent to the matters before it. The Court grants each of these
requests and has considered the parties' supplemental authority and
related briefs.
The Defendant contends that THE Plaintiff offers no facts to
support her allegations that it disclosed identifying information
about any customer prior to July 31, 2016. The Defendant points to
Nashel v. The New York Times, 2022 WL 6775657 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11,
2022), Wheaton v. Apple, Inc., 2019 WL 5536214 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25,
2019), and Bozung v. Christianbook, LLC, 2023 WL 2385004 (W.D.
Mich. Mar. 6, 2023), in support of its assertion that the
allegations in the Amended Complaint are insufficient.
In response, the Plaintiff argues that the Amended Complaint
contains sufficient allegations to state a claim under the PPPA,
pointing to several supportive decisions, including Horton v.
GameStop Corp., 380 F.Supp.3d 679, 682 (W.D. Mich. 2018); Briscoe
v. NTVB Media Inc., 2023 WL 2950623 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2023)
(report and recommendation by Altman, J.); and Piper v. Talbots,
Inc., 507 F.Supp.3d 339 (D. Mass. 2020).
In the Court's view, a comparison of the allegations in the Amended
Complaint here with those in the cases on which the Defendant
relies illustrate why the Plaintiff's PPPA claim is plausible.
In the present case, the Amended Complaint cites a 2022 data card
showing Ranger Rick subscription information for sale. Unlike the
complaint in Bozung, the Amended Complaint here sufficiently
addresses the time gap between the pre-July 2016 period and the
2022 data card, Judge Behm explains.
At this stage of the proceedings, Judge Behm holds that the
Plaintiff need not prove her claim, and thus, the Court does not
find the failure to proffer a copy of the data card from the
relevant period to be fatal. Instead, the presentation of the 2022
data card, when combined with the allegations that a similar data
card existed for the relevant time period and specific allegation
quoting the contents of that card for the relevant period -- that
NextMark offered to provide renters access to the mailing list
titled "Ranger Rick Marketing Genetics Masterfile," containing the
PRI of all 753,350 of NWF's then-active and recently expired U.S.
subscribers at a base price of "$105.00/M [per thousand]" -- causes
the Amended Complaint to pass the threshold of plausibility, Judge
Behm points out.
The Court also finds, among other things, that Horton persuasive,
and Nashel distinguishable. In sum, the Amended Complaint
sufficiently alleges that the Defendant disclosed PRI in violation
of the PPPA, as evidenced by that information being available for
sale from NextMark during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 period.
The Defendant's first statute of limitations argument is that,
whether the three- or six-year limitations period applies, the
Plaintiff fails to plead that her claim is timely. That is, the
Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's claims are not timely unless
her PRI was disclosed within six years of when she brought her
claim. Based on the initial filing date of May 30, 2022, the
Plaintiff's PRI would have had to have been disclosed in the May
30, 2016, to July 30, 2016 timeframe for her claim to be timely
under the pre-July 30, 2016 statute.
According to the Defendant, the Amended Complaint does not plead
that; instead, it only refers to the "relevant pre-July 2016 time
period," without any specificity. Because there is no allegation in
the Amended Complaint that the Plaintiff's PRI was disclosed from
May 30, 2016, to July 30, 2016, the Defendant maintains that the
PPPA claim fails, even assuming a six-year limitations period.
The court agrees with the Plaintiff that that she is not required
to affirmatively plead compliance with the statute of limitations.
Thus, there is no requirement for her to identify in the complaint
the precise date her own PRI was disclosed.
Additionally, the complaint does not affirmatively show that the
Plaintiff's claims are time barred, where the six-year limitations
period applies, as the Court concludes. In her Amended Complaint,
the Plaintiff alleges that the "relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time
period" is the period that begins on the earliest possible date of
an actionable statutory violation (six years prior to the case's
filing) pursuant to the governing six-year statutory period set
forth in Mich. Comp. Laws Section 600.5813 (which the Governor of
Michigan tolled for 101 days during the COVID-19 pandemic), and
ends on July 30, 2016 (the last date on which the version of the
statute invoked in this case existed prior to the effective date of
its amendment).
According to the Amended Complaint, the relevant period is from
Feb. 20, 2016, through July 30, 2016. Even using the Defendant's
more limited time frame of May 30, 2016, to July 30, 2016, the
Amended Complaint does not suggest, on its face, that its
allegations of wrongful disclosure of PRI fall outside the six-year
limitations period. Accordingly, Judge Behm holds, dismissal on
this basis is unwarranted.
The Court finds the reasoning of the decisions in Krassick v.
Archaeological Inst. of Am., 2022 WL 2071730, at *5 (W.D. Mich.
June 9, 2022) (Jarbou, J.); Pratt v. KSE Sportsman Media, Inc.
d/b/a Outdoor Sportsman Grp., Inc., 586 F.Supp.3d 666, 673 (E.D.
Mich. 2022) (Ludington, J.); and others, persuasive and concludes
that the six-year limitations period applies to the PPPA claim.
The Defendant's arguments to the contrary are unavailing, Judge
Behm holds. The Defendant insists that Palmer Park Square, LLC v.
Scottsdale Ins. Co., 878 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2017), and DiPonio
Constr. Co. v. Rosati Masonry Co., 631 N.W.2d 59, 66 (Mich. Ct.
App. 2001), do not govern because neither involved a personal
injury, like the PPPA. And the Defendant points out that the Sixth
Circuit in Dabish v. McMahon, 818 F. App'x 423, 427-29 (6th Cir.
2020), applied the three-year limitations period to a claim brought
under Michigan's Ethnic Intimidation statute suggesting that merely
because a cause of action arises from a statute does not mean that
that six-year period applies.
Given the lack of analysis in Dabish of the issue before this
Court, Judge Behm points out that its ultimate conclusion on the
applicable statute of limitations is less than compelling and does
not appear controlling. More importantly, Palmer Park and DiPonio
do not simply conclude that where a statutory cause of action is at
issue, the six-year limitations period is automatically
applicable.
Instead, the courts also examined, consistent with Citizens for
Pretrial Justice v. Goldfarb, 327 N.W.2d 910 (Mich. 1982), whether
the claimed statutory violation is like a traditional common-law
tort or creates a new cause of action, Judge Behm opines. Where a
new statutory cause of action is at issue, and no specific
limitations period is provided, then the six-year provision
governs. Thus, Dabish provides no basis for this Court to
reconsider the analysis found in Krassick and Nashel.
For these reasons, Judge Behm rules that the motions to submit
supplemental authority and provide a response to same are granted
and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 1,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3apv29t9 from
Leagle.com.
NATURAL FACTORS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Natural Factors
Nutritional Products Ltd. The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Natural Factors Nutritional Products Ltd., Case No. 1:23-cv-03936
(S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Natural Factors -- https://naturalfactors.com/ -- is committed to
making only the highest quality vitamins, minerals, nutritional
supplements, and herbals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
NEW YORK, NY: Wins Summary Judgment vs Uviles
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL UVILES, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK and
ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner for the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, in his
official capacity, Case No. 1:19-cv-03911-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Brian Cogan entered an order:
1. granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment;
2. denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and
3. directing the Clerk to enter judgment and dismissing this
case.
There seems nothing unreasonable, in a situation involving the
agencies of different public entities that must coordinate parole
releases, about a practice and policy that requires Board of Parole
consent to the lifting of an executed warrant and communication of
that act to City Corrections. It is a logical and presumptively
effective means of balancing parolees' interest in avoiding
overdetention and the public's interest in avoiding premature
release.
The fact that it did not work for this plaintiff on one occasion
shows no flaw in the policy and practice. Again, if plaintiff had
shown that the application of these policies is rife with error and
lead to repeated unwarranted detentions, then these agencies would
have notice that they (or a court in the absence of action by
them), must come up with something better. That is not the case on
this record.
The Plaintiff says he has not sought class certification because of
the way the case was scheduled. He contends that he would not have
allowed the possibility of the case becoming moot as to State
Parole just by agreeing to make the class certification motion
after the summary judgment motion.
As he argues: "What the Defendant Annucci forgets [by asserting
mootness], however, is that the Plaintiff explicitly agreed with
the Court during the pre-motion conference on April 15, 2021, to
defer class certification briefing. " As the colloquy above shows,
he is mostly correct. But that history hurts him rather than helps
him The Court did not twist his arm in suggesting the resolution of
the motions in tranches, with class certification last.
Rather, the Court made it clear that it would allow plaintiff to
proceed in tandem if that is what he wanted. He didn't. the
Plaintiff made a deliberate decision to postpone class
certification. The Court raised the issue, but it also made clear
that it was plaintiff's choice.
On December 21, 2017, the plaintiff began his parole supervision
after serving time on a prior conviction. On May 22, 2018, he
incurred a fresh arrest by New York City police officers on a
domestic relations matter involving an alleged assault.
State Parole received notice of the arrest that same day, and a
parole officer, Johnny Ortiz, conferred with the NYPD arresting
officer. Parole Officer Ortiz then passed on what he had learned to
Senior Parole Officer Scanlon (first name not given by the
parties), and SPO Scanlon issued a parole warrant based on the
underlying criminal charges. (That is, the alleged criminal
conduct, if true, would have also constituted a parole violation.)
State Parole sent copies of the warrant to the precinct out of
which the arresting NYPD officer worked, and to the arraignment
part of the Brooklyn Criminal Court, the court in which plaintiff
had been charged.
The Plaintiff was arraigned in Brooklyn Criminal Court on May 23,
2018, on both felony and misdemeanor charges of assault and
robbery. The court set a $7500 cash bail that plaintiff was unable
to post. He was then sent to Rikers Island and thus came into the
custody of City Corrections.
On May 25, 2018, plaintiff appeared in court again. The court
dismissed the felony charges and reduced plaintiff's bail on the
remaining misdemeanor charges to $2,500 cash and a $1,500 bond. The
Plaintiff's Parole Officer, Legenda von Evans, was on vacation at
the time of plaintiff's arrest. After returning from vacation on
June 4, 2018, she began an investigation into the alleged parole
violation.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M22cEm at no extra charge.[CC]
NEXT LEVEL BURGER: Hunter Sues Over Labor Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Asia Hunter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. NEXT LEVEL BURGER COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03483
(E.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023), is brought arising out of the Defendant's
failure to comply with the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations and the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendant violated the NYLL because it failed to timely pay its
hourly workers. The NYLL requires employers to pay manual workers,
like the Defendant's hourly workers, within seven calendar days
after the end of the workweek in which wages were earned. N.Y. Lab.
Law. The Defendant paid hourly employees on a bi-weekly basis and
did not provide its manual workers with paystubs outlining hours
worked per workweek. The Defendant also violated the FLSA by its
policy or practice of unlawfully retaining tips from its workers,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly worker at the Next Level
Burger.
Next Level Burger Company, Inc. is a foreign corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
SALAS P.C.
705 8th Street SE, #100
Washington, D.C. 20003
Phone: (202) 830-2016
Fax: (312) 419-1025
Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
- and -
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
Joseph E. Salvi, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 419-1008
Fax: (312) 419-1025
Email: msalas@flsalaw.com
jsalvi@flsalaw.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Breedlove Sues Over Inadequate Cyber Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Breedlove, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., and NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, LLC, d/b/a NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, Case No.
1:23-cv-02131-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 10, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures which
resulted as a Data Breach.
Between March 29, 2023, and April 14, 2023, NextGen, a healthcare
management system and electronic health record software services
company, headquartered in Georgia, lost control over its computer
network and the highly private information stored on the computer
network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals ("Data
Breach").
On information and belief, Data Breach began on or around March 29,
2023, and was allowed by Defendant to continue until April 14,
2023, at least 17 days later. Despite having discovered the Data
Breach on March 30, 2023, THE Defendant failed to mitigate or
prevent the Breach for another 15 days. Following an internal
investigation that first began on March 30, 2023, as the Breach was
ongoing, Defendant learned cybercriminals gained unauthorized
access to consumers' personally identifiable information ("PII").
On information and belief, cybercriminals bypassed Defendant's
inadequate security systems to access consumers' PII in its
computer systems.
On April 28, 2023, NextGen finally notified state Attorneys General
and many Class Members about the widespread Data Breach ("Breach
Notice"). The Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of
the breach and the threat it posted—refusing to tell its victims
how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, or why it
took the Defendant almost a month after discovering the Breach to
begin notifying victims that hackers had gained access to highly
private PII.
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings
to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have
known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and
efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating
the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect
consumers' information, adequately notify them about the breach,
and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state
law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former
consumers.
The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of
Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures.
Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted
Defendant with their PII. But Defendant betrayed that trust.
Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to
prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received the NextGen's breach notice on May 8, 2023
and is unsure why Defendant is in possession of his PII.
NextGen is a corporation headquartered Georgia, providing practice
management systems and electronic health record software services
to healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph B. Alonso, Esq.
ALONSO & WIRTH
1708 Peachtree Street, Suite 207
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (678) 928-4472
Email: jalonso@alonsowirth.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Brown Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brown, on behalf of his minor children, A and J,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02130-TWT (N.D. Ga., May
10, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent targeted
cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party
criminals retrieved and exfiltrated personal data from NextGen's
network that resulted in unauthorized access to the
highly-sensitive consumer data1 of the Plaintiff's minor children,
A and J, and, according to NextGen, at least 1,049,375 Class
Members ("Data Breach").
NextGen develops and sells electronic health record ("EHR")
software and practice management systems to customers in the
healthcare industry, including medical, behavioral, and oral health
providers. 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 individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's minor children's 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 minor children'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's minor children and
Class Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly
impending harm. Plaintiff, Plaintiff's minor children, and Class
Members have and will continue to suffer injuries associated with
this risk, including but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation
expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of their Private
Information.
Even those Class Members who have yet to experience identity theft
have to spend time responding to the Data Breach and are at an
immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a
direct and proximate result of the Data Breach. Plaintiff,
Plaintiff's minor children, and Class Members have incurred, and
will continue to incur, damages in the form of, among other things,
identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses
mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit,
diminished value of Private Information, loss of privacy, and/or
additional damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Michael Brown and his minor children, A and J, are
natural persons, residents, and citizens of the State of Arkansas.
NextGen is a leading provider of cloud-based healthcare technology
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Rd.
Building 14, Suite 230
Phone: 404-320-9979
Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Amy Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Derouin Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Derouin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02139-TWT
(N.D. Ga., May 11, 2023), is brought claiming for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences,
breach of an implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and
declaratory relief as a result of the Defendant's inadequate data
security.
Entities that provide services in the healthcare industry and
handle patients' sensitive, personally identifying information
("PII" or "Private Information") owe a duty to the individuals to
whom that data relates. This duty arises because it is foreseeable
that the exposure of patients' PII to unauthorized
persons--especially hackers with nefarious intentions--will result
in harm to the affected individuals, including, but not limited to,
the invasion of their private health matters.
As a healthcare service provider, specifically a US-based business
that provides electronic health records and practice management
solutions to several healthcare organizations, NextGen knowingly
obtains sensitive patient PII and has a resulting duty to securely
maintain such information in confidence.
NextGen's Notice of Privacy Policy acknowledges that "we use
reasonably and appropriate security measures designed to protect
the personal information we obtain from unauthorized alteration,
loss, disclosure, or use, including technological, physical and
administrative controls." The Privacy Policy delineates the
specific ways in which NextGen discloses information "we may also
disclose information as we believe necessary."
NextGen breached its duty to protect the sensitive PII entrusted to
it, and failed to abide by its own Privacy Policies. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of herself and the
over 1 million other patients whose PII was accessed and exposed to
unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Defendant's
system on or about March 29, 2023, which NextGen announced on or
about April 28, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). Indeed, NextGen did not
inform Plaintiff of the Data Breach until April 28, 2023,
twenty-eight days after NextGen first discovered the Data Breach.
Based on the public statements of NextGen to date, a wide variety
of PII was implicated in the breach, including but not limited to,
patients' names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and
addresses
As a direct and proximate result of NextGen's inadequate data
security, and its breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable
care, Plaintiff's PII has been accessed by hackers, posted on the
dark web, and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized
individuals. The Plaintiff is now at a significantly increased and
certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation
of health insurance benefits, intrusion of her health privacy, and
similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the
rest of her life. Consequently, Plaintiff must devote substantially
more time, money, and energy to protect herself, to the extent
possible, from these crimes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Derouin's PII was stored and handled by NextGen.
NextGen provides software and related support to ambulatory medical
providers, including practice management, revenue cycle management,
patient experience, value-based care, analytics & reporting, and
data platforms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (770) 444-9594
Email: flemond@webbllc.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
jshub@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: (248) 841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
gam@millerlawpc.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 Plaintiff asserts that information compromised in the Data
Breach includes names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social
Security numbers. He 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
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Distribution of Net Settlement Fund Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE NIELSEN HOLDINGS PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-07143-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M.
Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York enters an order authorizing the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund to eligible claimants.
The matter comes before the Court on the motion of Court-appointed
Lead Plaintiff for approval of a distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund to eligible claimants. The Settlement has reached its
Effective Date.
Judge Furman's Order incorporates by reference the definitions in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated March 15, 2022,
and all capitalized terms used, but not defined in the Order, will
have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation or the
Declaration of Melissa Mejia in Support of Lead Plaintiff's Motion
for Authorization to Distribute Net Settlement Fund.
Judge Furman approves the administrative recommendations of Epiq
Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., the Court-appointed Claims
Administrator, to accept the Proof of Claim and Release forms,
including the late but otherwise eligible Claim Forms, listed in
Exhibits D-1 and D-2 to the Distribution Declaration. As determined
by the Claims Administrator, he rejects the wholly rejected or
otherwise ineligible Claim Forms, listed in Exhibit D-3. He adopts
the Claims Administrator's recommendation to reject the Disputed
Claim listed in Exhibit E.
In addition, Judge Furman authorizes the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants and will be conducted in
accordance with the Stipulation, the Court-approved Plan of
Allocation, and the distribution plan for payment of the Net
Settlement Fund set forth in paragraph 44 of the Distribution
Declaration.
At such time as the Lead Counsel, in consultation with Epiq,
determines that further distributions of any unclaimed funds
remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is not cost effective, with
leave of the Court any residual amount maybe donated to the
Investor Protection Trust.
No new Claim Forms may be accepted after Nov. 30, 2022 and no
further adjustments to Claim Forms received on Nov. 30, 2022 that
would result in an increased Recognized Claim Amount may be
accepted after March 1, 2023.
A payment in the amount of $69,593.70 from the Settlement Fund for
Epiq's estimate of its fees and expenses to be incurred in
connection with the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund
is authorized by Judge Furman. If the incurred fees and expenses
for the Initial Distribution are lower than the estimate, he orders
the Claims Administrator to promptly reimburse the Net Settlement
Fund.
The Claims Administrator is authorized to destroy paper copies of
the Claim Forms and all supporting documents one year after the
Second Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and to destroy
electronic copies of the same one year after all funds have been
distributed.
The Court retains jurisdiction to consider further applications
concerning the administration of the Settlement, and such other and
further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/atlsz from Leagle.com.
NIKE USA: Ellis Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Guadalupe Ellis, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. NIKE USA, INC., NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00632 (E.D. Mo., May 10, 2023), is brought against
Nike for (1) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
("MMPA"), unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and
fraud; seeking to remedy the unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and
misleading business practices of Nike with respect to the marketing
and sale the Products, which are sold throughout the State of
Missouri and the United States.
In an effort to increase profits and to gain an advantage over its
lawfully acting competitors, Nike falsely and misleadingly markets
the Products as "sustainable," made with "sustainable materials,"
and environmentally friendly. The labeling of the Products claims
the following: "Sustainability;" "made with recycled fibers" which
"reduces waste and our carbon footprint;" support a "Move to Zero"
which "is Nike's journey toward zero carbon and zero waste to help
protect the future of sport;" and contain a circular symbol that
means that the Products are made with "sustainable" and
environmentally friendly materials.
Contrary to these representations, the Products plainly do not lead
to "Sustainability," are not "made with recycled fibers" which
"reduce waste and our carbon footprint," do not support a "Move To
Zero carbon and zero waste," and they are not made with
"sustainable" and environmentally friendly materials because the
Products are not sustainable, and are not made from sustainable and
environmentally friendly materials that are less harmful to the
environment. The marketing and labeling deceives consumers into
believing that they are receiving Products that are "sustainable,"
"made with recycled fibers" which "reduce waste and our carbon
footprint," a "move to zero carbon and zero waste," made from
"sustainable materials" and environmentally friendly, but Nike's
Products do not live up to these claims.
Conscious of consumers' increased interest in more "green" products
that are more sustainable and environmentally friendly and
willingness to pay more for products perceived to meet this
preference, Nike misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively seeks to
capitalize on these consumer "green" trends.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products in reliance on Nike's
representations that these Products are "sustainable," "made with
recycled fibers" which "reduces waste and our carbon footprint,"
support a "Move To Zero carbon and zero waste," made with
"sustainable materials," and environmentally friendly. She would
not have purchased the Products if she had known that they were not
sustainable, not made from sustainable materials, and not
environmentally friendly. The Plaintiff and the Class reasonably
believed Nike's false and misleading representations. Nike knew or
reasonably should have known that its representations regarding the
Products were false, deceptive, misleading, and unlawful under
Missouri law and common law.
Nike misrepresented, and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted
material facts in connection with the sale, distribution, and/or
advertisement of the Products. The Plaintiff and the Class Members
paid a premium for the Products over comparable products that did
not purport to be "sustainable," "made with recycled fibers" which
"reduces waste and our carbon footprint," a "Move To Zero carbon
and zero waste," made with "sustainable materials," and
environmentally friendly. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members
paid a premium for the Products based on Nike's representations
that they are "sustainable," "made with recycled fibers" which
"reduces waste and our carbon footprint," a "Move To Zero carbon
and zero waste," made with "sustainable materials," and
environmentally friendly, Plaintiff and the Class Members suffered
an injury in the amount of the purchase price and/or the premium
paid, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has purchased Nike Products for personal, family, or
household use.
Nike develops, manufacturers, markets, distributes, and sells a
variety of personal, family, or household products in its self
proclaimed sustainable clothing line.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq.
ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 725-5151
Fax: (314) 455-7375
Email: dan@orlowskylaw.com
- and -
Adam M. Goffstein, Esq.
GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 725-5151
Fax: (314) 455-7278
Email: adam@goffsteinlaw.com
NIKE USA: Faces Ellis Class Suit Over Greenwashed Sustainability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges the products in Nike's "sustainable" clothing
collection are not as eco-friendly as advertised given the items
are not actually made with environmentally friendly materials.
The 47-page "greenwashing" lawsuit charges broadly that Nike has
illegally attempted to capitalize on consumers' preference for
"green" products by falsely claiming that certain apparel tagged
with "sustainable" claims and marketed as supporting the retailer's
waste- and carbon-reducing "Move to Zero" initiative are,
unbeknownst to the public, made from non-biodegradable
plastic-based materials.
"In fact, of the 2,452 Nike 'Sustainability' Collection Products .
. . only 239 Products are actually made with any recycled
materials," the complaint specifies.
Overall, upward of 90 percent of the items in Nike's
"Sustainability" collection are not "made with recycled fibers" as
advertised, and, according to the lawsuit, are actually comprised
mostly of "virgin" synthetic materials that are known to be harmful
to the environment. The products that do contain recycled material,
the suit says, are predominantly made with recycled polyester and
recycled nylon, two materials that the case emphasizes are "still
plastic" and thus not biodegradable.
"Once you dispose of the materials, they sit in a landfill for
hundreds of years," the complaint states. "They are not
'sustainable' and do not 'reduce waste and our carbon footprint.'
Nor do they support a 'Move to Zero carbon and zero waste.'"
The lawsuit, filed on May 10 in Missouri, looks for the court to
order Nike to undertake a "corrective advertising campaign" and
reimburse consumers who the case contends were not adequately
informed that the retailer's "sustainable" clothing is anything but
and can harm the environment.
"Consumers would not know the true nature of the clothing's
materials merely by reading the products' label," the case
summarizes.
Nike's "sustainable" claims are "false, misleading, and deceptive,"
suit alleges
According to the lawsuit, the clothing in Nike's "sustainable"
collection is made predominantly with "virgin synthetic materials,"
chiefly plastic-based, non-biodegradable textiles such as polyester
and nylon. These textiles "require loads of energy for extraction
and processing" and are not derived from renewable sources, the
filing says.
Synthetic materials such as polyester, a form of plastic derived
from oil, shed plastic particles -- known as microplastics -- as
they continue to be washed and worn, the case says. These materials
are "a prime source of microplastic pollution," which is especially
harmful to marine life, the suit relays.
Per the complaint, textiles such as polyester and nylon represent
the largest source of microplastic pollution in the world's oceans
-- and ultimately pose a health risk to humans as they "make their
way up the food chain."
All in all, the foregoing means that Nike's "sustainability" claims
for the clothing at issue are "false, misleading, and deceptive" as
the vast majority of the "green" items are made from materials
that, at best, end up in landfills, the lawsuit alleges.
Lawsuit: recycled materials used by Nike are problematic for the
environment
According to the suit, Nike has heavily marketed recycled polyester
as a sustainable and environmentally responsible material,
positioning it for consumers as a material that can help "reduce[]
waste and our carbon footprint" and in support of the retailer's
"Move to Zero" initiative. The company also claims that "[i]n
addition to reducing waste, recycling poly lowers carbon emissions
by up to 30% compared to virgin poly," and keeps an average of 1
billion plastic bottles out of landfills and waterways each year,
the complaint relays.
However, recycled polyester is, in truth, neither sustainable nor
eco-friendly given how it's sourced and processed, among other
factors, and is essentially a "one-way street to landfill or
incineration," the case contests.
In particular, the "vast majority" of recycled polyester comes from
recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles that have been
"mechanically recycled into polyester fiber for clothes," the suit
shares. Per the case, Nike admits that its recycled polyester is
derived from plastic bottles that are "cleaned, shredded into
flakes, converted into pellets, and then spun into high-quality
yarn."
However, this method of "downcycling" PET bottles into polyester
poses an issue in several ways, namely in that the process is "not
a circular solution" given the polyester fibers lose strength as
they're recycled and, as a result, eventually end up in landfills,
the case emphasizes. Further, the competition between the packaging
and clothing industries for PET bottles hinders the amount of
recyclable PET bottles being used for bottle-to-bottle recycling,
which is more sustainable, the suit says. Lastly, recycled
polyester does nothing to address the shedding of microplastics,
meaning "billions of plastic particles still end up reaching the
ocean, the air we breathe and our food chains," the lawsuit
states.
Given that recycled polyester represents a one-way street to
landfill or incineration, this material does not make a product
'sustainable,' 'reduce waste,' support a 'Move to Zero carbon and
zero waste,' or "environmentally friendly."
Similarly, Nike represents recycled nylon as a sustainable and
environmentally responsible material despite the fact that it is,
like recycled polyester, still plastic and not biodegradable, the
suit continues.
Recycled nylon is not a sustainable and/or environmentally
responsible material. Recycled nylon neither diverts discarded
material from the environment nor does it promote new recycling
streams for nylon products that are no longer functional. It just
delays the inevitable. Nike is essentially moving plastic from the
ocean to the landfill."
More broadly, hinging sustainability strategies on the premise that
consumers can continue to consume plastic-based goods is "highly
problematic," the lawsuit goes on. Specifically, the case says,
"green" marketing fails to address the pillar issues of
"perpetuating disposable solutions and the over-consumption of
natural resources," and ultimately encourages consumers to "buy
more clothes or throw away garments sooner, in the belief they can
be recycled in some magic machine."
For retailers, there's big money in going "green," lawsuit says
As the lawsuit tells it, Nike is among a litany of companies
attempting to ride all the way to the bank the wave of consumers in
search of sustainable, environmentally friendly products. Rather
than create products that are actually sustainable and
eco-friendly, Nike, like others in the industry, the suit alleges,
has "greenwashed" its products by deceptively claiming that the
clothing is sustainable.
Amid the so-called "greenwashing" problem, the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) released the "Green Guides" in order to help
companies "avoid making misleading and deceptive claims," the
complaint reads. The FTC's parameters are designed to help
consumers parse what it actually means for a product to be "green"
by serving as a guidepost for corporations like Nike that tout
their products as "sustainable" and market them with "green"
imagery, such as models and cartoon characters surrounded by
flowers and plants.
The inaccuracy of Nike's "green" marketing means the company's
sustainability claims are out of line with the FTC's Green Guides
as they pertain to the use of "environmental marketing claims," the
filing alleges.
The lawsuit stresses that consumers expect products marketed as
"sustainable" and "made with recycled fibers," not to mention as
part of a broad initiative to reduce waste and carbon emissions, to
be less harmful and generally more beneficial to the environment.
The case alleges that consumers nationwide have paid more for
Nike's purportedly sustainable products over comparable items not
touted with eco-friendly claims and would not have done so had they
known the retailer had "greenwashed" the clothing.
By giving the impression that it is an environmentally conscious
company, and by tagging products as "sustainable" and "made with
recycled fibers," among other claims, Nike is creating for itself a
significant edge in terms of sales and profit at the expense of
consumers, the suit alleges.
"This is what lies at the heart of its sustainable style focus,"
the case reads.
Which Nike products are mentioned in the lawsuit?
The complaint contends that the products listed here have been
fraudulently "greenwashed" by Nike -- that is, misrepresented as
"sustainable," "eco-friendly" and/or "made from recycled
materials."
Who's covered by the lawsuit?
The lawsuit aims to represent all consumers in the United States
who, within the relevant statute of limitations period, purchased
products from Nike's "Sustainability" collection, including those
in the list linked to on this page, for personal, family or
household use.
I have Nike products that were advertised as "sustainable." How do
I get involved?
There's typically nothing you need to do to join or sign up for a
proposed class action case when it's initially filed. It's usually
only if and when the suit settles that a consumer would need to
act. In the event of a settlement, the people who are covered by
the deal -- the class members -- may be notified directly with
instructions on what to do next and details about their legal
rights.[GN]
NORDICTRACK INC: Pagano Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NordicTrack Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Samantha Pagano, Kristi Barnett Williams,
individual on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. NordicTrack Inc., iFit Inc., iFit Health & Fitness
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00058-JNP (D. Utah, May 11, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.
NordicTrack -- http://www.nordictrack.com/-- is an American
company that manufactures treadmills, strength training equipment,
ellipticals, exercise bikes, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WINESTOCK & DODIG
LLP
1845 Walnut St 21st Fl
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 567-8300
- and -
George Alexander Krebs, Esq.
Raphael Janove, Esq.
Adam Pollock, Esq.
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
111 Broadway Ste 1804
New York, NY 10027
Phone: (212) 337-5361
Email: gkrebs@pollockcohen.com
Adam@PollockCohen.com
- and -
Nicholas G. Kline, Esq.
SHAHEEN & GORDON PA
353 Central Ave., 2nd Fl.
Dover, NH 03821
Phone: (603) 749-5000
Email: nkline@shaheengordon.com
- and -
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL PC
10 Exchange Pl., Ste. 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 456-7655
Email: jhull@mohtrial.com
ONFIDO INC: Ill. Court Approves Amended Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on May 12 disclosed that on May
5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
preliminarily approved an amended class action settlement in which
an identification verification service provider agreed to pay $28.5
million to settle allegations that it violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). According to the
plaintiffs, the defendant collected, stored, and or used class
members' biometric data without authorization when they uploaded
photos and state IDs on a mobile app belonging to one of the
defendant's customers. After the court denied the defendant's move
to compel arbitration and determined the plaintiff had standing to
pursue his BIPA claims, the parties entered into settlement
discussions without the defendant admitting any allegations or
liability. The court certified two classes: (i) Illinois residents
who uploaded photos to the defendant through the app or website of
a financial institution (class members will receive $15.7 million);
and (ii) Illinois residents who uploaded photos through a
non-financial institution (class members will receive $12.8
million). A final approval hearing will determine attorney's fees
and expenses and incentive awards.
A copy of the Od4er is available at:
https://buckleyfirm.com/sites/default/files/InfoBytes%20-%20Sosa%20et%20al%20v.%20Onfido%2C%20Inc.%20-%20Order%202023.05.05.pdf
[GN]
PACIFICORP: Faces Class Action Over 2020 Labor Day Fires
--------------------------------------------------------
Antonia Sierra, writing for Yachats News, reports that the lawyers
representing a group of Oregonians suing PacifiCorp are fighting a
battle on two fronts.
The first is at the ongoing trial at the Multnomah County
Courthouse: 17 named plaintiffs representing residents from across
Western Oregon are suing the parent company of Pacific Power for
its alleged role in the 2020 Labor Day fires. They say the electric
utility's failure to properly prepare for a wind storm and dry
conditions led to sparking power lines and major fires that
destroyed their homes.
The second battle has been taking place behind the scenes as
plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion to sanction PacifiCorp that
alleges the corporation has actively hidden key evidence.
Throughout the trial, the plaintiffs have questioned the competence
and preparedness of people at the top of PacifiCorp. But the latest
motions also question the executives' honesty, alleging that
several didn't disclose September 2020 phone conversations they had
about a meeting with leaders from the governor's office and the
Oregon Department of Forestry about the fires.
The focus on the utility executives' decisions during the Labor Day
fires is notable as the trial nears the end of its third week, and
plaintiffs seek to portray the company as unrepentant about
potentially thousands of destroyed properties in the class action
case.
The plaintiffs' attorneys have kept the top leaders at PacifiCorp
and Pacific Power in their cross hairs from the start. Through
expert witness testimony from veteran workers in the utility
industry, they're trying to make the case that the fires weren't
just the result of a few mistakes made on a hot, windy day, but
evidence of larger systemic problems at Pacific Power.
Vincent Oatis, a retired senior lead manager for Southern
California Edison's vegetation program, testified for the
plaintiffs May 1. They asked him to evaluate PacifiCorp's tree
trimming operation and the budget it put behind the effort.
His evaluation was unsparing. Oatis told jurors PacifiCorp's
vegetation executives were unqualified to do their jobs, deferred
important work because the company wouldn't allocate enough
resources toward vegetation management and failed to heed critical
warnings from the state.
Oatis was especially incredulous about 2019 and 2020 state audits
PacifiCorp received that called the company's lack of vegetation
management "disturbing."
"Quite frankly, I probably would have been fired," Oatis said when
asked what would have happened if he received that letter during
his working days. "I would have probably lost my job."
When asked to rate PacifiCorp's handling of the 2020 fires, Oatis
was blunt. "On a scale of one to 10, simply put, I'd give them a
two," he said.
Edward LaBranch, a retired electrician who ended his three-decade
career at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in California
as the director of transmission and distribution, was another
expert witness put forward by the plaintiffs. Attorneys asked him
to review PacifiCorp's electrical operations overall and during the
days of the fires.
"There was a failure and an absence of leadership," he said on the
stand, specifically calling out high-ranking PacifiCorp executives
Erik Brookhouse and David Lucas.
PacifiCorp decided against depowering lines as heavy winds battered
western Oregon and some lines kept re-energizing even as they began
to fault. LaBranch said PacifiCorp leaders needed to be more
proactive in preventing fire risk.
"Our slogan was, 'Keep the lights on,'" LaBranch said, referring to
his former employer. "But it's not at any cost."
The defense often pushed back against the expert witnesses,
pointing out that they had been paid by the plaintiffs and didn't
always have the full context of the situation beyond what attorneys
provided them.
Both Brookhouse and Lucas were mentioned in the plaintiffs'
sanctions request, which accuses the men of engaging in some of
these conversations. The plaintiffs' attorneys also are requesting
the judge place restrictions on the testimony provided by the
defense's witnesses, among other penalties.
In response, a lawyer for PacifiCorp wrote that the plaintiffs
claimed there were three records that the defense hadn't disclosed
to them: a voicemail left on Lucas' phone by another PacifiCorp
executive, a text message about transmission lines starting fires
and a digital calendar invitation to the meeting with the
governor's office. Defense attorney Ellen Kenney wrote that
PacifiCorp couldn't find the records the plaintiffs were seeking.
"Despite a diligent search, Pacific Power has not been able to
locate these documents, likely because they never in fact existed,"
she wrote.
Multnomah Circuit Court Judge Steffan Alexander has yet to rule on
the motion.
Regardless of the outcome of the case, Pacific Power's fire
preparedness will remain an important topic as Oregon continues to
become warmer and drier. While the fires at the center of the
lawsuit happened in the Santiam Canyon, the coast and Southern
Oregon, Pacific Power serves customers across the state, including
parts of Portland, Central Oregon, the Columbia River Gorge and
Eastern Oregon.
The case could also have legal ramifications for PacifiCorp beyond
the millions of dollars on the line in this lawsuit. The Portland
Business Journal recently reported that winegrowers are considering
a lawsuit against the utility for smoke damage to their grape crops
caused by the Labor Day fires. One of the vineyard owners behind
the effort said one of their motivating factors was Pacific Power's
decision to keep power running during the windstorm.
The trial is expected to run through early June. [GN]
PARADISE OAKS: Barker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paradise Oaks Youth
Services, et al. The case is styled as Jocelyn Teresa Kabi Barker,
all others similarly situated v. Paradise Oaks Youth Services, Does
1-10, Case No. 23CV001508 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Paradise Oaks Youth Services -- https://paradiseoaks.com/ -- is
committed to nurturing, safe, and supportive relationships for
young people.[BN]
PAYDAYZ STAFFING: Mital Files Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paydayz Staffing
Solutions Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Richard Mital,
Paul Hampton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paydayz Staffing Solutions Incorporated, Tower Eight
Staffing Solutions Incorporated doing business as: Labor for Hire,
Carvin Wilson Software LLC doing business as: Carvin Software LLC,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00824-DLR (D. Ariz., May 11, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury for
Injunctive & Declaratory Relief.
Paydayz Staffing Solutions -- https://paydayzstaffing.com/ --
specializes in recruiting, human resources, direct-hire, temporary
placements, and temp to hire services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: cab@colevannote.com
legaldept@colevannote.com
PEAK TECHNICAL: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peak Technical
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Darius Walker, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved, Petitioner v. Peak Technical
Services, Inc., Peak Technical Services L.P., Emsar Biomedical
Services Inc., Respondent, Case No. 23CV001400 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 10, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
PEAK Technical -- https://www.peaktechnical.com/ -- is one of the
leading information technology and engineering recruiting agencies,
places top talent into rewarding careers.[BN]
PFIZER INC: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURLINGTON DRUG CO., INC.
et al., v. PFIZER INC. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-02389-PGS-DEA
(D.N.J.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order:
1. Certifying, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the
following
class:
"All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories who purchased Lipitor or its AB-rated
bioequivalent
generic products directly from any of the Defendants at any
time during the period June 28, 2011, through May 28, 2012;"
Excluded from the proposed Class are the defendants and their
officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or
affiliates, all federal governmental entities, and all
persons
or entities that (i) purchased Lipitor directly from Pfizer
for
the first time during the Class Period after November 30,
2011,
but did not purchase generic Lipitor directly from Ranbaxy
during the Class Period; and (ii) all persons or entities
that
purchased Lipitor directly from Pfizer after November 30,
2011
that did not also purchase generic Lipitor after November 30,
2011;
2. Appointing Drogueria Betances, LLC, Professional Drug
Company,
Inc., Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Stephen L. LaFrance
Holdings, Inc., and Value Drug Company as the
representative(s)
of the Class; and
3. Confirming the appointment of Berger Montague PC, Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher, LLP, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
as
co-lead counsel for the Class.
Pfizer is an American multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology corporation.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VYz85b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
Matthew F. Gately, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West – Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
E-mail: mfg@njlawfirm.com
- and -
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
Kimberly Hennings, Esq.
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER
LLP
88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10005
E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
khennings@garwingerstein.com
- and -
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
ccoslett@bm.net
- and -
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES LLP
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 522-0077
- and -
Susan Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Esq.
Erin R. Leger, Esq.
SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER LLP
221 Ansley Blvd
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 445-4480
- and -
Peter Kohn, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
1617 JFK Blvd, Suite 1550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 277-5770
- and -
Russell Chorush, Esq.
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH
1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 88002
Telephone: (713) 221-2000
PH7 NATURAL BEAUTY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PH7 Natural Beauty
Inc. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. PH7
Natural Beauty Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03478 (E.D.N.Y., May 9,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
PH7 Natural Beauty Inc. -- https://www.theph7.com/ -- provides an
eco friendly, non-toxic, guilt free and high quality salon
experience.[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
PHARMABOX LLC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pharmabox LLC. The
case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pharmabox LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03935 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pharmabox -- https://www.pharmaboxonline.com/ -- is an automated
vending system offering instant, self-serve over-the-counter and
personal care pharmaceutical products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
PILLOW CUBE INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pillow Cube, Inc. The
case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Pillow Cube, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03893 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pillow Cube -- https://www.pillowcube.com/ -- is the world's best
pillow for side sleepers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
PLENTY MERCANTILE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plenty Mercantile,
LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Plenty Mercantile, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03881 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The PLENTY Mercantile -- https://www.plentymercantile.com/ -- is a
shopping store offering gifts, apparel, and handcrafted jewelry for
parties & venues.[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
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Court Tosses July 21 Class Cert Hearing Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hellman, et al., v.
Polaris Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00949 (E.D.
Cal.), Hon. Judge Kimberly J Mueller entered an order that the July
21, 2023 hearing date for the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification will not be reserved.
-- A motion hearing will be scheduled upon the Plaintiff's filing
of
the appropriate Notice as provided by Local Rule 230.
The nature of suit states contract product liability.
Polaris is an American automotive manufacturer headquartered in
Medina, Minnesota, United States. Polaris was founded in Roseau,
Minnesota, where it still has engineering and manufacturing
facilities.[CC]
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Cho 401(k) Plan Suit Seeks Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOUNG CHO, Individually
and as Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, and
on Behalf of the PRUDENTIAL EMPLOYEE SAVINGS 401(k) PLAN, v. THE
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-19886-JMV-JRA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for class certification.
Prudential is an American Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500
company whose subsidiaries provide insurance, retirement planning,
investment management, and other products and services to both
retail and institutional customers throughout the United States and
in over 40 other countries.
A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated May 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pCHByK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
2 Hudson Place, Suite 100
Hoboken, NJ 07030
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
nfinkelman@millershah.com
ajberin@millershah.com
rskravitz@millershah.com
kctang@millershah.com
jemiller@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
QASIM PHARMACY: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Qasim Pharmacy Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie Lawrence, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Qasim Pharmacy Inc., Broadway
Myrtle Associates LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03495-RPK-SJB (E.D.N.Y.,
May 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Qasim Pharmacy Inc. -- https://qasimpharmacy.com/ -- is a pharmacy
in New York City.[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
QWP HOLDINGS: FLSA Conditional Collective Status Sought in Hunsaker
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY HUNSAKER and DARYL
PATTON, on behalf of themselves individually and all other
similarly situated employees, v. QWP HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a PROFILE
CABINET & DESIGN, Case No. 4:22-cv-00740-WBG (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification of a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 201, et seq.
QWP Holdings is a trucking company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bng1rR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Ethan R. Crockett, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
1501 Westport Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 875-9339
E-mail: ktodd@hkm.com
bthoenen@hkm.com
jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
ecrockett@hkm.com
RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Averts Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Danner, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports that
a San Antonio federal judge on May 18 sided with Rackspace
Technology in granting a motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit
against the company over a December ransomware attack.
A San Antonio federal judge on May 18 sided with Rackspace
Technology in granting a motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit
against the company over a December ransomware attack.
Rackspace Technology Inc. won't have to face proposed class-action
litigation in San Antonio over a December ransomware attack that
hobbled the cloud computing company.
U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez on May 18 sided with Rackspace
in dismissing litigation that had been brought by 37 plaintiffs
from across the U.S. who lost access to email and related data as a
result of the attack. More than 30,000 customers were allegedly
affected, the judge noted in his ruling.
Rodriguez granted Rackspace's motion to compel the plaintiffs to
pursue their claims individually in arbitration.
"We are pleased with the Court's decision," Casey Shilling,
Rackspace's chief marketing officer, said in an email on May 19.
Whether the plaintiffs will proceed with their claims individually
in arbitration couldn't be determined. An attorney for the group
didn't respond to a request for comment.
Four proposed class-action lawsuits had been filed in San Antonio
in the wake of the breach, which shut down Rackspace's hosted
Exchange email service and led it to exit the business. The cases
were subsequently consolidated.
A BRUISING: Rackspace's reputation taking a hit as response to
ransomware attack falls short of customers' hopes
The judge agreed with Rackspace that the claims should be heard in
private via arbitration because of a long-standing provision in the
contracts the company's customers agreed to when they renewed their
email-hosting services.
The plaintiffs demanded a jury trial and made a few arguments why
their claims should not be arbitrated -- including that the issues
fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.
Rodriguez didn't buy the arguments.
All hosted Exchange customers must agree to Rackspace's governing
terms, including a Master Services Agreement, to complete the
transaction and begin using its services, the judge said in his
18-page ruling.
Rodriguez concluded that, under Texas law, the plaintiffs'
continued use of the services before and through the security
incident served as "sufficient evidence of their intent to be
bound" by terms of the agreement from June 2022. The precise
language of the arbitration provision has remained unchanged since
2019, he added.
The judge also shot down the plaintiffs' argument that they agreed
to arbitration under "economic duress" because shifting email
platforms would have caused them significant hardship.
"Plaintiffs have failed to identify any ‘threat' made by
Rackspace or any reason to believe that they had 'no means of
protection' against the arbitration provision," Rodriguez said.
The plaintiffs also said the arbitration agreement was
"procedurally unconscionable" because Rackspace had imposed the
provision unilaterally, without notice or an opportunity to
negotiate.
On that argument, Rodriguez ruled that plaintiffs cannot "plausibly
claim to be unfairly surprised by an agreement to arbitrate that
has been effective for over a decade."
As to the plaintiffs' claim that arbitration would be
"prohibitively expensive," Rodriguez said that argument was
"unavailing." The American Arbitration Association filing fee of
$200 for each individual would be more cost-effective than
litigating each plaintiff's claim individually in federal court,
where the cost to file a lawsuit is $402, he said.
The plaintiffs were seeking damages and injunctive relief relating
to the disruption of their email services, which they alleged
resulted in the permanent loss of some communications and potential
disclosure of sensitive information.
In a similar case brought against Rackspace by a Beverly Hills,
Calif., law firm in Los Angeles federal court, both sides announced
to the court last month that they had reached a confidential
settlement. That case was dismissed on May 17.
That apparently leaves just one remaining proposed class-action
lawsuit. That was filed earlier this year against Rackspace in New
York federal court. The company had until May 17 to file its answer
in the case.
The court actions didn't seem to generate any positive momentum for
Rackspace's stock price. [GN]
RCI DINING: Must Respond to Class Certification Bid by May 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moffitt, et al., v. RCI
Dining Services (Harvey), Inc. d/b/a Scarlett's, Cabaret St. Louis,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01059 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Reona J. Daly Judge
entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file
class certification response/Reply:
--The Defendant shall respond to the May 30, 2023
Plaintiff's motion to certify class:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Woolard Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Craig Woolard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc.,
Reynolds Consumer Products, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01684 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on May 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02924 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Reynolds Consumer Products --
https://www.reynoldsconsumerproducts.com/ -- headquartered in Lake
Forest, Illinois, provides quality household essentials and
world-class brands.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
MANFRED, APC
600 Broadway Avenue, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 550-4005
Fax: (619) 550-4006
Email: mmuecke@manfredapc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kate Spelman, Esq.
Alexander Michael Smith, Esq.
JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
Phone: (213) 239-5100
Email: KSpelman@jenner.com
asmith@jenner.com
RIGHT TEMP: Appeals Court Ruling in JLS Suit to N.Y. Appellate Div.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGHT TEMP MECHANICAL, INC. filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled
JLS Designs, Architecture & Planning, P.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Right Temp Mechanical, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 703172/2021, in
the Lower Court of New York.
The case type is stated as Civil Action - General.
The appellate case is captioned Right Temp Mechanical, Inc.,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated New
York Lien Law Article 3-A trust beneficiaries vs. JLS Designs,
Architecture & Planning, P.C. et al., Case No. 2022-10132, in the
New York Appellate Division's Second Judicial Department, filed on
May 1, 2023. [BN]
RIVER CLIFF: Default Judgment Entered Against Joye in Allstate Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,
Plaintiff v. RIVER CLIFF REALTY, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, and ERIKA JOYE, Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:22-cv-01545-CNS-KLM (D. Colo.), Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants Allstate's
Motion for Default Judgment.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to
defend and duty to indemnify River Cliff in litigation initiated by
Defendant Erika Joye in state court. On Dec. 2, 2021, Joye filed a
class action lawsuit in Colorado State District Court in Boulder
County (the "Underlying Action") naming River Cliff as the lone
defendant.
The Underlying Action alleged that River Cliff charged unlawful and
unenforceable late fees and reletting charges against its tenants,
constituting a breach of contract or, in the alternative, unjust
enrichment, based on tenants' and River Cliff's lease agreements.
Specifically, Joye alleged that River Cliff's practice of charging
$10 per day in late fees for unpaid rent after the first of the
month is an unlawful penalty. She alleged that she was assessed
late fees of $590 for the months of August and September 2020, as
she did not provide timely rent payment for those months. She
alleged that River Cliff used the threat of eviction to collect the
allegedly unlawful penalties.
Additionally, Joye alleged that River Cliff refused to renew her
lease at the end of its term, June 30, 2021, and initiated eviction
proceedings on July 27, 2021. The Boulder County Sheriff's Office
executed a writ of execution to evict Joye on Aug. 12, 2021.
Finally, Joye alleged that River Cliff charged a reletting charge
of $2,500 after she left her apartment unit, which she also
classified as an unlawful penalty under Colorado law.
The Plaintiff issued a "businessowners" policy to River Cliff for
the policy terms of July 31, 2021 through July 31, 2022. The Policy
included coverage for liability and medical expenses, covered at $2
million per occurrence, and miscellaneous professional liability,
covered at $100,000 in the aggregate. This coverage is outlined in
two provisions of the Policy.
First, Section II of the general "Businessowners Coverage Form"
("BCF") provides coverage for business liability. Specifically, the
Policy covers any damages "because of 'bodily injury,' 'property
damage,' or 'personal and advertising injury.'" Second, the Policy
contains a "Miscellaneous Professional Liability Endorsement"
("MPLE") which provides coverage for damages resulting from a claim
for 'wrongful acts' in rendering or failing to render 'professional
services' for others for a fee. The MPLE contains exclusions for
liability arising out of contractual liability and fee disputes.
The Plaintiff began providing River Cliff with a defense" in the
Underlying Action pursuant to a Reservation of Rights letter sent
on March 15, 2022. The Reservation of Rights letter reserved
Allstate's right to seek a declaratory judgment that Allstate had
no duty to defend or indemnify River Cliff. Subsequently, pursuant
to that Reservation, the Plaintiff filed the present action on June
22, 2022, seeking declaratory judgment against both Joye and River
Cliff that it had no duty to defend and indemnify River Cliff in
the Underlying Action. On July 27, 2022, the Plaintiff properly
served Joye. River Cliff and Allstate ultimately settled the
Plaintiff's claims against River Cliff in this lawsuit, and the
Plaintiff dismissed River Cliff with prejudice on Sept. 16, 2022.
The matter is before the Court on Allstate's Motion for Default
Judgment as to Joye. Joye was served with the Plaintiff's Complaint
on July 27, 2022 and failed to respond. On Aug. 18, 2022, the
Plaintiff moved for entry of default against Joye and the Clerk
ultimately entered default on Sept. 2, 2022. The Plaintiff filed
its Motion, seeking entry of default judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), on Nov. 2, 2022.
In determining whether to grant a declaratory judgment action, the
Tenth Circuit has outlined five factors (the "Mhoon factors") to
consider: (1) whether action would settle [the] controversy; (2)
whether it would serve useful purpose in clarifying legal relations
at issue; (3) whether declaratory remedy is being used merely for
purpose of procedural fencing or to provide arena for race to res
judicata; (4) whether use of declaratory action would increase
friction between federal and state courts and improperly encroach
upon state jurisdiction; and (5) whether there is alternative
remedy which is better or more effective (State Farm Fire & Cas.
Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979, 983 (10th Cir. 1994)).
Judge Sweeney examines these factors, concluding that they weigh in
favor of the Court exercising its discretionary declaratory
judgment authority in favor of the Plaintiff. She says the Court's
exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and
personal jurisdiction over Joye is proper. The Plaintiff has no
duty to defend or indemnify in the Underlying Action, and the Mhoon
factors favor the Court's exercise of its discretionary declaratory
judgment authority in favor of the Plaintiff. Therefore, Judge
Sweeney grants Allstate's Motion for Default Judgment.
Judgment is entered in favor of Allstate and against Joye. No
benefits, defense, or indemnity are owed under the Policy for the
claims, damages, or losses suffered by Joye.
The Clerk is directed to enter Final Judgment against Joye.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/pfsrt from Leagle.com.
ROADSAFE TRAFFIC: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roadsafe Traffic
Systems Inc., et al. The case is styled as Adriana Magdalena Ramos,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roadsafe Traffic
Systems Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 23CV001415 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 10, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
RoadSafe -- https://www.roadsafetraffic.com/ -- is the national
leader in traffic safety services and products.[BN]
ROLLING FRITO-LAY: Hall Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES, LP, Case No. 4:23-cv-00437-LPR
(E.D. Ark., May 10, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"),
for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the
Defendant. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees were
classified as hourly employees and paid an hourly rate. When
calculating the Plaintiff's and other hourly-paid employees'
bonuses, the Defendant did not include the bonuses and cash awards
paid to the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees in their
regular rates of pay when calculating their overtime pay. The
Defendant violated the FLSA and AMWA by not including the
non-discretionary bonuses of the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees in their regular rate when calculating their overtime
pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee within the three years relevant to this lawsuit.
Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, LP sells, delivers, and merchandises Frito
Lay snack products to convenience stores, gas stations, grocery
stores, and other retail locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WHLAW
1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: (501) 891-6000
Email: chris@wh.law
ROOT INC: Kolominsky Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ILIA KOLOMINSKY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled Ilia Kolominsky, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Root, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01197, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Root securities
between Oct. 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021 or (b) Root Class A common
stock pursuant or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
Oct. 28, 2020. The Plaintiffs bring the action under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o), and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC
(17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5) to recover losses and damages
associated with Root's alleged wrongful acts and omissions.
On Nov. 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on May 20, 2022.
On Mar. 31, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Michael H. Watson. The
Court ruled that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim and
dismissed the case with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Ilia Kolominsky, et al. v. Root,
Inc., et al., Case No. 23-3392, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ILIA KOLOMINSKY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
MURRAY, MURPHY, MOUL & BASIL
1114 Dublin Road, Suite 150
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Defendants-Appellees ROOT, INC., et al. are represented by:
J. Wesley Earnhardt, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
- and -
William D. Kloss, Jr., Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE
P.O. Box 1008
Columbus, OH 43216
Telephone: (614) 464-6400
- and -
Gregory A. Harrison, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL
255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 977-8200
RYVYL INC: Court Names Glancy Prongay Lead Counsel in Cullen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK CULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RYVYL INC. F/K/A GREENBOX POS, BEN
ERREZ, FREDI NISAN, J DREW BYELICK, BENJAMIN CHUNG, EF HUTTON F/K/A
KINGWOOD CAPITAL MARKETS, A DIVISION OF BENCHMARK INVESTMENTS, INC.
and R.F. LAFFERTY & CO., Defendants, Case No. 23cv185-GPC (WVG)
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California appoints Scot S. Cook as the
Lead Plaintiff and approves Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as the Lead
Counsel for the class.
The lawsuit is a putative securities fraud class action brought on
behalf of persons or entities "who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Ryvyl securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's Jan. 29, 2021 public offering; and/or (2) between
Jan. 29, 2021 and Jan. 20, 2023, inclusive."
Movant Scot S. Cook filed a motion to be appointed Lead Plaintiff
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B), the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section
77z-1(a)(3)(B), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and approving his selection of Glancy
Prongay & Murry LLP as Lead Counsel in the class action for
violations of the federal securities law.
On the same date, Movants Suresh Paidi, Donald Esler, and Mike
Glenn, Jr. also filed motions to be appointed Lead Plaintiff and
approval of their Lead Counsel. However, they have since filed a
notice of non-opposition to competing motions for appointment as
lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel and/or a notice
of withdrawal of their motions. On April 27, 2023, the Defendants
filed a response indicating they take no position on these motions.
On April 28, 2023, Movant Cook, the sole remaining movant, filed a
notice that his motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
approval of Lead Counsel is now unopposed.
Because Movant Cook is presumptively the most adequate plaintiff,
Judge Curiel grants his motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
He finds that (i) Movant Cook is the member with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class; (ii) Movant
Cook's claims are typical of the claims of the class as they arise
from the same events and are based on the same legal theory as the
claims of the other class members; (iii) Movant Cook is
presumptively the most adequate plaintiff; and (iv) no member of
the purported class has opposed the motion or come forward with a
proof that Movant Cook will not fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class or is subject to unique defenses that render
him incapable of adequately representing the class.
Considering the firm's substantial experience in securities class
action litigation, Judge Curiel approves Movant Cook's choice of
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel.
The hearing date set on May 26, 2023, is vacated.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/djh9q from Leagle.com.
SAFECO INSURANCE: Haenfler Files Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safeco Insurance
Company of America. The case is styled as Shirley Haenfler, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Safeco
Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:23-cv-00822-JJT (D. Ariz.,
May 11, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.
Safeco Insurance -- http://www.safeco.com/-- a member of Liberty
Mutual Group is an American insurance company..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce S. Feder, Esq.
FEDER LAW OFFICE PA
2930 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 160
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 257-0135
Fax: (602) 954-8737
Email: bbarron@barronlawfirmok.com
- and -
Elizabeth Tory Beardsley, Esq.
John Michael DeStefano, III, Esq.
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP - PHOENIX
11 W Jefferson St., Ste. 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 840-5900
Email: toryb@hbsslaw.com
johnd@hbsslaw.com
rob@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Evan S. Goldstein, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN WOODS & ALAGHA
706 E Bell Rd., Ste. 200
Phoenix, AZ 85022
Phone: (602) 569-8200
Fax: (602) 569-8201
Email: egoldstein@gwalawfirm.com
SALVATION ARMY: Provisional Class Certification Sought in Tassinari
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK TASSINARI, RICHARD
ESPINOSA, and JOSEPH ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, A NEW YORK
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-10806-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Provisionally certifying the following class for purposes of
preliminary injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2):
"All individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) who are
excluded
from participating in any of the Defendant The Salvation
Army, a
New York Corporation's Adult Rehabilitation Center (ARC)
housing
or services because of their use or desire to use any form of
medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including
methadone
or buprenorphine, as prescribed; and all individuals with OUD
who are denied access to, or are impeded from receiving, any
form of prescribed MOUD, including methadone or
buprenorphine,
while participating in any the Defendant ARC."
2. Naming the Plaintiffs Mark Tassinari, Richard Espinosa, and
Joseph Almeida as class representatives; and
3. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.
The Salvation Army is a Protestant Christian church and an
international charitable organization headquartered in London,
England.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mp3Dhv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Murray, Esq.
Connie K. Chan, Esq.
Christine M. Salazar, Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 421-7151
Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
E-mail: mmurray@altber.com
csalazar@altber.com
cchan@altber.com
- and -
Lucy B. Bansal, Esq.
Janet Herold, Esq.
JUSTICE CATALYST LAW
40 Rector Street, Floor 9
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (518) 732-6703
E-mail: lbansal@justicecatalyst.org
jherold@justicecatalyst.org
SHOREWOOD FOREST: Bids to Compel Discovery in Stratford Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STRATFORD INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff v.
SHOREWOOD FOREST UTILITIES, INC., et al., Defendants, CARLOTTA
HOLMES and GREG SCHAFER, Counterclaim Plaintiffs v. STRATFORD
INSURANCE CO., Counterclaim Defendant, Case No. 2:20-CV-372-PPS-JEM
(N.D. Ind.), Magistrate Judge John E. Martin of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division,
denies:
(1) Counterclaim Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Discovery
from Stratford Insurance Company and for Order Determining
the Common Interest Privilege was Waived, filed Nov. 2,
2022; and
(2) Shorewood Forest Utilities, Inc.'s Motion to Compel
Discovery from Stratford Insurance Company as to the
Common Interest Privilege Having Been Waived, filed
Nov. 15, 2022.
In 2017, Stratford Insurance Company issued an insurance policy to
Shorewood Forest Utilities (SFU). The board of SFU ("Former Board")
investigated the possibility of expanding its subdivision to add
homes with Rex Properties. SFU and Rex Properties formed an
agreement to expand the sewer system to support the new
development. Community members, who were opposed to the
development, including named plaintiffs Greg Schafer and Carlotta
Holmes ("S&H"), filed a class action suit in state court.
After the suit was filed, a number of those class action members,
including Schafer and Holmes, were elected to the SFU board in an
election (the "New Board"). The New Board voted to rescind the
sewer agreement. Eventually, a consent judgment was entered between
the class action plaintiffs and SFU, one of the defendants in the
case, but not with the Former Board defendants. The consent
judgment included a covenant promising that the class action
plaintiffs would only seek enforcement of payment of the judgment
against Stratford as SFU's insurer and not against any other
parties. The class action is still proceeding against the Former
Board in state court. A number of other lawsuits were also filed in
state court, some of which were removed to federal court.
In the instant Complaint, filed Oct. 15, 2020, Stratford claims it
did not agree to the consent judgment in the state court class
action suit filed by S&H on behalf of SFU and seeks a declaration
that it has no obligation regarding the consent judgment. After a
motion to dismiss was granted in part on Sept. 27, 2021, the
declaratory judgment claims regarding the extent of Stratford's
insurance obligations remain, as do counterclaims against Stratford
for bad faith, breach of contract, and abuse of process, arising
out of the consent judgment and other state court suits.
On Sept 2, 2022, the Court denied S&H's previous motion to compel,
finding that it was premature and warning the parties of the need
to work together to resolve their discovery disputes without
involving the Court. S&H filed the instant motion to compel two
months later. Stratford filed a response on Nov. 16, 2022, along
with an affidavit addressing the Rule 37 certification
requirements. S&H filed a reply, erroneously docketed by them as a
response, on Nov. 23, 2022.
SFU filed its motion to compel on Nov. 15, 2022. Stratford filed a
response on Dec. 7, 2022, and SFU filed a reply on Dec. 13, 2022.
Two motions to quash non-party depositions of attorneys noticed by
S&H, another motion to compel filed by S&H, and a motion to strike
filed by S&H (addressed in separate orders) were also filed and
briefed between Nov. 2, 2022, and Feb. 3, 2023, totaling hundreds
of pages of briefs and exhibits. Only a month after the last motion
was fully briefed, S&H filed a motion to expedite ruling on the
pending motions.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that S&H again complain that
they served the discovery requests in 2020, arguing that Stratford
is delinquent in its responses. However, as the Court explained in
its Order ruling on S&H's last motion to compel, discovery did not
begin until Jan. 20, 2022, and then was stayed from Feb. 3 through
March 25, 2022.
Judge Martin opines that Stratford was under no obligation to
respond to discovery requests before discovery began or while
discovery was stayed. Despite this previous reminder, the Rule 37
certificate included in the motion to compel includes alleged
attempts to resolve disputes dating back to 2020, before discovery
began. Looking only at the interactions since the last motion to
compel was resolved, there are references to several emails sent by
counsel for S&H and descriptions of errors S&H found in the
privilege log produced as a result of the last motion to compel,
but it is not apparent to the Court whether the parties had any
meet and confer conferences as legitimate attempts to resolve the
dispute raised in the instant motion, rather than just assertions
of their positions.
The Court will not deny the motion because of the Rule 37
certification but reminds counsel for S&H of the need to comply
with the applicable local and federal rules and to avoid clouding
its briefing with details that are irrelevant and/or obfuscate the
purpose of the documents.
In its motion, SFU is seeking to compel more complete responses to
its requests for admissions and interrogatories. It asks the Court
to find that there is no privilege applicable to the information
being sought by SFU and to compel Stratford to respond more
completely to the requests for admission. SFU does not include a
separate Rule 37 certification.
The Court's concerns with the adequacy of S&H's Rule 37
certification are described here, and it is not at all apparent to
the Court that SFU attempted to resolve its specific concerns with
the requests for admission directly with Stratford before filing
the instant motion. In short, Judge Martin points out, the motion
does not comply with Local Rule 37-1 or Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37 and is, therefore, denied. To avoid receiving the
identical motion with a more complete certificate, however, the
Court notes that some of SFU's arguments about privilege are
addressed below.
SFU includes a number of requests for admission propounded to
Stratford, and two of the cited responses claim privileges. In
particular, SFU asks Stratford to admit it paid attorney fees in
one of the state court cases. In its motion, SFU argues generally
about privilege, apparently requesting a blanket determination that
nothing it is seeking is privileged. The Court's analysis of
Stratford's claims of privilege with respect to S&H's document
requests also apply in significant part to SFU's arguments.
S&H argue that Stratford has falsely claimed privilege in order to
avoid producing documents, characterizing the documents as
communications with non-parties who are adversaries to Stratford's
insured and, therefore, not protected by any privilege. S&H argue
that Stratford cannot use the tripartite relationship to refuse to
disclose evidence of collusion. However, mere allegations of
collusion or bad faith are insufficient for the Court to determine
that there is no privilege, Judge Martin says.
In short, the Court declines to require disclosure of
communications about the claim and lawsuits between Stratford,
Stratford's outside counsel, and the Former Board. Likewise,
internal Stratford communications that involve its attorney
forwarding information to storage are also protected work product.
Judge Martin holds that all "opinion" work product is protected,
and the mere allegation of collusion is insufficient to create a
substantial need for the "fact" work product. This is particularly
the case since S&H have not shown that any of the documents it
claims it needs despite Stratford's claimed privilege to are likely
to contain unique information for which they have a substantial
need, nor have they shown that they will suffer undue hardship by
attempting to procure the requested information some other way.
There are several documents identified by S&H on the privilege log
that involve communication between Stratford and Paul Poracky,
counsel for SFU and S&H. To the extent that the information therein
has not already been provided through Stratford's responses to
requests for production, Judge Martin says S&H should have access
to these communications from Poracky and other parties to this and
the state court suits, so there is no reason for them to be
compelled.
Stratford also identifies a number of documents as protected from
disclosure because they were exchanged as part of mediation and
settlement negotiations. Accordingly, Judge Martin holds,
communications made during negotiation and mediation are protected
from disclosure, and S&H are not entitled to communications about
mediation, including settlement communications with counsel for Rex
Properties. The Court agrees that, based on the information before
it at this time, the settlement negotiations with Rex need not be
disclosed.
Judge Martin says if there are particular documents that S&H
believe are being withheld inappropriately, they may file a motion
addressing just those documents with specific arguments as to why
the Court should review them in camera.
In addition to requesting that the Court order production of all of
the marked items on the privilege log, S&H request that Stratford
be compelled to respond to S&H's request for production. Stratford
represents that it served its responses to their requests for
production on May 28, 2022, and produced all non-privileged
documents thereafter. In reply, S&H do not deny that they received
response, but argue that, because the requests were initially
delivered in December 2020, production of the documents it
identified in the privilege log is overdue. The Court addressed
S&H's arguments about the timing of discovery in its Order of Sept.
2, 2022, in which it also warned S&H of the importance of
attempting to resolve disputes prior to involving the Court.
S&H also request that the Court order Stratford to produce employee
Attorney Joseph and a qualified Rule 30(B)(6) deponent. Stratford
represents that they requested a separate meet and confer process
regarding the depositions, but S&H would not comply, and that it
believes the concerns regarding privilege should be addressed
before the depositions occur. The Court reminds Stratford of the
requirements to produce deponents in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and again reminds S&H of the importance
of attempting to resolve disputes before involving the Court.
Now that the questions of privilege are resolved, Judge Martin
directs the parties to meet and confer regarding what depositions
are necessary and attempt to schedule them at mutually beneficial
times. Likewise, the Court will not order Stratford to produce
non-parties involved in the state court litigation for depositions
in this case based on the representations in S&H's motion.
For these reasons, the Court denies Counterclaim Plaintiffs' Second
Motion to Compel Discovery from Stratford Insurance Company and for
Order Determining the Common Interest Privilege was Waived and
Shorewood Forest Utilities, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Discovery from
Stratford Insurance Company as to the Common Interest Privilege
Having Been Waived, and denies as moot Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Ruling on Pending Discovery
Motions Also Including Third Motion to Compel Discovery from
Stratford Insurance Company and Richard Pretti and cautions S&H
that repeated filing of request to expedite in situations that are
in no way emergencies is disfavored, particularly when S&H
themselves are the source of the bulk of the motion practice and
attendant delays in discovery they complain of.
The Court ordered Stratford to file by May 15, 2023, itemizations
of its costs and fees, including attorney's fees, incurred in
defending against both Motions to Compel along with argument as to
why those expenses are reasonable in this situation. The Court
orders SFU and S&H to file their responses by May 29, 2023, and
Stratford to file replies, if any, by June 5, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 1,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/547pbzfe from
Leagle.com.
SITEL OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pherigo Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES PHERIGO, TIERRA HUNT, SHRINE WILLIAMS, and KIMBERLY
WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION; SYKES
ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; and ALPINE ACCESS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00516-UNA (D. Del., May 11, 2023) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay wages, including proper
overtime, on time and in full for all hours worked in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' Kronos-based
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by a service outage
beginning in December 2021. That outage led to problems in
timekeeping and payroll throughout Sitel Group's organization for
those employees using Sitel's Kronos system.
As a result, Sitel Group's workers who were not exempt from
overtime under federal law were not paid for all hours worked,
including overtime, on time if at all for their work during and
after the Kronos outage, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.
SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION provides business process outsourcing
services. The Company offers back office, collection, customer
care, technical support, and acquisition and sales services. [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
Email: 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
Email:AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET P.C.
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
SMS VENTURES: Krantz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Krantz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SMS VENTURES, LLC, and SAURABH ABROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-02526 (D.N.J., May 9, 2023), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and a class action under the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law (the "NJWHL"), the New Jersey Wage Payment
Collection Law ("NJWPCL" and, collectively with NJWHL, "New Jersey
Wage Laws) against the Defendants for their failure to pay
Plaintiff proper overtime wages, minimum wages and straight wages
for all hours worked, in violation of the FLSA and New Jersey Wage
Laws.
The Defendants, at various times throughout the employment of the
Plaintiff failed to pay wages for all compensable time worked and
failed to pay all commissions due and owing. To date, the Plaintiff
are owed significant sums in unpaid wages. The Defendants
misclassified the the Plaintiff as independent contractors during
the course of their employment and maintained a policy and practice
of: failing to monitor and record the Plaintiff' hours worked;
requiring the Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without proper overtime compensation; and; failing to pay the
Plaintiff, wages consistent with applicable federal and state laws,
as well as any applicable and valid employment agreements, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former of employee of the Defendants.
The Defendants who own, operate or control several clubs, lounges,
social clubs and/or restaurants throughout New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles F. Kellett, Esq.
Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
100 Walnut Avenue, Suite 210
Clark, NJ 07066
Phone: (212) 448-1100
Email: ckellett@mclaughlinstern.com
bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action Suit Over Illegal Guns Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Bulelwa Payi, writing for IOL, reports that for a few years after
the death of her teenage son, Melanie Kiel would shake and burst
into tears at the sound of gunshots.
Kiel's son, Dudley Richards, was shot in Karoopoort Street in
Tafelsig on December 2, 2013.
"He went to visit his friend that night and he was on his way back
home," she recalled.
"His friend was shot first and he died instantly.
"Then the gunman shot my son.
"When I arrived at the scene his body was still warm.
"I kissed him on the cheek and he died a few minutes later.
"It felt like life was ripped out of my body."
Kiel and eight other families want to hold Minister of Police Bheki
Cele liable for damages associated with deaths and injuries caused
by guns stolen and distributed to criminals on the Cape Flats.
Working with the families, Gun Free South Africa lodged 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 from police stores to criminals.
In September 2013 the police began recovering a large number of
guns that had been "professionally cleaned" of identifying marks.
A SAPS investigation, codenamed Project Impi, linked the guns to a
senior police member, Colonel Christiaan Prinsloo, who was later
arrested in 2015.
Prinsloo confessed to his role in supplying gangs with guns that
were confiscated by or surrendered to the police for destruction.
He entered into a plea bargain with the State in return for a
lesser sentence and was granted parole in 2020.
He also confessed to working with Colonel David Naidoo, an
operational officer in the Confiscated Firearms Store at Silverton
under the Head Office: Confiscated Firearms Store.
More than 2 000 guns were sold and of these, 261 were forensically
linked to 1 066 murders in the Cape from 2010 to 2016.
At least 187 children were shot with guns stolen by Prinsloo from
2010 to 2015. The youngest victim was just a year old, the oldest
was 17. Of those shot, 67 died.
The victims whose families joined the class action included Dillan
Cornelius, who was murdered in Manenberg in August 2013 and many
others.
One of these is Leana van Wyk, 6, who was shot in the head in
Hanover Park in 2012 and sustained brain damage. The gun used was
linked to Prinsloo who sold to gangs.
Prinsloo was charged with Leana's shooting but entered into a plea
agreement and was not convicted.
Gun Free SA said more than 1 000 of the guns stolen by Prinsloo
were still missing and believed to be in circulation.
Gun Free SA director Adele Kirsten said: "SAPS failed in its duty
to establish and maintain an accurate and comprehensive
record-keeping system to enable the authorities to manage
stockpiles and crack illicit firearms."
Earlier this year, Minister of Police Oversight and Community
Safety Reagen Allen said from October 2022 to December 2022,
firearms accounted for 573 murders in the province.
National crime statistics showed during the same period, of the 272
gang-related murders recorded in the country, 84% or 229 were
committed in the Western Cape.
Allen said at the time efforts were being made to find a suitable
location for the destruction of confiscated weapons.
The DA in the Western Cape also said SAPS "failed" to send a single
illegal firearm for destruction last quarter, despite confiscating
699 illegal firearms.
Gun Free SA Researcher Claire Taylor said it was not clear how many
illegal guns were in circulation, one gun could be used in multiple
crimes.
National Police did not respond to queries about the destruction
site. [GN]
SOUTHWEST HEALTH: Colvin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Colvin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. SOUTHWEST HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00303
(W.D. Wis., May 10, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin
law by failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a paramedic. The
Defendant paid the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
an hourly wage. The Defendant regularly scheduled the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees for two 24-hour shifts in a workweek.
If the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked
additional 24-hour shifts in a workweek, the Defendant would pay
the employee a bonus. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.
However, The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees at a rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin law,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Cuba City, Wisconsin working
for the Defendant as a paramedic.
Southwest operates hospitals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Zoeller, Esq.
Natalie L. Gerloff, Esq.
Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
Post Office Box 2155
Madison, WI 53701-2155
Phone: (608) 257-0040
Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
Email: dzoeller@hq-law.com
ngerloff@hq-law.com
cclegg@hq-law.com
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MI: Schultz Seeks to Certify Inmate Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN LINDKE; MICHAEL
SCHULTZ; and all those similarly situated, v. MAT KING, in his
official and personal capacities; TIMOTHY DONNELLON, in his
official and personal capacities; COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR; TRACY
DECAUSSIN, in her official and personal capacities; and THOMAS
BLISS, in his official and personal capacities, Case No.
2:22-cv-11767-MFL-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff Schultz asks the
Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification
pursuant to FRCP 23 and for appointment of attorneys Philip L.
Ellison and Matthew E. Gronda as class counsel pursuant to FRCP
23(g).
If, however, the Court finds the existing record is inadequate for
resolving the relevant issues, the Plaintiff requests this Court to
enter an order deferring decision on certification pending
reasonable discovery.
The class action lawsuit seeks damages related to the denial of
liberty and freedom of individuals, by unlawful over-detainment,
when the Defendants failed to provide "good time" credit to those
serving sentences of criminal contempt -- including things like
missing court dates or failing to timely pay court costs -- within
the St. Clair County Jail.
The Plaintiff defines the class as:
"All individuals, who (within the applicable statute of
limitations
period which includes the COVID-19 suspension of the statute of
limitations) were confined to the St Clair County jail upon a
finding of criminal contempt for a period in excess of what is
permitted by Michigan law due to the failure to provide "good
time" credit pursuant to M.C.L. section 51.282(1)."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I7g7I1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
Hemlock, MI 48626
Telephone: (989) 642-0055
E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com
- and -
Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
GRONDA PLC
St. Charles, MI 48655
Telephone: (989) 233-1639
E-mail: matthewgronda@gmail.com
STANLEY BLACK: Montgomery Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled William Montgomery, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Stanley Black & Decker Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-01182, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this putative
class action lawsuit is brought over the Defendant's false and
misleading labeling and packaging of Craftsman-brand wet/dry
vacuums. The Defendant misleads consumers into believing that the
vacuums can in fact generate the claimed horsepower, even though
these claims are illusory and can never be obtained in actual use.
On Oct. 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on Oct. 28, 2019.
On Nov. 30, 2020, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Alfred V. Covello.
On Oct. 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Nov. 1, 2021.
On Mar. 31, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
The appellate case is captioned Montgomery v. Stanley Black &
Decker Inc., Case No. 23-735, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 1, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7129
Defendant-Appellee STANLEY BLACK & DECKER INC. is represented by:
John W. Cerreta, Esq.
DAY PITNEY LLP
242 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 275-0665
- and -
Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4344
STAR SNACKS: Copeland Sues Over Unlawful and Deceptive Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gladys Copeland and Debbie Colburn, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STAR SNACKS, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00313 (M.D. Ala., May 11, 2023), is brought as a result of
Star Snacks marketing its Imperial Whole Cashews (sometimes
referred to as "the product") in violation of Alabama and federal
food law regarding the packaging and marketing of said product,
thus the Plaintiff file this Complaint for claims of breach of
warranty, for breach of implied agreement, and deceptive trade
practice.
Expecting that the product was only whole cashews as depicted on
the front label in large font listing "WHOLE CASHEWS" and the
picture on the front of the package, the Plaintiffs were surprised
and disappointed when they opened said product and learned of its
true contents; such was not whole cashews. The Defendant's opaque
can held over 60% splits and pieces of cashews.
Nut pieces or halves (splits) are inferior to whole nuts of the
same consistency and content. A reasonable consumer, when shopping,
is typically aware that containers of whole nuts are more preferred
than partial nuts Nut splits are likewise recognized universally as
inferior to whole nuts. Cashew standards and gradation place whole
cashews at the top in quality and cost, while splits are ranked
next in quality and pieces toward the bottom The subject product is
deceptively marketed by Defendant as solely whole cashews, when in
actuality such universally is as depicted on the preceding page.
Clearly, Star Snacks is guilty of marketing a misbranded product.
Star Snacks markets a product that is deceptively labeled and
formed as only WHOLE cashews, when the containers are actually a
mixture of some whole but predominately splits and pieces of
cashews.
Subsequent to Plaintiff's counsel notifying Defendant on October
28, 2022 of this impending action, Plaintiff's counsel has learned
that Defendant has initiated a future modification to its subject
label, which still touts the product as only Whole Cashews as
stated herein. The sole change by Defendant was a small font
statement that "(s)ome breakage may have occurred in shipment." The
Defendant deceptively states such to cover up the marketing of
cheaper cashews as whole. The facts are no such breakage as
Defendant asserts reasonably occurs. Other whole cashew products do
not have such "breakage."
As a result of its misleading marketing practice, and the harm
caused to Plaintiffs and putative class members, Defendant should
be enjoined from shipping, receiving, storing and marketing a
misbranded product by falsely representing that the Product is only
WHOLE cashews, when such is far from true, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendant's Roasted Whole Cashews
within the statutory period.
Star Snacks is a leading manufacturer and distributor of branded
and private label nuts, trail mixes and dried fruits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
2539 John Hawkins Pkwy., Suite 101-149
Hoover, AL 35244
Phone: (205) 995-0068
Fax (866) 610-1650
Email: cmtlaw@aol.com
- and -
R. Stephen Griffis
R. STEPHEN GRIFFIS, PC
2100 Riverhaven Drive, Suite 1
Hoover, Alabama 35244
Phone: 205-402-7476
Email: rsglaw@bellsouth.net
SYSCO METRO: Suit Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Aug. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kroll Settlement
Administration regarding the Sysco Metro, NY Inc. Settlement.
What is this Class Action About?
The lawsuit alleges that the City of New York and the New York City
Department of Finance Commercial Adjudications Unit violated
Vehicle and Traffic Law by enforcing parking summonses where the
body type description was listed incorrectly as something other
than a Tractor. The lawsuit is called Sysco Metro v. The City of
New York, Index No. 101637/2015, in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York.
Who is a Settlement Class Member?
You are included in the Settlement as a Class Member if you were
the registered owner or lessor of a Tractor that received a parking
summons from the City between January 1, 2014, and May 2, 2022, and
the description of the vehicle body type was something other than a
Tractor and the Tractor was not enrolled in a Reduced Fine
Program.
What does the Settlement Provide?
The Settlement will provide $2,450,000, minus attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses, to pay claims. The amount to be refunded
depends on whether the Settlement Class Member took any of the
following actions:
Pursued all administrative remedies: You are entitled to up to a
100% refund of the amount paid; the summons will be dismissed, if
not subject to proration; and no money will be due.
Pursued some administrative remedies: You are entitled to up to a
30% refund of the amount paid; the summons will not be dismissed;
and no money will be due.
Pursued no administrative remedies: You are entitled to up to a 20%
refund of the amount paid; the summons will not be dismissed; and
no money will be due.
Did not pay or partially paid: If the fine was not paid, or was
only partially paid, the amount of the fine and/or penalty paid
plus the amount due will be reduced. The summons will not be
dismissed.
In addition, whether Respondents' internal STARS database marks the
Body Type Summons as dismissed depends on the extent that the
Settlement Class Member pursued the administrative remedies
available and whether the refunds are prorated pursuant to Section
5.1(a) of the Settlement Agreement.
What are your Options?
If you fit the description of a class member, you have a choice to
remain a member of the class, submit a claim, request to be
excluded from the class, or object to the Settlement. Any choice
will have its consequences, which you should understand before
making your decision.
File a Claim: You must submit a claim to possibly get money. Your
claim must be postmarked by August 9, 2023. Online claims must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 9, 2023.
Object: You stay in the Settlement but tell the Court why you think
the Settlement should not be approved. Objections must be
postmarked by July 19, 2023.
Opt Out: You keep your right to sue about the claims in this case,
but you will not get any money from this settlement. Requests to
opt out must be postmarked by July 19, 2023.
Do nothing: If you do nothing, you remain in the Settlement, you
give up your right to sue, and you will not get any money.
When is the Final Approval Hearing?
The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled before the Honorable Lucy
Billings on August 23, 2023 (subject to change by the Court), at
10:00 a.m. at 71 Thomas Street, New York, NY 10013. The Court will
decide whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
whether to approve Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and
expenses. All briefs and materials filed in support of the
Settlement and the Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
will be made available at www.nyctractorticketsettlement.com.
This notice is only a summary. For complete details, including the
Notice, Settlement Agreement, and Claim Form, visit
www.nyctractorticketsettlement.com, call toll-free 833-512-2319,
email info@nyctractorticketsettlement.com, or write to NYC Tractor
Parking Ticket Settlement, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration,
P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391.
Questions? Visit www.nyctractorticketsettlement.com 833-512-2319
[GN]
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Vehicles' Over-the-Air Updates
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Johnson of Teslarati reports that a proposed class action
lawsuit has been filed in California against Tesla regarding the
automaker's over-the-air (OTA) updates and how they affect battery
health.
As the first major automaker to institute OTA updates to its
vehicles, Tesla has faced numerous legal challenges regarding the
technology since its launch. Now, the leading EV brand is facing
yet another lawsuit, this time in the State of California.
According to Reuters, Tesla faces a potential lawsuit from a group
of Model S and Model X owners, who allege the company's OTA updates
have negatively impacted battery health.
As noted in the court filing, the group of Model S and X owners
allege that recent OTA updates have resulted in as much as a 20%
drop in range as well as a select number of "battery failures,"
which resulted in owners being forced to pay $15,000 for a new
battery. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Tesla infringed on
consumer protections put in place by the "Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act."
This is not the first time Tesla has faced a legal challenge
regarding OTA updates and their effect on battery health. In 2021,
the company settled a similar case and paid $1.9 million to a small
group of Model S owners who alleged that a software update had
lowered the maximum battery voltage of their vehicles.
"Tesla owners and lessors are uniquely at the mercy of the maker of
their cars, and Tesla imposes software updates without consent
whenever their vehicle is connected to Wi-Fi," said Steve Berman, a
lawyer representing the new group of plaintiffs. Neither Tesla nor
its legal team have yet to issue a comment.
It remains unclear what damages Tesla could be facing if the
proposed case were to reach court, and further, it is unclear how
widespread the alleged battery health problem is. [GN]
TIMOTHY WARD: Foster Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FOSTER v. TIMOTHY
WARD, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00143-TES-CHW (M.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
class certification and appointing class counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o20evK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
TORCH ELECTRONICS: Romano Files Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ROMANO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TORCH ELECTRONICS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04043-BCW (W.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(a) certifying their proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class;
(b) appointing the seven plaintiffs as class representatives;
(c) appointing attorneys Joe D. Jacobson of Jacobson Press P.C.
and
Gene J. Brockland and Christopher O. Miller of Amundsen
Davis
LLC as class counsel, and
(d) providing for appropriate notice to the class.
The proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class is defined as follows:
"All natural persons who deposited money into any electronic
gaming device owned or operated by Torch Electronics, LLC, in
the
State of Missouri and not located on the premises of a Missouri
licensed casino on any one or more days on or after March 3,
2018
and who received back following their play an amount of money
less
than the amount deposited that day.
Torch Electronics is a slot machine company that offers gaming
options in truck stops and gas stations across the state of
Missouri.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41yNJp4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe D. Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PRESS P.C.
222 South Central Ave., Suite 550
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 899-9789
Direct: (314) 899-9790
Facsimile: (314) 899-0282
E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com
- and -
Gene J. Brockland, Esq.
Christopher O. Miller, Esq.
AMUNDSEN DAVIS
120 S. Central Ave., Suite 700
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 719-3700
Facsimile: (314) 719-3721
E-mail: gbrockland@amundsendavislaw.com
comiller@amundsendavislaw.com
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: BOAGF Holdco Suit Transferred to N.D. Iowa
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as BOAGF Holdco LP, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 2:22-cv-07859 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa on May 11, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CJW-MAR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.
The Transamerica Corporation -- http://www.transamerica.com/-- is
an American holding company for various life insurance companies
and investment firms operating primarily in the United States,
offering life and supplemental health insurance, investments, and
retirement services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Jasjaap Singh Sidhu, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
Rohit D Nath, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 789-3100
Fax: (310) 789-3150
- and -
Glenn Charles Bridgman, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 789-3100
Fax: (310) 789-3150
- and -
Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
Seth Ard, Esq.
SUSMAN GODREY LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 336-8330
Fax: (212) 336-8340
The Defendant is represented by:
Vivian I. Orlando, Esq.
HINSHAW AND CULBERSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 614-7358
Fax: (213) 614-7399
- and -
Erin B. Taylor, Esq.
Hutson B. Smelley, Esq.
Jarrett E. Ganer, Esq.
Thomas F.A. Hetherington, Esq.
MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2400
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 337-5580
Email: erin.taylor@mhllp.com
hutson.smelley@mhllp.com
jarrett.ganer@mhllp.com
tom.hetherington@mhllp.com
TRUSTED MEDIA: Bohnak Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA M. BOHNAK, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Martha M. Bohnak, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-07476, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring the putative class action against the Defendant, alleging
sale, rental, or disclosure of its subscribers' personal
information, without the subscribers' knowledge or consent, to
third parties for profit, in violation of Alabama, Indiana,
California, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Washington, and Puerto Rico
statutes.
On Jan. 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint ("AC").
The AC sets 48 eight causes of action, respectively under the Right
of Publicity statutes of the eight states: the Alabama Right of
Publicity Act, Ala. Code Section 6-5-772(a) ("Alabama Statute");
Indiana Code (IC) 32-36-1-1, et seq. (the "Indiana Statute");
California Civil Code Section 3344 (the "California Statute");
Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann.) Section
597.770, et seq. (the "Nevada Statute"); Ohio Revised Code Section
2741.01, et seq. (the "Ohio Statute"); South Dakota Codified Laws
Section 21-64-1, et seq. (the "South Dakota Statute"); Revised Code
of Washington (RCW) 63.60.010, et seq. (the "Washington Statute");
and 32 Laws of Puerto Rico (L.P.R.) Section 3151, et seq. (the
"Puerto Rico Statute") (collectively, "State Statutes"). Under each
State Statute, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory
damages, and punitive damages where available.
On July 7, 2022, the Defendant moved to dismiss the AC, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Nelson Stephen
Roman on Mar. 29, 2023. The Court determined that the Plaintiff
failed to provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through
factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.
The appellate case is captioned Bohnak v. Trusted Media Brands,
Inc., Case No. 23-741, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on May 1, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MARTHA M. BOHNAK, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Defendant-Appellee TRUSTED MEDIA BRANDS, INC. is represented by:
Kristen Rodriguez, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 876-6133
TTEC SERVICES: $2.5MM Settlement in Beasley Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, YOLANDA BEASLEY, KIMBERLY SHEARS-BARNES, SHENEEQUA
CARRINGTON, and JOLYNN FROST, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION,
Defendant. DAVID ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Civil Action Nos. 22-cv-00097-PAB-STV,
22-cv-00347-PAB-STV, Consolidated with Civil Action No.
22-cv-00347-PAB-STV, Civil Action No. 22-cv-00097-PAB-STV (D.
Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Memorandum in
Support.
TTEC is a global provider of customer experience technology and
services. It stores confidential information about its employees
and clients on a network system. The action arises from a data
security breach of TTEC's system that occurred from March 31, 2021
to Sept. 12, 2021. An unauthorized, unknown party obtained TTEC
files that contained the personally identifiable information
("PII") of approximately 197,835 individuals, including names and
Social Security numbers.
The Plaintiffs allege that TTEC failed to follow basic security
procedures and adequately protect the PII of class members. They
allege that the data security breach constitutes a present and
continuing risk of fraud and identity theft. They assert common law
claims for negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and
breach of confidence, as well as violations of several state
privacy statutes.
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Memorandum
in Support. Representative Plaintiffs Yolanda Beasley, Kimberly
Shears-Barnes, Sheneequa Carrington, Jolynn Frost, and David
Anderson, along with David Barocas and Brent Lett, filed the
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement. TTEC does not oppose the motion.
The motion for preliminary approval seeks certification of a
nationwide class consisting of "all individuals within the United
States (1) whose protected health information or personal
identifying information was stored, possessed or controlled by
TTEC; and (2) who were affected by the TTEC data security incident
that occurred in approximately March to September of 2021."
The motion also seeks approval of a California subclass consisting
of "all natural persons residing in the State of California at the
time of the Data Security Incident (1) whose protected health
information or personal identifying information was stored,
possessed or controlled by TTEC; and (2) who were affected by the
TTEC Data Security Incident that occurred in approximately March to
September of 2021.
The settlement agreement provides for a $2.5 million
non-reversionary settlement fund. Each class member who files a
valid claim will be eligible for one cash payment for (i) a basic
award of $100 or (ii) a reimbursement award of up to $5,000 for
documented out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the
data security breach. Every class member is also eligible to
receive 36 months of free identity-theft monitoring and protection
services, called "Financial Shield."
In addition, California settlement subclass members are eligible to
receive a California subclass award payment of $100 in recognition
of their California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act
("CIMA") claim, regardless of whether they also receive a basic
award or reimbursement award.
The monetary awards are subject to upward or downward proration
depending on the number of approved claims. The settlement
agreement allows each representative plaintiff to claim a "service
award" of $2,500. It also permits the class counsel to file a
motion seeking reasonable attorneys' fees in an amount not to
exceed 30 percent ($750,000) of the settlement fund and reasonable
costs and expenses not to exceed $20,000.
The parties have agreed to use Epiq Class Action and Claims
Solutions, Inc. as the notice provider and claims administrator.
The motion proposes direct and individual notice, in the form of
summary postcards, to be provided to settlement class members via
United States Postal Service first class mail. The claims
administrator will also establish a settlement website with
pertinent forms and contact information, a toll-free telephone
line, and a post office box. The parties propose that class members
who seek to exclude themselves from the settlement agreement or
object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
agreement may do so until 75 days after the entry of the Order.
Judge Brimmer finds that (i) the presumption of fairness is
sufficient to preliminarily approve the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement: (ii) the parties' proposed notice is
reasonably calculated to apprise the absent class members of the
action and approves the proposed notice plan set forth in the
settlement agreement and the notice forms and claim form attached
as Exhibits A, B, and C; and (iii) it is appropriate to appoint
Jean S. Martin, Gary M. Klinger, and Scott Edward Cole as the class
counsel.
Judge Brimmer adopts the notice, fairness hearing, opt-out, and
objection schedules proposed by the Representative Plaintiffs, with
the exception that the class counsel must file the motion for final
approval of the class action settlement at least 21 days before the
fairness hearing. He appoints Epiq as the claims administrator.
Accordingly, the following deadlines apply:
a. Defendants Provide Class List to Claims Administrator -
Within 15 days after entry of this Preliminary Approval Order
b. Notice Deadline for Claims the Administrator to Send
Summary Settlement Class - Within 15 days after receiving list from
Defendants
c. Notice Motion for Attorney's Fees, Reimbursement of Costs
and Expenses, and Service Awards to be Filed by Class Counsel - At
least 14 days before the Objection Deadline
d. Postmark Deadline for requests for Exclusion (Opt-Out) or
Objections - 75 days after entry of this Preliminary Approval
Order
e. Postmark/Filing Deadline for Motion for Final Approval to
be Filed by Class Counsel - At least 21 days before the Fairness
Hearing
f. Filing Claims - 90 days after Notice Deadline
g. Fairness Hearing - No earlier than 100 days after entry of
this Preliminary Approval Order
Additionally, the parties will contact the Court's chambers to set
a date for the fairness hearing within seven days of the entry of
the Order.
Judge Brimmer denies as moot the Joint Request for Scheduling of
Case Management Conference and the Unopposed and Joint Motion for
Status.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/2pl81 from Leagle.com.
TWITTER INC: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration in Borodaenko
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DMITRY BORODAENKO, et al.,
v. TWITTER, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-07226-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Hon.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting motion to
compel arbitration and granting motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel arbitration and
stays the action as to the Plaintiff Mehta's claims. The parties
shall file a status report with the Court every 120 days from the
date of this order explaining the progress of the arbitration
proceeding as to the Plaintiff Mehta's claim, and shall notify the
Court within 48 hours of the completion of arbitration.
The Court also grants the motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiff
Borodaenko's claims. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
within 21 days of the date of this order.
The Court further sets a case management conference on June 20,
2023, at 2:00 p.m. All counsel shall use the following dial-in
information to access the call: Dial-In: 888-808-6929; Passcode:
6064255.
All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for a telephonic case
management conference are required to dial in at least 15 minutes
before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy.
Lastly, the Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss or
strike the class allegations. The Defendant 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, the Plaintiff did not resign because of the
company's new policies, but rather was laid off. The Defendant also
contends that the Plaintiff’s alleged need to work remotely is
insufficient to establish that all other disabled employees were
similar situated.
The Plaintiffs Dmitry Borodaenko and Abhijit Mehta initially filed
this putative class action in November 2022, and amended their
complaint a month later in December 2022.
The Plaintiffs 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. 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.
The Plaintiffs bring causes of action for discrimination in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); 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).
The Plaintiffs 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."
Twitter was an American social media company based in San
Francisco, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VYBKjv at no extra charge.[CC]
U.S. STEEL: Court Certifies Suit Over 2018 Fire at Clairton Coke
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briana Smith of CBS News Pittsburgh reports that a class action
lawsuit for thousands of people in the Mon Valley alleges that they
are due money following a fire at the Clairton Coke Works back in
2018.
The lawsuit states that the 2018 fire made many people sick and now
they want the company to be held accountable.
The lawsuit also states that the fire at the Clairton Coke Works
caused spiking emissions, poisonous odors and physical discomforts.
Some symptoms included burning throats, watery eyes, headaches and
difficulty breathing.
"They experienced discomforts, noxious odors, particularly
sulfurous or rotten eggs odors that would interfere with their
ability to use and enjoy their homes the way they might otherwise
like," said Dave Baltmanis, who is one of the attorneys from Miner,
Barnhill and Galland P.C. in Chicago representing the case.
The 2018 fire lasted for about two hours and ripped through the
plant's control room, damaging equipment and shutting down its
pollution control system. Then the Allegheny County Health
Department warned residents about the levels of sulfur dioxide.
In 2021, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh determined
that the fire made people sick and worsened asthma symptoms.
The plaintiffs in the case say that U.S. Steel should have
prevented the fire, claiming it started because of mechanical
failures and poor maintenance.
Baltmanis said a recent court ruling will allow them to proceed
with the case.
"We're very excited about the judge's decision," said Baltmanis.
"What this means is that the six plaintiffs who brought this case
can now stand as representatives of all the folks who lived in
these 22 communities during the period of time U.S. Steel was
operating without sulfur pollution controls."
Baltmanis said the fire and pollution could have been avoided.
"We allege that U.S. Steel could have and should have prevented
this fire through better maintenance inspections of the Clairton
Coke Works," said Baltmanis.
"In particular, an investigation showed long-term corrosion that
ultimately lead to the events that created the fire," he added.
The U.S. Steel media relations manager said in a statement:
"We are reviewing the Judge's opinion and cannot comment on pending
litigation.
"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."
Baltmanis said it will take them a few months to prepare for the
case and take it to trial to try and hold U.S. Steel accountable.
Baltmanis said they plan to have community meetings in the Mon
Valley area to hear from residents and keep them updated on the
case. [GN]
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: MTC Seeks to File Reply Brief Portion Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERIDIAN TREATMENT CENTER,
ET AL., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California corporation, Case No.
4:19-cv-05721-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their application to file the highlighted
portions of the Reply Brief under seal.
The Plaintiffs Meridian Treatment Center, Harmony Hollywood
Treatment Center, and Desert Cove Recovery, LLC move for
administrative relief to file under seal certain materials
contained within their Reply Brief in Support of Class
Certification.
The parties have entered into a protective order in this action.
The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief includes information designated as
"CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" pursuant
to the protective order in this action. This information includes
excerpts from the 30(b)(6) deposition transcripts of Desert Cove
Recovery, LLC, Harmony Hollywood Treatment Center, Meridian
Treatment Center, and UBH as well as from documents produced by
both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or
"CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY."
United Behavioral Health was founded in 1996. The Company's line of
business includes providing management services on a contract and
fee basis.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nXrtr4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
Aaron R. Modiano, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 350S
Washington, D.C. 20037
Telephone: (202) 677-4030
Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
aaron.modiano@agg.com
- and -
David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
DL LAW GROUP
345 Franklin St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 678-5050
Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
katie@dllawgroup.com
UNITED PARCEL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Malone Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-3643 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E.K.
Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denies UPS' motion to dismiss.
Mr. Malone, on behalf of himself and others, filed the suit
alleging that UPS failed to pay compensation for time spent
undergoing security screenings, walking from those screening to
workstations, and using lockers at the screenings to don and doff
steel-tipped boots, all in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA"). UPS now brings the motion to dismiss on the
grounds that these claims are preempted by the federal Labor
Management Relations Act ("LMRA").
Mr. Malone is employed by UPS at one of its warehouses in
Pennsylvania. As part of his employment, he and other Pennsylvania
UPS warehouse employees are required to undergo a daily security
screening process. He asserts that time spent waiting in line at
the security screen, time spent walking to and from the screen to
workstations, and time spent using nearby lockers to put on
steel-tipped boots are all compensable under the PMWA, and that UPS
violated the PMWA by not paying its employees for this time,
Mr. Malone and the other employees on whose behalf he is suing are
members of Union Local 384, meaning the terms of their employment
are subject to a CBA in the form of a National UPS agreement and a
Metro Philadelphia supplement. Together, these agreements set out,
inter alia, what time is compensable, when work starts, overtime
policies, and whether donning and doffing gear is compensable. The
CBA also includes a grievance and arbitration procedure for
disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of its
terms.
Mr. Malone has the burden to show that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over his claims at all stages of the
litigation, including after trial and entry of judgment. His
complaint asserts the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") as the
basis for federal jurisdiction. CAFA confers subject matter
jurisdiction over class actions where, in relevant part, the
aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. It is Mr.
Malone's burden to establish the amount in controversy.
UPS contends that Mr. Malone cannot satisfy this burden because his
claims based on walking to and from the security screenings and
donning and doffing boots are preempted by federal law and the
remaining claim for time spent undergoing security screenings
represents so little time that they cannot possibly amount to more
than $5 million in controversy. Where the law "denies recovery" for
a cause of action, a federal court is required to disregard the
value of such a claim asserted to be included within the
jurisdictional amount. Because UPS' attack is factual, the Court is
not limited to the pleadings and need not accept Mr. Malone's
jurisdictional allegations as true.
Judge Pratter finds that neither Mr. Malone's walking time nor
donning and doffing claims are preempted by Section 301 of the
LMRA. The value of these claims thus counts towards CAFA's
amount-in-controversy requirement, bringing the aggregate damages
above $5 million. The LMRA only preempts state law claims that
either arise under a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") or
require actual interpretation of such an agreement, rather than
mere consultation. Because Mr. Malone's PMWA claims do not arise
under a CBA, and because no interpretation of a CBA is necessary to
determine if employees were paid overtime in accordance with the
PMWA, these claims are not preempted.
Therefore, Judge Pratter denies UPS' motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 9, 2023 Memorandum is available
at https://rb.gy/w089k from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Judge Set to Hear Haitian Migrants' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
April Ryan, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that "We all saw the
photo go viral," Nicole Phillips, legal director at Haitian Bridge
Alliance, told theGrio.
A decision by a D.C. federal judge could come at any moment over
whether to hear a class action lawsuit filed by the Haitian Bridge
Alliance on behalf of 11 Haitian migrants accusing Customs and
Border Patrol of mistreatment at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The group of plaintiffs includes Mirard Joseph, who was infamously
photographed in what many believed to be a horse-mounted border
patrol whipping him with a horse rein in 2021.
"We all saw the photo go viral," Nicole Phillips, legal director at
Haitian Bridge Alliance, told theGrio.
The pending ruling in the federal lawsuit comes as the
controversial Trump-era Title 42 policy ended May 11 and as the
federal government manages an influx of migrants seeking asylum in
the United States at the southern border.
Phillips spoke to theGrio on May 12 while at the border, where she
and other immigration lawyers and advocates are monitoring the
actions after the COVID-19 public health emergency restriction was
lifted on May 11.
The suit filed by Haitian Bridge Alliance alleges the federal
government created inhumane conditions for approximately 15,000
Haitian migrants stationed at an encampment near the Del Rio, Texas
border in September 2021. The complaint accuses border patrol of
leaving migrants "without giving them access to the asylum process
or screening them for a fear of return to their home country."
The lawsuit names as defendants the Biden administration and
several government agencies, including the Department of Homeland
Security, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others.
Phillips said the government violated the constitution, due
process, and other policies and laws "in the way they handled and
treated the Haitian migrants in Del Rio, Texas."
The federal government filed a motion to have the class action
lawsuit dismissed; however, the Haitian Bridge Alliance disputed.
Now both sides are waiting for an answer.
During the May 11 White House press briefing, Homeland Security
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas pushed back against the notion that
Joseph, the migrant from the viral photo, was whipped. He told
theGrio an internal DHS investigation "concluded that the whipping
did not occur."
The request by the government to dismiss the lawsuit was a result
of the investigation launched in 2021 and concluded in 2022.
Phillips does not believe the investigation was a fair one. The
attorney for the migrant advocacy group called it a "sham
investigation" that involved "all law enforcement." She noted that
the "biased" internal probe did not include "a single migrant"
being interviewed.
Phillip also suggested a sort of cover-up by officials in Del Rio
after the Haiti migrant controversy.
"Thousands [Haitians] were expelled immediately to get rid of the
witnesses," she declared. "We put no weight at all in that
investigation."
As all sides wait for the federal judge's decision on whether to
hear the case, the broader question now is on the treatment of
Black migrants at the border.
Immigration advocate Nana Gyamfi, co-founder of Justice Warriors 4
Black Lives and Human Rights Advocacy, told theGrio that the recent
lifting of Title 42 and the start of Title 8 enforcement will
"suppress" Black migrants, who she noted "are required to ask for
asylum in countries they transit through."
She explained, "Many of those countries are too dangerous for Black
migrants to request asylum."
Gyamfi used the current conflict in Sudan as an example. "If a
native of Sudan wanted to file for asylum and come to the United
States, how could they, as there's no one in the embassy?" she
queried. "Americans were told to leave the country because of a
deadly war there."
A Biden official, who wished to remain anonymous, told theGrio that
the administration admits "more refugees from Africa than any other
region" and that President Biden "increased the number of refugees
we accept globally more than any predecessor" with a cap of 125,000
a year.
The official also noted that the administration's new parole
program announced in January that admits up to 30,000 Haitians per
month has, to date, admitted 32,000 Haitians.
"That parole program, in four months, has admitted more Haitians
than . . . from most of the world this year as refugees," said the
official. "That is not an overstatement." [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Fails to Disclose Patients' Visitation Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Neive Rodriguez of The Chicago Maroon reports that a class action
lawsuit filed on February 9 alleges that the University of Chicago
Medical Center (UC Med) violated the Fair Patient Billing Act by
failing to disclose visitation fees to emergency room patients.
The complaint argues that visitation fees were "effectively
concealed" from emergency room patients prior to their visit.
Furthermore, the complaint asserts that UChicago Medicine neglected
to communicate visitation fees on the website clearly, describing
the billing information provided on the web page as "highly
abbreviated and unintelligible." Anyone who was unfairly billed at
any one of UChicago Medicine's hospitals within the statute of
limitations is eligible to be covered by the lawsuit; the complaint
asserts that the number of individuals eligible to be part of the
class action lawsuit is likely in the thousands.
According to the complaint, plaintiff Carl Fisher visited UChicago
Medicine emergency rooms seven times between January 2019 and March
2022. After each visit, Fisher found that he was charged visitation
fees between $159 to $738 without any prior knowledge of the fee,
nor the basis on which the fees were determined. Fisher then
visited the emergency room several more times between June and
October of 2022, and was charged a visitation fee of over $4,000
per visit. The complaint details how Fisher was "shocked, dismayed,
and aggrieved" when he was charged "substantial, significantly
increasing, and undisclosed" visitation fees that he had not
consented to paying.
The complaint alleges that the Fair Patient Billing Act, which
states that "patients, hospitals, and government bodies alike will
benefit from clearly articulated standards regarding fair billing
and collection practices for all Illinois hospitals," was violated.
The complaint further argues that UChicago Medicine also violated
Section Two of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, which forbids "misrepresentation" or "suppression .
. . of any material fact…in the conduct of any trade or
commerce," by not disclosing visitation fees.
The first hearing date for the lawsuit is June 9. Neither the
plaintiff's legal team nor UChicago Medicine has responded to a
request for comment. [GN]
USA TODAY: Fox Rothschild Discusses Class Certification Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq., of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that the certification process for FLSA collective
actions has typically been a two-step process. The first step is to
secure conditional certification, which is often handed out as
easily as a Santa Claus giving kids candy at Christmastime. Then,
there is final certification, where the defendant employer asserts
the class is inappropriate and should never have been certified. In
a recent Fifth Circuit case, Swales v. KLLM Transport Services,
L.L.C., the appellate court determined that the first step of the
process should be tougher on plaintiffs. Now, in a more recent
decision, a federal district court (in another Circuit) has
followed Swales and declined to conditionally certify a class. The
case is entitled Mathews v. USA Today Sports Media Group, LLC, and
issued from a federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The plaintiff alleged she and a class were misclassified as
independent contractors and thereby denied overtime pay. She moved
for conditional certification; the employer opposed, asserting the
FLSA did not allow for a so-called conditional certification. The
employer also contended that some discovery was necessary to
ascertain if the plaintiff could show that the proffered collective
class satisfied the statutory "similarly situated" standard.
The defendant here relied heavily on the decision and rationale in
the Swales case. That decision mandated a finding of being
similarly situated prior to any conditional certification. The
Fifth Circuit found that discovery was needed for a court to make
that determination and any certification granted without that
determination would be premature. The plaintiff argued that the
"usual" two-step process should be followed. Under that process,
the grant of conditional certification often only requires a
minimal amount of proof which is often easy to secure, with a few
Affidavits (that often are identical in verbiage). That then
triggers the ability of the plaintiff to send out opt-in notices
and raises the stakes (and settlement value) for the defendant.
Only after this process, and a great deal of ensuing discovery, can
the defendant move to de-certify the original class. This almost
always puts the employer at a disadvantage and creates great
pressure to (needlessly?) settle.
The Mathews court did not approve of this two-step certification
procedure. The court relied heavily upon Swales. In that regard,
the court examined the statute that governs these matters, i.e.,
the FLSA, and found no explicit statement or suggestion that allows
the sending of opt-in notices to individuals that were not
"similarly situated" to the named plaintiff. Thus, in a victory for
the defendant, the court directed discovery be conducted to
ascertain the possible class members who might be "similarly
situated."
The Takeaway
I really applaud the decision in Mathews. I have found that
conditional certification is given out far too readily, forcing the
defendant to then spend a great deal of money in discovery and
making a motion, after a long time and thousands of dollars, to
de-certify on the basis of a lack of similarity between putative
class members. Compelling the plaintiff to make that "similarly
situated" showing (if they can) at a much earlier juncture in the
case can only help join the issues and perhaps engender an earlier
resolution (e.g., settlement). I note that the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals will be issuing a decision on a similar motion so, given
the difference in the Circuits on this issue now and the Sixth
Circuit decision whatever that is, this may well mean the issue
heads to the Supreme Court.[GN]
UTAH: Medina Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Dawn Hepikiya Medina, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. The Hon. Anne Marie Mciff Allen, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:21-CV-00102-DN, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, pretrial detainees in the Iron, Carbon, Beaver, and
Utah County jails, have filed this proposed class action
challenging Defendants' unconstitutional pretrial detention system,
which jails poor individuals without affording due process or
providing counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment. The
Defendants' post-arrest policies and practices violate Plaintiffs'
rights to pretrial liberty and against wealth-based detention, suit
says.
On Mar. 4, 2022, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge David
Nuffer on Mar. 31, 2023. The case is dismissed without prejudice
and the clerk is directed to close the action.
The appellate case is captioned Medina, et al. v. McIff Allen, et
al., Case No. 23-4057, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 1, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Anna P. Christiansen, Esq.
Karra J. Porter, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN
257 East 200 South, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 323-5000
Defendants-Appellees THE HONORABLE ANNE MARIE MCIFF ALLEN, et al.,
are represented by:
Lance Sorenson, Esq.
David N. Wolf, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF UTAH
160 East 300 South, 6th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Telephone: (801) 366-0100
VAIL RESORTS: Stone Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial to 10th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON STONE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion to compel arbitration and confirming
Arbitration Award in the lawsuit entitled Nelson Stone, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Vail Resorts Development Company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:09-cv-02081-DDD-KLM, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.
Plaintiffs Nelson Stone and Stone Family LLC allege that Defendants
Vail Resorts Development Company and Arrabelle at Vail Square, LLC
breached a contract for the sale of a new condominium in Vail,
Colorado by changing the parking rights for condo owners from
assigned self-parking to valet parking.
Vail moved to compel arbitration based on language in the
Condominium Declaration. The Court granted the motion and
administratively closed the case. The parties then engaged in
lengthy settlement negotiations for nearly two years, and when
those negotiations failed, they went to arbitration. An even
lengthier arbitration process ensued, eventually leading to an
Interim Arbitration Award in 2018. The arbitrator ruled against Dr.
Stone on his tort and deceptive-trade-practices claims, but for him
on his breach-of-contract claim, and Dr. Stone was awarded $96,308.
The arbitrator gave the parties 15 days from the issuance of the
interim award to file any post-arbitration motions relating to
attorney fees. Ultimately, the arbitrator denied Dr. Stone's motion
for attorney fees and issued a final Arbitration Award in 2019.
On June 19, 2019, Vail then moved this Court to reopen the case and
vacate the award.
On August 20, 2019, Dr. Stone moved to compel arbitration on the
question of attorney fees, or in the alternative for leave to file
a motion for attorney fees with this Court. He also moved to
confirm the final arbitration award on April 1, 2020.
On Mar. 30, 2023, the Court, through an Order entered by Judge
Daniel D. Domenico, denied Vail's motion to reopen the case and
vacate the arbitration award and Dr. Stone's motion to compel
arbitration as these motions both seek to disturb decisions that
were within the province of the arbitrator. Dr. Stone's motion to
confirm the arbitration award is granted.
The appellate case is captioned Stone et al. v. Vail Resorts
Development Company et al., Case No. 23-1147, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants NELSON STONE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
Defendants-Appellees VAIL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, et al. are
represented by:
Edward Timothy Walker, Esq.
VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY
Legal Department
390 Interlocken Crescent, 9th Floor
Broomfield, CO 80021
Telephone: (303) 504-5891
E-mail: etwalker@vailresorts.com
- and -
Joseph W. Doman, Esq.
BARTLIT BECK LLP
1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 592-3107
Facsimile: (303) 592-3140
E-mail: joe.doman@bartlit-beck.com
- and -
Robert Charles Blume, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
1801 California Street, Ste. 4200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 298-5700
Facsimile: (303) 296-5310
E-mail: rblume@gibsondunn.com
VAN BUREN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Albano Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ALBANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VAN BUREN TRUCK SALES CORP., d/b/a VAN BUREN
BUICK GMC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03545 (E.D.N.Y., May 11,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Albano was employed by the Defendant as an auto parts
delivery driver.
VAN BUREN TRUCK SALES CORP. retails automobiles. The Company offers
new and used vehicles such as trucks and vans. Van Buren Truck
Sales serves customers in the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
bgoldstein@kesslermatura.com
VIATRIS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 14
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP of BusinessWire reports that Johnson Fistel,
LLP, a shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Viatris Inc. ("Viatris")
(NASDAQ: VTRS) investors who acquired securities between March 1,
2021 and February 25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you
are a shareholder who incurred losses during this period, you have
until July 14, 2023, to move the court to become a lead plaintiff
in this action.
The complaint alleges that Viatris made materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: i) the Company
was experiencing significantly more competition in its United
States complex generics business than disclosed; (ii) the Company
was not able to effectively manage its base business erosion or
create a stable revenue base; (iii) despite being on the Company's
only growth drivers, Viatris was actively planning to divest its
biosimilars business in order to secure enough cash to let it
purportedly meet its phase one goals; (iv) Viatris was deviating
from the business model it touted throughout the Class Period and
undertaking a significant global reshaping of its business which
would undermine its ability to achieve stable revenue growth; and
(v) the Company was anticipating less financial growth moving into
2022.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a shareholder rights law firm representing
individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits. For more information, visit
their website http://www.johnsonfistel.com.
Contacts
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
VOPAK TERMINAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 8
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN JANIS MORRIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VOPAK TERMINAL LOG ANGELES INC.; VOPAK TERMINAL LONG BEACH INC.;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-06505-DSF-PVC
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order that:
1. The Motion for Class Certification due date is continued from
May 8, 2023, to June 8, 2023.
2. The Opposition to Motion for Class Certification due date is
continued from May 30, 2023, to June 30, 2023.
3. The Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification due
date
is continued from June 12, 2023, to July 12, 2023.
4. The Hearing on the Motion for Class Certification is
continued
from July 10, 2023, to August 14, 2023.
Vopak is founded in 1973. The company's line of business includes
marine cargo handling services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42NlLHm at no extra charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Jessica Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica v. Walmart Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01174-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ib9unX at no extra charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Kim 'Spark Toys' Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JINHUI KIM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-08380-SB-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. granting motion for class certification of:
"All persons who Purchased the Spark Toys in California
within
the applicable statute of limitations for personal use until
the
date notice is disseminated;"
2. appointing her as representative of the Class; and
3. appointing her counsel Zachary M. Crosner, Chad A. Saunders,
and
Craig W. Straub of Crosner Legal, P.C. as Class Counsel.
Spark Toys are defined as Walmart Inc.'s Spark Squishy
Animals
Toys (UPC code 8449576183) and Spark Animal Set Toys (UPC
code
8449575749).
Excluded from the from the Class are: (i) the Defendant and
its
officers, directors, and employees; (ii) any person who files
a
valid and timely request for exclusion; and (iii) judicial
officers and their immediate family members and associated
court
staff assigned to the case.
Walmart sells toys advertised for children ages "2+" which contain
dangerously high levels of a chemical called Di-n-octyl phthalate
(DNOP) at Walmart retail stores throughout California.
The DNOP levels in the toys have been tested by an accredited lab
and show that the sales of the toys violate California Health &
Safety Code section 108937. Kim contends accredited lab results
show Walmart's Spark Toys contain over forty times the maximum
limit of DNOP allowed by the state of California.
Walmart's failure to disclose this fact misleads reasonable
consumers. The resolution of whether the Spark Toys contain illegal
levels of DNOP and whether the failure to disclose these illegal
levels is an objective predominating question common to all Class
members, the Plaintiff contends.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BqUGOn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
chad@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Misleading Streaming Revenue Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Bivins of DisneyDinning.com reports that Disney is in hot
water as lies purported by former CEO Bob Chapek have resulted in a
class-action lawsuit against the Walt Disney Company.
In a suit filed on May 12, 2023, Chapek is personally named among
the defendants alongside the company as a whole as a result of
misleading streaming revenue reports released while Chapek was
still at the helm of the entertainment giant.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by a pension fund. Court records state that
Disney "repeatedly misled investors about the success of the
Disney+ platform by concealing the true costs of the platform,
concealing the expense and difficulty of maintaining robust Disney+
subscriber growth, and claiming that the platform was on track to
achieve profitability by 2024."
This deception came to light shortly before Chapek was fired in
November 2022 and played a significant role in his demise.
Antitrust and securities fraud accusations tend to have that
effect. When he first became Disney's CEO, one of Chapek's initial
decisions was to see the company undergo a restructuring that moved
around various assets and intellectual properties. This allowed
Disney to play a shell game with what program went where, making it
easier for the company to hide losses and move production costs
from Disney+, making the streaming platform seem more profitable
than it actually was.
According to Bloomberg Law, "Chapek's reorganization represented a
dramatic departure from Disney's historical reporting structure and
caused controversy within the company because it redirected power
and control from creative content executives to Chapek's lieutenant
Kareem Daniel. Daniel is among the defendants."
Disney stock plummeted to an all-time low after it came to light
that the company was using misinformation rather than actual facts
and figures in its earnings reports.
The class-action lawsuit was filed by the Local 272
Labor-Management Pension Fund -- a fund with hundreds or thousands
of members, according to estimates within the complaint. The
pension fund hopes to recoup losses and seeks "damages and
injunctive relief" on its allegations of securities fraud.
A representative for Disney has publicly responded to the lawsuit
stating, "We are aware of the complaint and intend to defend
vigorously against it in court." [GN]
WEEE! INC: Jia Sues Over Property and Privacy Rights Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Jia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. WEEE! INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02276 (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2023), is
brought to secure redress for the Defendants' violations of their
property and privacy rights in violation of the California Customer
Records Act ("CRA"), California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
California Information Practices Act ("IPA"), and California common
law.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are consumers who entrusted their
personally identifiable information ("PII") to Defendants.
Defendants betrayed Plaintiffs and Class Members' trust by failing
to properly safeguard and protect their PII, and publicly
disclosing their PII without authorization, in violation of
numerous laws, including, inter alia, the CRA, UCL, IPA, and
California common law.
On February 6, 2023, a threat actor named "IntelBroker" began
leaking the data of Weee!'s customers on the "Breached" hacking and
data breach forum (the "Breach"). Reportedly, the Breach contained
1.1 million of Weee!'s customers who placed orders after July 12,
2021: first and last names, email addresses, phone numbers, device
types (i.e., iOS, PC, or Android), order notes, and other data used
by Weee!. The Plaintiff placed several orders after July 12, 2021.
The Defendants' security failures enabled the hackers to steal
personal and financial data from Defendant and put Class members'
personal and financial information at serious and ongoing risk. The
hackers continue to use the information they obtained as a result
of Defendant's inadequate security to exploit and injure Class
members across the United States.
The Breach was caused and enabled by Defendant's knowing violation
of its obligations to abide by best practices and industry
standards in protecting customers' personal information. Defendant
grossly failed to comply with security standards and allowed its
customers' financial information to be compromised, all in an
effort to save money by cutting corners on security measures that
could have prevented or mitigated the Breach.
The Defendant failed to uncover and disclose the extent of the
Breach and notify its affected customers of the Breach in a timely
manner. Defendant failed to take other reasonable steps to clearly
and conspicuously inform its customers of the nature and extent of
the Breach. Furthermore, by failing to provide adequate notice,
Defendant prevented Class Members from protecting themselves from
the Breach.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members are concerned about their
finances, credit, identities, and PII and, as such, as to Helen
Jia, regularly monitors her credit, monitor her financial accounts
and/or carefully store and dispose of their PII and other documents
containing their PII. The concern is reasonable and justified.
Because of the Data Breach, there is an immediate and substantial
risk of identity theft, identity fraud, and records, fraudulent
credit card activity, the opening or re-opening of new credit card
accounts in their name, phishing, increased mailers marketing
products and services. Plaintiff has standing to bring this suit
because as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful
actions, inaction and omissions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the County of Orange,
California.
WEEE! Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of business
located in Fremont, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
Donna R. Dishbak, Esq.
LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC
9777 Wilshire Blvd., 4th Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 279-5269
Facsimile: (310) 300-0267
Email: blake@lawbl.com
WELLS FARGO: Settles Unauthorized Accounts Scandal Suit for $1B
---------------------------------------------------------------
Outlook Business Team of Outlook reports that Wells Fargo & Co, an
American financial services firm, has agreed to pay shareholders $1
billion as it aims to settle a class-action lawsuit related to the
company's 2016 unauthorized accounts scandal.
The shareholders accused the financial services company of not
changing its management and practices fast enough after a series of
scandals over its treatment of customers.
The preliminary settlement has been submitted to a federal judge in
Manhattan to be approved in the next few months, according to the
Wall Street Journal report.
In June 2020, Sweden-based Handelsbanken Fonder AB and the
Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund and a group of
shareholders, filed a class action against Wells Fargo & Co
involving its former executives and a director.
The lawsuit accused the San Francisco-based bank of shortcomings in
strengthening its risk control and compliance following commitments
made to the Federal Reserve and two other financial regulators in
2018.
The US banking regulator had forced the bank to submit a plan to
take control of the management, along with a temporary asset cap
following a series of compliance problems.
Shareholders accused the bank of overstating its progress in
clearing the issues. The fourth-largest US bank lost over $54
billion in two years ending March 2020.
In 2020, the company agreed to pay $3 billion to settle an
investigation in connection with more than a decade of widespread
consumer abuses. The US investigation agency found that Wells
Fargo's overwhelming sales targets led employees to open millions
of fake accounts for customers and force other products on them
from 2002 to 2016, often by misappropriating their identities or
creating false records, the Department of Justice said.
In addition, lapses were found across business lines including
mortgages and auto lending.
Since 2016, Wells Fargo has paid or reserved several billion
dollars to resolve regulatory investigations and litigations.
According to a Reuters report, Wells Fargo denied wrongdoing and
settled to eliminate the burden and expenses of litigation. Lawyers
for the plaintiffs may demand up to 19% of the settlement fund for
legal fees. [GN]
WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Faces Another Suit Over Banksia Hill Detainees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daryna Zadvirna of ABC News reports that the WA government is
facing a fresh lawsuit in the Federal Court over its alleged
unlawful treatment of juvenile detainees at a controversial unit in
the adult Casuarina Prison.
The new class action, launched on behalf of teenage inmates kept at
Unit 18, was filed and accepted by the court.
It is being led by the same Sydney-based law firm, Levitt Robinson,
that is representing current and former Banksia Hill Detention
Centre juvenile detainees in a separate class action commenced late
2022.
One of the principal lawyers, Dana Levitt, said the WA government's
lack of accountability left the applicants no choice but to take
matters to court.
"We're forced to litigate because there's nothing else anyone has
been able to do to ameliorate or improve the circumstances under
which youth in WA are detained," Ms Levitt said.
"We hope, obviously, that the WA government changes their tune, and
comes to the table sooner rather than later."
Ms Levitt said the new proceedings were launched on similar grounds
to the prior class action.
But being unable to keep adding applicants to a claim that already
exists, the firm decided to start a new lawsuit, which they hope
will eventually be amalgamated into one.
"It's extremely similar in that we know that the cohort of youth
that were detained at Unit 18 [were] predominantly disabled, and as
such our claims relate to disability discrimination," she said.
"As well as to age discrimination . . . because of the fact that
they're detained in an adult prison, what that means is, they
practically can't move around like the adult prisoners can."
Two other lawsuits launched
This will be the third set of legal proceedings launched against
the state in relation to its treatment of young detainees in less
than eight months.
Levitt Robinson lawyers filed the previous class action -
representing more than 500 current and former Banksia Hill inmates
- in November 2022.
Leading lawyer Stuart Levitt said the case was "potentially worth
hundreds of millions of dollars because there are so many people
involved".
"We've been directly instructed by about 600 [people]," he said.
"The vast majority [are] Indigenous.
"It alleges effectively . . . physical abuse, restriction,
restraint, breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act and
inhumane treatment."
Mr Levitt said the group was seeking financial redress.
The Aboriginal Legal Service also took the WA government to the
Supreme Court over what it said was the illegal and inhumane
detention of children late 2022.
The ALS is representing three young offenders - two currently
detained in an isolated part of a maximum-security prison, and one
in Banksia Hill — in the current case, and says lockdowns have
continued since that decision was handed down.
It says the mental health of the trio has declined further because
of the lockdowns, and "they have been increasingly distressed
leading to self-harm and suicide attempts".
Earlier this month the Supreme Court heard the ALS's application
for judicial review and a writ of prohibition or injunctions to
stop their clients from being allegedly further unlawfully
detained.
Justice Paul Tottle will hand down his decision later 2023.
New legislation introduced
The state government introduced a bill to parliament on May 17,
2023 to amend the Young Offenders Act 1994, which will ensure
juvenile detainees are moved to an adult prison as soon as they
turn 18.
Premier Mark McGowan said it would bring WA into line with
legislation elsewhere around the country.
"There is currently one detainee who is 23, now I don't want a
23-year-old mixing with a 14-year-old," he said on May 16, 2023.
"What we're going to do is just make sure that adults go into adult
custodial facilities, and we protect those who are juveniles.
Introducing the bill, Corrective Services Minister Bill Johnston
told parliament the change would benefit both juveniles at Banksia
Hill and adults moved to other facilities.
"Prisons provide a better opportunity for adults to engage in
work-ready training and programs that will support young adults in
their transition to independence," he said.
"Programs of this kind are not offered to the same extent in youth
detention facilities, which largely focused on school-based
education programs.
"Further, transfer to a prison may enable an adult to be
accommodated in a facility closer to home which may improve their
access to family support and engagement."
Mr Johnston said the current system required a court to approve the
transfer of someone from juvenile detention to an adult prison.
"This is an inefficient use of resources, particularly when having
regard to the overall principle that adults ought not to be
detained in the same facility as children," he said.
Once the amendments are passed, the Director General of the
Department of Justice alone will be responsible for moving
detainees, with exceptions to be made for those nearing the end of
their sentence or completing programs at Banksia Hill.
It comes following a major riot at the Banksia Hill facility, which
broke out last May 16, 2023 night, lasted more than 12 hours and
involved 47 detainees.
The inmates began moving within the grounds and onto the roof of
the centre, lighting fires and damaging infrastructure.
Mr McGowan said the damage bill has come to around $30 million.
[GN]
WESTLAND FARMS: Court Denies Garcia's Bid for Order to Show Cause
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause in the lawsuit captioned
MIYOSHI GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs v. WESTLAND FARMS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00190-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs submit the declarations of Attorney Juan Garcia in
support with exhibits and Paralegal Cesar Juarez with exhibit in
support of the Motion. The Plaintiffs seek an order directing
Defendants Maria Guadalupe Luna and M.G. Luna, Inc. to produce the
documents requested under the subpoena and an award of $3,148.65
for the Plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs in bringing the
Motion.
The Plaintiffs also seek issuance of an order to show cause on the
Luna Defendants as to why they should not be held in contempt for
their failure to produce documents issued pursuant to a subpoena.
Because the subpoenas are facially deficient, the Court denies the
Motion without prejudice.
This subpoena-related dispute concerns a putative wage and hour
action class action that was filed on Feb. 6, 2020. On March 29,
2020, the Plaintiffs served the Luna Defendants with the copy of
the summons and Complaint. On May 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs sent the
Luna Defendants a letter informing them that the Plaintiffs would
seek a default if the Luna Defendants did not respond the
Complaint. On Aug. 20, 2020, a clerk's entry of default was entered
against the Luna Defendants.
On Oct. 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs' mailed subpoenas to the Luna
Defendants requesting (1) payroll; (2) timekeeping; (3) employee
files; and (4) and wage statements for all employees from February
2016 to the present. On Dec. 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs sent the Luna
Defendants a letter informing them of their late responses to the
subpoena and requested whether the Luna Defendants to respond no
later than Dec. 11, 2020.
The Luna Defendants neither responded to the subpoena nor the Dec.
11, 2020 letter. The Plaintiffs seek compliance with the Oct. 20,
2020 subpoena, attorney fees incurred in bringing the Motion, and
an order to show cause why the Court will not hold the Luna
Defendants in contempt for their failure to comply with the
subpoena.
Initially, the Court notes that the Luna Defendants are parties to
the action. The Court need not determine whether the Oct. 20, 2020
subpoenas served by mail were properly served, because the
subpoenas are facially deficient. Rule 45 provides:
Although the Plaintiffs state that copies of the subpoenas to M.G.
Luna Inc. and Maria Guadalupe Luna are attached to the Declaration
of Juan Garcia as Exhibit A, Exhibit A contains only the proofs of
service of the subpoenas, Judge Barch-Kuchta notes. The Plaintiffs
attach a copy of their Dec. 4, 2020 letters concerning the Luna
Defendants failure to respond to the Oct. 30, 2020 subpoenas, which
attach copies of both subpoenas.
Judge Barch-Kuchta finds that the subpoenas are not signed by
either the Clerk of the Court or an attorney as required by Rule 45
and are, therefore, procedurally defective. Because the Court lacks
authority to compel compliance with improperly issued subpoenas,
the Motion will be denied without prejudice on this basis.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 1, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mtymp9s7 from Leagle.com.
WILMETTE, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Storm Water Improvement Project
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock of Cook County Record reports that North Shore suburb
Wilmette could be in deep water with a group of property owners who
have sued the village, claiming a storm water improvement project
excluded their properties leaving them more vulnerable to storm
water damage than before the project's implementation.
Named plaintiffs Genevieve Missirlian Vartian, Raffi Vartian, and
Johnson Schaff, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a new
class action lawsuit against the village of Wilmette on April 28 in
Cook County Circuit Court. The residents and property owners are
accusing the village of a breach of contract for failing to protect
the interests of all the structures and residents within the
village. They claim a storm water improvement project wrongly
excluded 90 structures from the plan's scope leaving them more
vulnerable to storm water damage than prior to the plan's
initiation following a typical storm which resulted in water
damage.
According to the complaint, the property owners are claiming the
village had a responsibility to not only ensure all the properties
within the village are protected from the threat of storm damage,
but to have a critical emergency plan in place to prevent invasive
storm water damage. The owners of the 90 vulnerable structures
assert the village was derelict in its responsibility to the
owners, and in breach of contract with its residents and business
property owners for failing to protect the interests of all its
residents and property owners.
The complaint alleges Wilmette failed in its action plan to provide
increased storage capacity of the area's catch basins which would
have allegedly prevented the subsequent storm damage those 90
vulnerable structures incurred post completion.
Before the village completed the $68 million dollar flood project
in 2019, the residents said they had experienced no significant
issues from normal rain or floods.
The complaint asserts the improvement plan, which covers about 98%
of residents, left 90 properties west of Ridge Road in a vulnerable
position. Improvements, which the village asserted to be a much
needed infrastructure project, purportedly put additional strain on
the catch basins to such a degree i that even normal rainfall
actually increased the likelihood of water damage, and did so
during a spring storm, the residents said in their complaint.
The complaint stated that on April 30, 2022, a normal rainy day
with typical rainfall, caused significant backup and damage that
included not only runoff, but Category 3 "black water," highly
contaminated water known to contain runoff, groundwater, and raw
sewage which can pose a health risk to humans. Items contaminated
by black water require special decontamination or disposal, the
complaint said.
The suit accuses the village of allegedly failing to "pump down"
prior to the storm, a preventative action item that would have
relieved some of the storm basins' capacity concerns. In addition,
the plaintiffs claim the village failed to erect temporary barriers
to prevent invasive stormwater, and did not adequately store the
resulting stormwater. They claimants also assert the village failed
in multiple other ways not specifically mentioned in the suit.
Bordering Lake Michigan and Evanston, Wilmette is located 14 miles
north of downtown Chicago and reported a population of 28,170 at
the 2020 census.
Plaintiffs are demanding a trial by jury and are seeking actual and
punitive damages, court costs and legal fees, and a court order
requiring the village to include an equal degree of protection from
stormwater damage for the 90 impacted locations allegedly excluded
in the 2019 improvements.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Daniel I Schlessinger,
Maria G. Enriquez, Martin Jaszczuk, of the firm of Jaszczuk P.C.,
of Chicago. [GN]
YALE UNIVERSITY: Emrit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronald Satish Emrit, the
Plaintiff (Pro Se) v. Yale University, Case No. 3:22-cv-01422-OAW
(D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a class for purposes of a class action lawsuit pursuant
to Rule 23 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).
The plaintiff argues that there is a commonality, typicality, and
numerosity of claims regarding people who have experienced racism
from the Bush administration in the form of "Islamophobia" or
African-AMericans who were discriminated against after Hurricane
Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana.
To clarify, the plaintiff argues that African-Americans are part
of a suspect classification of discrete and insular minorities
which have experienced invidious discrimination within the context
of American jurisprudence.
Yale University have become the "a laughing stock" of the world and
are a joke to everyone but themselves. As such, the plaintiff lives
his life as if the Bush years never happened and has more respect
for Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, and James Garfield.
The plaintiff's grandfather Clarence Smith has his own holiday on
May 5th of every year in Lumberton, North Carolina by proclamation
of Lumberton mayor Raymond Pennington.
Yale University is a private Ivy League research university in New
Haven, Connecticut.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M5bYp7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
YUM BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Ransomware Attacks
----------------------------------------------------
David Jones of Restaurant Dive reports that Yum Brands is facing
class action litigation in U.S. federal and state courts in
connection with the January 2023 ransomware attack, the company
said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The company said several class action lawsuits were filed in April
by current and former employees alleging privacy violations in
connection with the attack.
The attack forced the Louisville, Kentucky-based fast food operator
to close nearly 300 restaurants in the U.K. for a single day in
January.
Yum operates or franchises more than 55,000 restaurants around the
world under the KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Habit Burger Grill
brand names.
"In the course of our forensic review and investigation, we
identified that some personal information belonging to employees
primarily in the U.S. was exposed during the January 2023
cybersecurity incident," a spokesperson for Yum said via email.
The attack took place on Jan. 13, according to a copy of the
consumer disclosure letter filed with California regulators. The
company immediately locked down systems, notified federal law
enforcement and brought in digital forensics and response experts
to probe the attack.
There was no evidence the stolen personal data has been used in any
fraudulent activity, according to the disclosure letter.
According to a class action lawsuit filed during mid-April in the
U.S. District Court in Louisville, an employee of Charter Brands, a
franchisee of Yum, was sent a letter saying the breach may have
resulted in the breach of the worker's name, address, date of birth
and Social Security number.
The company and its subsidiaries have more than 23,000 employees in
the U.S., according to the lawsuit.
The company said it has incurred expenses related to the response,
remediation and investigation of the attack, according to the SEC
filing.
Yum does not expect the attack to ultimately have a material
adverse effect on its business.
The company is almost done with notification and is offering
complimentary monitoring and protection services, according to the
spokesperson. There is no indication customer data was impacted,
according to the company. [GN]
ZIP CO: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Business Representations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Thompson, Kanika Sood and Emma Rapaport of Financial Review
report that Amanda Banton's Banton Group is working up a class
action aimed at Zip Co and its auditor, Deloitte, suggesting the
buy now, pay later operator contravened ASX listing rules and the
Corporations Act, along with consumer law.
Street Talk understands Banton will allege Zip mislead the market
in its representations about the global growth of the business and
the value of acquisition companies such as QuadPay from as early as
2019. Various Zip acquisition companies including QuadPay were
written down by $768.4 million in September 2022.
The firm is also roping in Zip's auditor Deloitte to the class
action to "the extent that they caused or contributed to any
damage, by their deficient auditing of Zip Co's annual and
half-yearly financial reports," the firm's statement reads.
Street Talk understands Zip has not received notice of the class
action.
Banton, which has already pursued legal action against Blue Sky
Alternative Investments and Nuix, said it was well-advanced in
preparing claims against Zip's auditors and its directors. The
class action follows a decline in the company's share price since
early 2021 from highs of $13.9 to low of 44¢ in June. Shares
jumped 8 per cent to 58¢.
Zip launched its expansion into the US in June 2020 with its $400
million acquisition of New York-based BNPL player QuadPay in an
all-scrip deal. [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 ***