/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230531.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 31, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 109
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Detrolio Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Escue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Farquhar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Gawron Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Acosta Alleges
ATMOSPHERE GASTROPUB: Devillaz Wage Suit Tossed Without Prejudice
AUSTRALIA: Settles PFAS Class Action Suit for $22-M
AXIOM PRODUCT: Gaillard Appeals Dismissal Ruling in Breach Suit
BAYER US: Avoids Amended Class Action Over Benzene in Fungal Sprays
BETTERHELP INC: R.S. Files Suit in N.D. California
BLEACHER REPORT: Sorensen Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Bowens Claims Dismissed
CAROTHERS HOLDING: Simpson Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina
CENTERSPACE LP: Court Narrows Claims in Hall Data Breach Suit
CERENCE INC: Pena Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
CERTAINTEED LLC: Trejo-Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
CHARTER FINANCIAL: Kotila Must Provide Specific Class Definition
CHEAP CHARLIE'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Herrera et al. Claim
COCA-COLA CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Mislabeled Water
COOPER PROPERTIES: Moore Sues Over Wrongful Security Deposit Amount
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Bedbug Infestation
DAISO CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Fukaya Suit
DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir.
DNC PARKS: Discovery Dispute Hearing in Vega Set for July 19
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Shield Class Suit Over False Advertising
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in McConnell Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Miser Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Neff Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Revis Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Robinson Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Rutkowski Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sutton Lawsuit
DXC TECHNLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class suit in Cal.
EQUIFAX INFO: June 26 Extension of Expert Reports Submission Sought
FCA US: VanGee Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
FORD MOTOR: McCabe Sues Over Undisclosed Transmission Defect
GEICO ADVANTAGE: Class Certification Order in Angell Suit Affirmed
GEICO GENERAL: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Gardner Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over GM's 8-Speed Transmission
GEOSNAPSHOT PTY: Moomaw Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
GKN DRIVELINE: Court Decertifies 3 Classes in Mebane Labor Suit
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Lamons Suit Removed to C.D. California
GLOBAL PLASMA: Fishlock Sues Over Deceptive Air Treatment Products
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Hall Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
GOOGLE LLC: Collects Health Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid to Decertify Hart Suit Due June 7
H&M HENNES: E.D. Missouri Grants Bid to Dismiss Lizama Class Suit
HITACHI ASTEMO: Settles Automotive Parts Antitrust Suit for $6M
HOME DEPOT: Harter Sues Over False Product Labels of Lanterns
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Dziura Labor Suit
HUMANA INC: Agrees to Settle 401(k) Fee Class Action Suit
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Thomas Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
ICON MEALS: Fails to Make Full Payment of Agricultural Goods
IMA FINANCIAL: Faces Masterson Suit Over Data Breach
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Phung Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
JBS USA: Edwards Sues for Discrimination
JM SMUCKER CO: Mullins Sues Over Misleading Ads of Peanut Butter
JPMORGAN CHASE: Fatnani Sues Over Unregistered Sale of Securities
KPG NORTHEAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clement Alleges
KROGER LIMITED: Austin Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NC
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Suit in Florida
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Marshall Suit
MANPOWER US: Flores Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
MARKWEST ENERGY: Hamilton FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
MDL 2913: Fabius-Pompey Central Sues Over E-Cig. Promotion to Youth
MDL 2966: $3.4-Mil. Class Deal With Amneal & Lupin Wins Prelim. Nod
MDL 2966: BSBCA Tossed From Xyrem Antitrust Suit Without Prejudice
MDL 2972: Opposition to Mamie Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Mitchell Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Simkins Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Zielinski Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MEDICAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Debarr Suit Alleges
MORLEY COS: Class Settlement in Thomsen Suit Wins Final Approval
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Neims Suit Removed to C.D. California
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Doe Allowed to File Amended Class Complaint v. DHHS
NEW YORK HEALTH: Distribution of Notice to Homecare Workers Sought
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Badu Says
NISOURCE INC: Hardy Suit Moved to Northern District of Oklahoma
NOVO NORDISK: Bid to Enter Judgment in Insulin Pricing Suit Denied
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Dismissal of Camelot Event Suit Under Appeal
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Sherman Act Class Suit Settlement for Court Nod
PREFERRED FAMILY: Gordon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Fails to Warn on Detergent Pacs' Risks, Izzo Says
QUEBEC MAJOR: Faces $15M Class Suit Over Alleged Hazing Abuse
REALPAGE INC: Hollins Sues Over Wrongful Consumer Report
RESIDENT HOME: Gutierrez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Winter Suit Without Prejudice
ROSC-EL INC: Mandel Sues Over Unlawful Landlord Practices
SAFELITE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Adams Suit Claims
SIDWELL AIR: Madsen Files Bid for Conditional Class Certification
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson Seeks Conditional Status of Class Suit
SIRIUS XM: Stevenson's False Ad Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
SMITHFIELD FRESH: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Franklin
STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit in Conn.
SVF MURAL SEATTLE: Amorine Sues Over Unlawful Rent Hikes
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: $7.25-Mil. Class Deal in Saucillo Suit Upheld
TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misrepresentation & Omissions
TESLA INC: Shareholders Hit Musk Tweet on Privatization Rumor
TESLA INC: Software Updates Cut Battery Capacity, Bui-Ford Says
TIMEC SERVICES: E.D. California Narrows Claims in Wilson Class Suit
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Electronic Court Filing System
UCOR LLC: Seeks July 12 Response Date for Speer Class Cert Bid
UNITED STATES CELLULAR: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
UPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP: Candido Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
VENEZUELA: PDVSA Appeals Ruling in Gold Reserve Suit to 3rd Cir.
WALGREENS CO: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Theranos Suit
WASHINGTON, DC: Plaintiffs File Second Renewed Bid for Class Cert
WEC ENERGY GROUP: Continues to Defend Munt Class Suit in Wisconsin
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Product Liability Suit
WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Daly Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WP FREMAUX: Bid for Summary Judgments Due Sept. 27 in Sylve Suit
ZOOM VIDEO: Trial in Securities Class Suit Set for May 24, 2024
*********
3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Davis, Jr., 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-01460-RMG
(D.S.C., April 10, 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: Detrolio Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Detrolio, 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-01461-RMG (D.S.C., April 10,
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: Escue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Escue, 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-01463-RMG (D.S.C., April 10,
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 ulcerative colitis
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: Farquhar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Farquhar and Lisa Farquhar, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01399-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer and/or other medical conditions 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Gawron Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gawron, Jr. and Amanda Gawron, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL,
INC.; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No.
2:23-cv-01400-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer and/or other medical conditions 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Acosta Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE ACOSTA, individually and as parent and natural guardian of
M.A., minor child; GABRIEL ACOSTA; GABRIEL ACOSTA, Jr.; MARILENA
ACOSTA; CLAUDIO ACOSTA; ALICYA ALTAMIRANO, individually and as
parent and natural guardian of S.G. and J.G., minor children;
ANTHONY ALTAMIRANO; KYLE AMES, individually and as parent and
natural guardian of M.A., O.A., and P.A.; TORIN ANTIJUNTI; VICTORIA
ANTIJUNTI; RONALD BOSTER; PAMELA BOSTER; DEBBY BROWN; DOUG SIMPSON;
RICHARD HAYES; MARY HAYES; BRAD HYATT; BRANDI HYATT; JENNIFER
MCINNIS; DARIK ROCHON; TASHA MCLEMORE; WILL MCLEMORE; MARK MEYOCKS;
RENEE MEYOCKS; CODY MEYOCKS; MADISON MEYOCKS, LANCE OSTROM;
CHARLENE OSTROM; JAMIE PARKER; LANDON PARKER; GERALD RAFN; JILL
RAFN; JESSICA RICHARDS, individually and as parent and next friend
of G.B. and K.F., minor children; SONIA SERRANO, individually and
as parent and next friend of E.V., minor child; JOSE VARGAS; JUAN
VARGAS; TROY SLOBIG; CORY SLOBIG; ROBERT SMOOT; CARRIE VALENCIA;
AUDOMARO VALENCIA; EVELYN VANDENHEUVEL; RICHARD VANDENHEUVEL;
MATTHEW VOGEL; JENNA VOGEL; JUSTIN WERST, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE 3M
COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC, INC.,
f/k/a Asahi Glass Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION, ARKEMA INC.; ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS
INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY;KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; and TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03068 (E.D. Wash., May
17, 2023) is an action arising from the foreseeable contamination
of groundwater by the use of aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF")
products that contained per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"), including perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA").
According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold AFFF/Component Products with the
knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the
environment during fire protection, training, and response
activities, even when used as directed and intended by the
Defendants.
Beginning in 2020, the Army began testing drinking water wells on
and around the YTC for PFAS. On-base use of firefighting foams that
contain PFAS has contaminated groundwater, including off-base
private drinking water wells west of the Yakima Training Center
("YTC").
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's acts and
omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered injury and damages from the
presence of PFAS in their water wells, says the suit.
3M COMPANY conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dave Bricklin, Esq.
Zachary Griefen, Esq.
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
123 NW 36th Street Suite 205
Seattle, WA 98107
Telephone: (206) 264-8600
Email: bricklin@bnd-law.com
griefen@bnd-law.com
- and -
Patrick Lanciotti, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 397-1000
Email: planciotti@napolilaw.com
ATMOSPHERE GASTROPUB: Devillaz Wage Suit Tossed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC DEVILLAZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATMOSPHERE GASTROPUB, INC.,
MICHAEL DAVIS, MEGAN DAVIS, and STEVEN BAILEY, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 22-cv-0126-WJM-MDB (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants in
part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Devillaz sues Atmosphere, Michael Davis, Megan Davis, and Steven
Bailey for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201, et seq., as amended ("FLSA"), the Colorado Wage Claim
Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sections 8-4-101, et seq. ("CWCA"), and
Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order ("COMPS Order")
#36, 7 Colo. Code Regs. 1103-1 (together, "Colorado Wage Laws").
Now before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6).
The lawsuit is a class and collective action brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b). The putative class and collective members are all
individuals employed or formerly employed by Defendants as "front
of the house" employees. The Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated individuals he seeks to represent include current and
former servers, who are tipped employees under the FLSA and
Colorado Wage Laws.
The Defendants operate the "Back East" and "Atmosphere" restaurants
in Colorado Springs and Denver, Colorado. The Plaintiff and the
putative collective members were employed at one or more of the
Defendants' restaurant locations within the three years preceding
the filing of this lawsuit. He alleges the Defendants required
servers at both restaurants to contribute to a tip pool of which
the Defendants distributed a significant portion to owners,
management, kitchen staff and/or other employees who are not
customarily and regularly tipped in violation of federal and state
law. He also alleges the Defendant failed to provide employees the
meal and rest breaks required" by the Colorado Wage Laws.
Paystubs attached to the Motion show the Plaintiff was at all times
paid more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. This is
because Colorado's "tipped wage" was already $8.08 per hour when
the Plaintiff began working at Atmosphere in 2019 and increased to
$9.30 per hour by the time his employment ended in 2021.
First, the Defendants argue the Court lacks jurisdiction on the
basis that Plaintiff's FLSA claim (the only federal claim between
these non-diverse parties) was stated solely to obtain Federal
jurisdiction and is insubstantial and wholly frivolous. In their
view, this is so because the Plaintiff was always paid more than
$7.25 per hour, and they state in a footnote that these facts also
implicate Article III standing.
Because the Congress has specifically prohibited employers covered
by the FLSA from diverting employee tips to managers regardless of
whether they take the tip credit, Judge Martinez finds that the
Plaintiff has standing, and the Court has jurisdiction over his
FLSA claim.
The Defendants next argue that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because: (1) he always received a
wage in excess of $7.25 per hour; and (2) he fails to effectively
plead that Carrie Platzer--who allegedly participated in the tip
pool--was a manager. As his analysis makes clear, Judge Martinez
says that the Defendants did not claim the federal tip credit is
not the insurmountable obstacle to the Plaintiff's FLSA claim they
believe it to be.
The Defendants then argue the Plaintiff has not pleaded (and cannot
plead) facts that plausibly allege that Carrie Platzer was a
manager within the meaning of the FLSA and implementing
regulations. Judge Martinez disagrees with their assertion that the
Plaintiff cannot plead facts plausibly alleging Platzer was a
manager. Therefore, the Plaintiff's FLSA claim is dismissed without
prejudice.
Because the Plaintiff's FLSA claim arises from the same set of
operative facts as his state-law claims, the Court has supplemental
jurisdiction over those claims. But the case is now in a
fundamentally altered procedural posture because the Court is
dismissing the Plaintiff's only federal claim. Therefore, Judge
Martinez also dismisses the Plaintiff's state claims without
prejudice.
For these reasons, Judge Martinez grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. He dismisses the First Amended
Class Action and Collective Action Complaint without prejudice. He
dismisses the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Approval of
Hoffman-LaRoche Notice as moot. Pursuant to its terms, the Stay
Order of the Magistrate Judge is lifted.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/afrlx from Leagle.com.
AUSTRALIA: Settles PFAS Class Action Suit for $22-M
---------------------------------------------------
David Simmons of Business News Australia reports that Law firm
Shine Justice (ASX: SHJ) has settled another class action lawsuit
relating to exposure to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl) chemicals
to the tune of $22 million, subject to Federal Court approval.
The settlement comes just around two weeks after Shine reached a
$132.7 million settlement in a class action on behalf of a group
affected by toxic PFAS chemicals who alleged their properties lost
value due to land contamination.
PFAS substances, found in firefighting foam, are a complex group of
around 4,000 synthetic chemicals that do not break down naturally
and instead accumulate over time in humans and in the environment
This latest settlement in the matter of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal
Community Council resolves a dispute between the applicants and the
Commonwealth of Australia, with affected community members claiming
losses to property value and use and enjoyment of the land, as well
as cultural losses due to exposure to firefighting foam around
Wreck Bay in the Jervis Bay Territory.
It also comes after Shine successfully secured a $215.5 million
settlement for thousands of victims of PFAS chemical contamination
via a deal struck in 2020.
That settlement gave closure to residents in Katherine in the
Northern Territory, those in Williamtown in New South Wales and
occupants of Oakey, Queensland whose property values declined in
value as a result of PFAS contamination.
Shares in SHJ are down 3.45 per cent to $0.70 per share at 12.27pm
AEST. [GN]
AXIOM PRODUCT: Gaillard Appeals Dismissal Ruling in Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff FRANCINE GAILLARD filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated May 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
FRANCINE GAILLARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, a
division of Capital One, N.A.; AXIOM PRODUCT ADMINISTRATION, LLC;
and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02228-JMC, in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina at
Columbia.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of contract, fraud in the
inducement, breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act, and
violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act
(SCUTPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
The case arises from the Defendants' refusal to honor the terms of
Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) products they sell to consumers
purchasing financed automobiles. Defendant Axiom Product
Administration administers GAP waiver products on behalf of finance
companies like Capital One and John Doe Defendants and it breaches
the contractual terms governing the GAP product terms it created by
basing its payment on an actual cash valuation method of their own
choosing, rather than the collision insurance payment, resulting in
a substantial underpayment on each claim. The Defendants have
refused to waive balances due when required under the terms of GAP
products administered by Axiom on behalf of those Defendants and
incorporated as addenda to the Plaintiff and other Class members'
loan agreements. The Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered loss and damages because of the breach of the loan
agreement, including loss of funds and the inability to obtain
credit, the suit alleges.
On September 2, 2021, Defendant Capital One Auto Finance filed a
motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and and to
strike class allegations. On September 3, Axiom Product
Administration also filed a motion to dismiss the case.
On September 29, 2022, Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendant Capital One's motion
to dismiss. Defendant Axiom's motion to dismiss was also granted in
part and denied in part. Additionally, the court denied Capital
One's alternative Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations.
The Plaintiff may proceed with her claims for breach of contract
and violation of the FCRA against Capital One individually and as a
class representative. Further, Plaintiff may proceed with her cause
of action alleging a violation of SCUTPA against Axiom in her
individual capacity only.
On May 5, 2023, Judge Lydon signed another Order dismissing all of
Plaintiff's federal claims when it dismissed Defendant Capital One
from this case. All that is left is a single state-law claim
against Defendant Axiom where the alleged damages are, according to
Plaintiff Gaillard, worth less than $5,000. And, as Plaintiff
Gaillard points out, the parties have not yet engaged in discovery.
For these reasons, the court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff Gaillard's remaining claim against
Defendant Axiom and dismissed the matter.
The appellate case is captioned as Francine Gaillard v. Axiom
Product Administration LLC, Case No. 23-1524, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 12,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant FRANCINE GAILLARD, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Phillip Donald Barber, Esq.
Andrew Richard Hand, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA
1410 Laurel Street
P. O. Box 1090
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
- and -
J. Derrick Jackson, Esq.
Tobias G. Ward, Jr., Esq.
TOBIAS G. WARD, JR. LAW FIRM
P. O. Box 50124
Columbia, SC 29250
Telephone: (803) 708-4200
Defendant-Appellee AXIOM PRODUCT ADMINISTRATION LLC is represented
by:
Christopher Lee Boguski, Esq.
Joseph Calhoun Watson, Esq.
ROBINSON GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC
P. O. Box 11449
Columbia, SC 29211
Telephone: (803) 929-1400
BAYER US: Avoids Amended Class Action Over Benzene in Fungal Sprays
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah of Bloomberg Law reports that Bayer US LLC is free
from a class action suit over benzene contamination in its
antifungal sprays.
The pharmaceutical company had voluntarily recalled Tinactin and
Lotrimin—used for various skin infections—because several
products had levels of benzene, a carcinogen, higher than the Food
and Drug Administration's limits. Consumers who had bought the
products sued in the US District Court for the District of New
Jersey, arguing that but for contamination during Bayer's
manufacturing process, they were unable to benefit from the
purchased spray, and the compensation for this loss was
insufficient. [GN]
BETTERHELP INC: R.S. Files Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BetterHelp, Inc. The
case is styled as R.S., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BetterHelp, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01839-RS
(N.D. Cal., April 14, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
BetterHelp -- https://www.betterhelp.com/ -- is a mental health
platform that provides online mental health services directly to
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Jerome Muller, Esq.
VENTURA HERSEY & MULLER, LLP
1506 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
Phone: (408) 512-3022
Fax: (408) 512-3023
Email: dmuller@venturahersey.com
BLEACHER REPORT: Sorensen Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tom Sorensen, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BLEACHER REPORT, INC., Case No.
2023CH02104 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on April 21, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-02518.
On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff Tom Sorensen filed a complaint (the
"State Complaint") in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois. The State Complaint asserts a single claim under
the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA"), based on
Bleacher Report's alleged practice of knowingly disclosing to Meta
Platforms, Inc. information about what videos specific individuals
watched on Bleacherreport.com through use of the Meta Pixel and
Meta's c_user cookie.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Adam Florek, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: 314-833-4825
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
aflorek@peifferwolf
- and -
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Catherine T Mitchell, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian A. Sher, Esq.
Steven G. Trubac, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Phone: (312) 602-5000
Facsimile: (312) 602-5050
Email: brian.sher@bclplaw.com
steve.trubac@bclplaw.com
- and -
David L. Yohai, Esq.
Blake J. Steinberg, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
Email: david.yohai@weil.com
blake.steinberg@weil.com
- and -
David R. Singh, Esq.
Amy T. Le, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Phone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
Email: david.singh@weil.com
amy.le@weil.com
BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Bowens Claims Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES ANTHONY BOWENS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (2), Civil Action No. 17-3054 (E.D. La.),
Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana:
a. grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America
Production Company, and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the
testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert,
Dr. Jerald Cook and their motion for summary judgment; and
b. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of
Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged
spoliation.
The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and
dispersants from his work as an onshore cleanup worker. They
represent that this exposure has resulted in the following health
problems: headaches, bronchitis, upper respiratory infection,
shortness of breath, heart palpitations, chronic rhinitis,
gastroesophageal reflux disease, abdominal pains, chronic
heartburn, rashes, blisters, dermatitis, boils, chronic blurred
vision, burning eyes, and loss of visual acuity.
The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case
was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for the
Plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After his
case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff
asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se,
and gross negligence against the defendants as a result of the oil
spill and its cleanup.
To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and
dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his
complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and
environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert
offering an opinion on general causation. In his March 14, 2022
report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine
if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures
sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work.
The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be
excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful.
The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if
Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is
unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both
motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record
quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to
spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a
sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion.
Judge Lemmon finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of
exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions
asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion
unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general
causation. The Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of
Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the
reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr.
Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts
necessary" to establish general causation in the case, Judge Lemmon
grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony.
Putting aside that the Plaintiff has not shown sanctionable conduct
by BP, Judge Lemmon holds that Dr. Cook's report is flawed in ways
unrelated to BP's decision not to conduct monitoring. Dr. Cook's
failure to link any specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly
suffered by the Plaintiff prevents the admission of Cook's opinion.
Judge Lemmon thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's
report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements
of Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Finally, given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element
of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed.
Accordingly, Judge Lemmon grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://rb.gy/dixjz from Leagle.com.
CAROTHERS HOLDING: Simpson Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hubert Simpson, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Carothers Holding Company, LLC
doing business as: York Memorial Park Cemetery; StoneMor GP, LLC;
StoneMor North Carolina, LLC; StoneMor North Carolina Funeral
Services, Inc.; StoneMor North Carolina Subsidiary, LLC; StoneMor
Partners, LP; Case No. 23-CVS-4982 was removed from the Mecklenburg
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina on April 14, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00217-KDB-SCR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Carothers Holding Company, LLC doing business as York Memorial Park
Cemetery is a Memorial park in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pamela A. Hunter, Esq.
715 East Fifth Street, Ste. 106
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (412) 370-9110
Email: bobmackeyesq@aol.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony T. Lathrop, Esq.
William Medearis Butler, II, Esq.
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
100 N. Tryon Street, Suite 4700
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 331-3596
Fax: (704) 339-5896
Email: tonylathrop@mvalaw.com
billbutler@mvalaw.com
- and -
Brian S. Cromwell, Esq.
PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
Bank of America Tower
620 South Tryon Street, Suite 800
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 335-9511
Fax: (704) 334-4706
Email: briancromwell@parkerpoe.com
CENTERSPACE LP: Court Narrows Claims in Hall Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Gary Hall, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Centerspace, LP, and Centerspace,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2028 (KMM/DJF) (D. Minn.), Jude
Katherine Menendez of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss Hall's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
In November of 2021, Centerspace LP learned that computer hackers
accessed its data systems, including files containing the personal
identifying information of the company's customers and employees.
After investigating the incident, in July of 2022, it notified the
people whose information may have been exposed, including Hall.
Hall filed a class-action Complaint, alleging that the company's
improper handling of its data security caused the unauthorized
exposure of his personal information to third parties.
The Defendants own and operate apartment complexes in Colorado,
Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Hall was an
employee of IRET Property Management, a Centerspace LP subsidiary
or its predecessor. His employer was a property manager for the
Centerspace-owned apartment complexes.
Hall was required to provide his personal identifying information
("PII") to his employer. Similarly, other Centerspace employees,
prospective employees, tenants, and prospective tenants were
required to give Defendants their PII as a condition of their
housing or employment relationships. The PII includes names, bank
account information, and social security numbers. Hall trusted that
Centerspace LP would use reasonable measures to protect his PII
according to its internal policies and state and federal law.
On Nov. 11, 2021, Centerspace LP learned that it had experienced a
data security breach, which disrupted access to its computer
systems. Centerspace looked into the incident, hiring independent
digital forensics analysts and an incident response firm. On
November 15th, the company discovered that computer files
potentially containing PII were accessed by unauthorized third
parties. However, Centerspace LP did not notify those potentially
affected by the data breach until July 2022. The data breach
affected 8,190 people, including current and former employees and
current and former tenants.
On information and belief, Hall alleges that Centerspace failed to
adequately train its employees on reasonable cybersecurity
protocols or implement reasonable security measures, causing it to
lose control over consumer PII. The Defendants allegedly acted
negligently by failing to prevent the data breach and to stop
cybercriminals from accessing the PII that they maintain. The
Complaint asserts that Defendants were unable or unwilling to
notify current and former employees and tenants about the breach
without unreasonable delay. And the Defendants allegedly waited
until after the data breach to implement digital security measures
to make future breaches of their systems less likely.
Further, Hall alleges that because of the data breach he has
experienced several types of harms. He has already and will
continue to spend considerable time and effort monitoring his
accounts to protect himself from identity theft. He has concerns
about his financial security and is uncertain about what
information was exposed in the data breach. The breach has caused
him to experience feelings of anxiety, sleep disruption, stress,
fear, and frustration.
Hall asserts that he and the proposed members of the class have
suffered monetary losses, lost time, anxiety, and emotional
distress. In addition, they have suffered or are at an increased
risk of suffering the following harms: (a) lost opportunity to
control use of their PII; (b) diminution in value of their PII; (c)
compromise and publication of their PII; (d) out-of-pocket costs
associated with prevention, detection, recovery, and remediation
from identity theft or fraud; (e) lost opportunity costs and lost
wages associated with time and effort to address or mitigate the
consequences of the Data Breach; (f) delayed receipt of tax
refunds; (g) unauthorized use of stolen PII; and (h) continued risk
to their PII, which remains in Defendants' possession.
In explaining why the Defendants are responsible for these harms,
Hall alleges that the Defendants failed to adhere to Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC") guidelines in protecting the PII they possessed.
He asserts that the Defendants' failure to follow the FTC's
recommendations constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 45.
Hall seeks to represent a class of "all individuals residing in the
United States whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach
disclosed by Centerspace in July 2022." He brings the following
claims: negligence (Count I); breach of implied contract (Count
II); unjust enrichment (Count III); and declaratory judgment (Count
IV). In his Prayer for Relief, he seeks certification of the class,
declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, restitution, attorneys'
fees and costs, interest, and other appropriate relief.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants challenge Hall's
standing under Article III of the Constitution to assert claims
against Centerspace, Inc. and to pursue future injunctive relief.
They also argue that his remaining claims should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
Judge Menendez grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. She dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's
claims against Centerspace, Inc. based on the Plaintiff's agreement
and the Plaintiff's claims for forward-looking declaratory and
injunctive relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She
dismisses the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment in Count III
of the Complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Menendez
denies the Defendants' Motion in all other respects.
Among other things, Judge Menendez finds that (i) Hall has
adequately alleged a breach; (ii) Hall has not adequately alleged
an unjust enrichment claim because he does not identify a benefit
plausibly conferred upon Centerspace through the provision of PII;
and (iii) although Centerspace has pointed to cases in its briefing
that have granted Rule 12(b)(6) motions based on insufficient
damages claims, none are binding authority.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/afvux from Leagle.com.
CERENCE INC: Pena Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Pena, A.P., a minor, by and through her
guardian, Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals v. Cerence Inc., Case No. 23STCV06839 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 28, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02667 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Cerence Inc. -- http://www.cerence.com/-- is an American
multinational software company that develops artificial
intelligence assistant technology primarily for automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
Colin Primo Buscarini, Esq.
Paul T. Geske, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
cbuscarini@mcgpc.com
pgeske@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
Amy Yongmee Cho, Esq.
Mehgan Etain Hayt Keeley, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
111 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 704-7777
Email: mwolfe@shb.com
acho@shb.com
mkeeley@shb.com
CERTAINTEED LLC: Trejo-Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANCISCO TREJO-RAMIREZ, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERTAINTEED
LLC, a limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. MCV088583, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Madera
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on May 15, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00874 to the proceeding.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, seven total causes of action, six of
which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and
one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business &
Professions Code.
CertainTeed LLC is a North American manufacturer of building
materials.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Melis Atalay, Esq.
Daniel N. Rojas, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
CHARTER FINANCIAL: Kotila Must Provide Specific Class Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW KOTILA, Plaintiff v. CHARTER FINANCIAL
PUBLISHING NETWORK, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-704 (W.D.
Mich.), Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class for purposes of damages on
the condition that he provides a more definite class definition.
The lawsuit is a putative class action asserting violations of
Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), Mich. Comp.
Laws Section 445.1711, et seq. Charter defaulted by failing to
appear or otherwise respond to the complaint.
Kotila is a Michigan resident. Charter is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in New Jersey. It publishes a
magazine called Financial Advisor. Kotila subscribed to this
magazine before July 31, 2016. He alleges that Charter disclosed
his name, address, and magazine subscription to data aggregators
and other third parties sometime before July 31, 2016. As a result,
Kotila received a barrage of unwanted junk mail.
Until the PPPA was amended in July 2016, it prohibited a person
engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or lending
books or other written materials, sound recordings, or video
recordings from disclosing to any person, other than the customer,
a record or information concerning the purchase, lease, rental, or
borrowing of those materials by a customer that indicates the
identity of the customer. That version of the PPPA also entitled
the customer to recover the following for a violation of the
statute: actual damages, damages for emotional distress, or $5,000,
whichever is greater, as well as costs and reasonable attorney
fees. The amended version of the PPPA in effect today no longer
provides for $5,000 in statutory damages; it requires plaintiffs to
prove actual damages to recover under the statute.
Kotila's claim relies on the earlier version of the PPPA. He
alleges that Charter disclosed his information during the relevant
pre-July 31, 2016 time period without obtaining his consent to do
so. He seeks to represent a class of other Michigan residents whose
information was disclosed by Charter prior to July 31, 2016. He
seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation of the PPPA.
Kotila asks to certify the following class: All Michigan residents
who, at any point during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time
period, had their Private Reading Information disclosed to third
parties by Charter without consent.
Judge Jarbou opines that Kotila has shown that class certification
is warranted. But, before she certifies a particular class, Judge
Jarbou requires Kotila to provide a more specific class definition
as his definition is not sufficiently definite to determine whether
an individual is a member of the proposed class. Kotila also asks
the Court to allow him to conduct discovery on third parties so
that he can identify class members and calculate damages for
purposes of default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2). Because the class
definition will likely guide discovery, Judge Jarbou does not
consider such a request until after Kotila submits, and the Court
approves, a satisfactory class definition. At that point, Kotila
can file a separate motion for discovery.
An order will be entered in accordance with Judge Jarbou's
Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://rb.gy/x9g5p from Leagle.com.
CHEAP CHARLIE'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Herrera et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROMULO HERRERA, CALEB GONZALEZ, EDWIN DURAN, JORGE GONZALEZ, ERICK
GUARDADO, NOE GONZALEZ, GEOVANNY RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARLES ZANGHI,
MICHELE IRVING, MICHELE ZANGHI, CHEAP CHARLIE'S TREE SERVICE, CMZ
LEASING CORP. d/b/a CHEAP CHARLIE'S TREE SERVICE, CHEAP CHARLIE'S
TREE & LANDSCAPE DESIGN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03726
(E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Romulo Herrera was employed by Defendants as a driver,
tree pruner, cutter, planter, trimmer, machine operator, and
overall construction worker from before the statutory time until
April 2023. He generally worked over 40 hours a week. However, the
Defendants allegedly had a policy and practice of refusing to pay
overtime compensation to Plaintiffs for those hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. Among other things, the Defendants
also failed to provide itemized wage statements as required by the
NYLL, say the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants provide land management and tree care services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
Hempstead, NY 11550
Telephone: (516) 280-4600
Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com
COCA-COLA CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Mislabeled Water
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP of Lexology reports that on May 19,
Coca-Cola filed a motion to dismiss in an Illinois federal court,
requesting the judge to throw out a proposed class action alleging
it misleads consumers into thinking its Fresca brand of soda water
contains real fruit with no added sweetener. See Letoski et al. v.
The Coca-Cola Co., case number 1:23-cv-00238, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Earlier this year, consumers filed suit against Coca-Cola, alleging
that its Fresca products' "Grapefruit" and "Black Cherry" flavor
descriptions, which are accompanied by vignettes of the relevant
fruits, caused them to believe the soft drinks contain
"non-negligible amounts" of "fruit ingredients." Although the
products contain "concentrated grapefruit juice," the complaint
alleges that the amount must necessarily be "de minimis" because
(1) there is less grapefruit juice than "citric acid"; and (2)
"based on industry estimates of the use of citric acid in
carbonated beverages" the Fresca products probably contain "roughly
0.60 grams of citric acid." This is deceptive, the complaint
alleges, because the products contain only "fruit flavoring."
Further, the plaintiffs allege that the term "soda water" caused
them to think that Fresca is simply "carbonated water" without any
"added sweeteners or flavorings," when the Fresca products contain
aspartame, a non-nutritive sweetener.
In its motion to dismiss, Coca Cola contends that the product
labels are in full compliance with FDA' food labeling regulations,
arguing that the characterizing flavor regulation at 21 CFR
101.22(i) do not require real fruit ingredients to be in a product
bearing fruit-related terms and vignettes, but rather must be
accompanied only by a disclosure about the source(s) of the
product's flavoring ingredients (e.g., "natural flavors," "other
natural flavors," or "artificial flavors"). Thus, according to the
defendant, the ""Black Cherry Citrus Flavor with Other Natural &
Artificial Flavors" designation and fruit vignette on Fresca
communicates that the beverage contains black cherry flavors, not
actual cherry ingredients. Additionally, the Fresca products
contain "concentrated grapefruit juice," a fruit-based ingredient.
Additionally, Coca Cola argues that plaintiffs have no basis to
conclude the term "soda water" promises consumers a product with no
added sweeteners, claiming the use of the artificial sweetener
aspartame in Fresca is properly disclosed on product labeling. The
company reasoned that a reasonable consumer interested in knowing
about the presence of sweeteners in product can find the
ingredients declared on the product ingredient list. [GN]
COOPER PROPERTIES: Moore Sues Over Wrongful Security Deposit Amount
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COOPER PROPERTIES D/B/A CASA D'ORO
APARTMENTS PARTNERSHIP, Defendants, Case No. CACE-23-013787 (Fla.
Cir., 7th Judicial, Broward Cty., May 18, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act and actions that constitute common law fraud.
Allegedly, the Defendant unlawfully assessed Plaintiff Moore's
charges and/or amounts that Defendant did not actually incur and
are considered normal wear and tear. The Defendant sent a letter,
dated March 20, 2023, to Plaintiff Moore in an attempt to collect
the $3,632.00 worth of damages/services.
Cooper Properties, Inc. d/b/a Casa D'Oro Apartments Partnership is
a Florida Corporation with its principal place of business located
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street,Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: shannon@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Bedbug Infestation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah of Bloomberg Law reports that a retirement center
must face a class action over its alleged refusal to deal with a
rampant bedbug infestation.
The elderly residents of Cross-Lines Retirement Center in Kansas
City, Kan. can move forward on five issues alleging breach of
standard of care for failing to maintain their properties and
selling them above fair market value, US District Court for the
District of Kansas Judge Eric F. Melgren said in an order on May
24, 2023.
The plaintiffs cannot use the action to learn whether every tenant
was affected by the infestation, the judge said. [GN]
DAISO CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Fukaya Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKIKO FUKAYA, v. DAISO
CALIFORNIA LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00099-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Daiso's motion to dismiss and to strike
class claims:
-- The Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claim is dismissed
with leave to amend. Her prayer for injunctive relief with
respect to her CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims is dismissed with
leave
to amend.
-- The parties are referred to a randomly-assigned magistrate
judge
for a settlement conference to be held at a date and time
agreed
to by the magistrate judge and parties.
-- The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before June
15, 2023. The parties may stipulate to continue
this date and all other deadlines pending the settlement
conference.
Daiso moves to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations as
unmanageable and to require the Plaintiff to cover the costs of
class notice. Those arguments may be properly considered at the
class certification stage, but are now premature. Thus, Daiso's
motion to dismiss or strike on this basis is denied.
The Plaintiff brings consumer protection claims related to Daiso's
failure to label its products as containing tree nuts, a common
allergen.
Food allergies can provoke life-threatening response, including
anaphylaxis, from the body's immune system. Allergies to tree nuts,
such as walnuts, almonds, hazelnuts, pecans, cashews, and
pistachios, are fairly common. Along with peanuts and shellfish,
tree nuts are one of the allergens most often linked to
anaphylaxis.
The Plaintiff is a California resident who is allergic to tree
nuts. In summer 2022, she bought the Tiramisu Twist Cookie packaged
food product at a Daiso store in Daly City. Daiso has more than
3,000 stores in Japan and 2,300 outside of Japan, including 89 in
the United States (California, Washington, Nevada, Texas, New
Jersey, and New York).
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OqDwYU at no extra charge.[CC]
DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff TRAVONNE HOOKS filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order and Judgment dated April 12, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled TRAVONNE HOOKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIGNITY HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-07699-DSF-PD, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all
persons who contracted with Defendant for access to their personal
electronic health information records and were denied access to
their PHI or were provided with their PHI in an impermissible
format or incomplete file in violation of the Health Information
Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act.
The case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Oct. 21, 2022.
On Dec. 27, 2022, Judge Dale S. Fischer of the Central District of
California denied Hooks' November 18, 2022 motion to remand to Los
Angeles County Superior Court.
On March 9, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On March 16, 2023, Judge Fischer granted a joint stipulation to
continue briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
On April 12, 2023, Judge Fischer signed an Order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Judgment says that Plaintiff
take nothing; the breach of contract claim is dismissed with
prejudice; all other claims is dismissed without prejudice; and
Defendant recover costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1920.
The appellate case is captioned as Travonne Hooks v. Dignity
Health, et al., Case No. 23-55434, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Travonne Hooks Mediation Questionnaire was due on
May 19, 2023;
-- Transcript was ordered May 12, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on June 12, 2023;
-- Appellant Travonne Hooks opening brief is due on July 21,
2023;
-- Appellee Dignity Health answering brief is due on August 21,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant TRAVONNE HOOKS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jason Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Defendant-Appellee DIGNITY HEALTH is represented by:
Peggy Kozal, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3400
Denver, CO 80230
Telephone: (303) 200-6888
- and -
Craig J. Mariam, Esq.
GORDON & REES, LLP
633 W 5th Street, 52nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-5000
DNC PARKS: Discovery Dispute Hearing in Vega Set for July 19
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SOCORRO VEGA, v. DNC
PARKS & RESORTS AT ASILOMAR, INC., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone
entered an order that:
1. The parties shall meet and confer to determine the propriety
of
a stipulation to strike some or all of the declarations of
the
witnesses Kalli Southwood, Reina Oviedo, Alfredo Marquez, and
Sandra Diaz from the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
2. Any such stipulation shall be filed no later than the close
of
business, May 16, 2023.
3. If the parties are unable to reach a stipulation to strike
the
witnesses' declarations, the Defendant is granted leave to
file a
motion for discovery sanctions, including a request for
reasonable fees and costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37 no later than May 31, 2023, with the hearing on
such motion to be set for July 19, 2023.
4. If the Defendant files a Rule 37 motion, the Court shall sua
sponte continue the briefing and hearing dates for the class
certification motion.
The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action on April 12,
2029. Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, the
pre-certification discovery cutoff was set for December 14, 2022.
The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class on February 17, 2023.
The hearing on the motion was originally set for April 26, 2023.
On March 23, 2023, the Court continued the pre-certification
discovery deadline to June 9, 2023
On May 10, 2023, the parties appeared by videoconference for an
informal discovery conference.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BLAxTf at no extra charge.[CC]
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Shield Class Suit Over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims Dollar Tree has misled consumers by selling
glucosamine sulfate supplements that, in fact, contain no
glucosamine sulfate.
The 34-page lawsuit says that the front label of the Nature's
Measure supplement describes the product as "Glucosamine Sulfate,"
and the back-label "Supplement Facts" panel indicates that each
tablet contains 500 milligrams of "Glucosamine Sulfate 2KCl."
Despite these representations, independent lab testing has revealed
that the supplements contain no glucosamine sulfate, but rather a
blend of potassium sulfate and glucosamine hydrochloride, a form of
glucosamine widely considered to be less effective than its sulfate
counterpart, the suit relays.
"The lab test did not simply show that there was . . . less
[glucosamine sulfate] than the label claimed -- the test showed
that there was . . . no [glucosamine sulfate] in the pills that
were tested," the complaint shares.
The products' marketing is misleading because the labels in no way
suggest that the Nature's Measure items actually contain
glucosamine hydrochloride and potassium sulfate, the case argues.
The filing explains that glucosamine, a natural substance taken as
a supplement to help treat joint pain and symptoms of arthritis, is
available in two forms: glucosamine sulfate and glucosamine
hydrochloride. Per the lawsuit, consumers favor glucosamine sulfate
and are willing to pay more for it because it is "clinically
preferred" over glucosamine hydrochloride and commonly believed to
perform better.
By law, a food product such as the supplement at issue is
misbranded if its label fails to list the name and quantity of each
ingredient found inside, the suit says.
ClassAction.org previously helped with this glucosamine supplement
lawsuit investigation.
According to the case, the plaintiff, a Los Angeles resident, would
not have paid as much for a bottle of Nature's Measure glucosamine
sulfate, or purchased it at all, if he had known the supplement did
not in fact contain glucosamine sulfate, as advertised.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased Nature's Measure-brand glucosamine sulfate dietary
supplements within the applicable statutes of limitations period.
[GN]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in McConnell Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MCCONNELL, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09105-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/42U70SV at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Miser Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELODY MISER, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09023-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/3Mn3MSA at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Neff Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP NEFF, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09107-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/41tVDA0 at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Revis Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTY HILL REVIS, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09082-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/41C6NCG at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Robinson Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES ROBINSON, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09092-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/3Ma8q5c at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Rutkowski Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICK RUTKOWSKI v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-00705-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/3I8yLz6 at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sutton Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON SUTTON, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09052-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/42zQnMG at no extra charge.[CC]
DXC TECHNLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the securities class suit in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.
On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former
officer of the Company, among other defendants.
The action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is premised on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of
material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected
performance.
The putative class of plaintiffs includes all persons who acquired
shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to the offering
documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC.
The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome
of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021.
Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order
permitting additional briefing by the parties.
In March 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the
Company moved to dismiss.
In August 2022, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
but permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint.
In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Company moved to dismiss.
In January 2023, the Court issued an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
In March 2023, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial
date for September 2025. The case is now in discovery.
The Company believes that the final remaining lawsuit described
above is also without merit, and intends to vigorously defend it.
DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.
EQUIFAX INFO: June 26 Extension of Expert Reports Submission Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O.,
Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC. Case No.
1:21-cv-02056-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Parties file a joint motion to
modify scheduling order:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
The Plaintiff's Reply in May 12, 2023 May 26, 2023
further support of Class
Certification:
Affirmative Expert Reports May 15, 2023 May 26, 2023
Exchanged:
Responsive Expert Reports June 19, 2023 June 26,
2023
Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial,
consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MLUfoh at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW, LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
FCA US: VanGee Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------
The case styled as Tim VanGee, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Stellantis N.V., Case No.
CV23-00102 was removed from the 235th Judicial District Court of
Cooke County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on April 28, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00375-SDJ to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Givens Emerson, Jr., Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Phone: (800) 551-8649
Fax: (501) 286-4659
Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kamran Adam Anwar, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP - DALLAS
2100 Ross Avenue Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (972) 629-7122
Fax: (972) 629-7171
Email: kanwar@thompsoncoburn.com
FORD MOTOR: McCabe Sues Over Undisclosed Transmission Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel McCabe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-10829-FDS (D.
Mass., April 18, 2023), is brought on behalf of all similarly
situated persons ("Class Members") who purchased or leased a Ford
vehicle equipped with a 10R80 10-speed transmission ("10R80" or
"Transmission") that were designed, manufactured, distributed,
marketed, sold, and leased by Defendant or Defendant's parent,
subsidiary, or affiliates thereof; arising from the Defendant's
breach of its obligations and duties, including the Defendant's
omissions and failure to disclose that, as a result of the
Transmission Defect, Class Vehicles may shift harshly, slip gears,
hesitate, or surge, creating an unreasonable risk of serious bodily
harm and death..
The Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold,
and leased Ford Expeditions, Mustangs, Rangers, F-150s, and
Navigators equipped with the 10R80 from at least 2017 to present
("Class Vehicles" or "Vehicles"). The Defendant knew or should have
known that the Vehicles contain one or more design and/or
manufacturing defects, including but not limited to defects
contained in the Vehicles' 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission
that can shift harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to
jerk, lunge, clunk, and hesitate between gears. Some consumers have
even reported experiencing a sudden loss of power while driving
their vehicle.
An automatic transmission is essentially an automatic gear shifter.
Instead of manually shifting the gears with a clutch, the automatic
transmission shifts gears on its own. The transmission acts as a
powertrain to convert the vehicle engine's force into a controlled
source of power. Accordingly, drivers need a properly functioning
automatic transmission in order to safely and reliably accelerate
and decelerate their Vehicles. A common design and/or manufacturing
defect in Ford's 10R80 transmissions is a potentially
life-threatening safety issue, and Ford has refused to recall or
replace the defective Transmissions. Ford's warranty states that
"dealers will, without charge, repair, replace, or adjust all parts
on your vehicle that malfunction or fail during normal use during
the applicable coverage period due to a manufacturing defect in
factory-supplied materials or factory workmanship."
Upon information and belief, and based on interactions between
Plaintiff and Ford authorized dealers, Ford refuses to replace or
repair the Transmissions and merely states that the abrupt and
harsh shifting is normal. Prior to purchasing or leasing the Class
Vehicles, Plaintiff and other Class Members did not know that the
Class Vehicles would abruptly and harshly shift due to the
Transmission Defect and cause their vehicle to unexpectedly surge,
hesitate, and jerk.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that
the Class Vehicles are defective and suffer from the Transmission
Defect and are not fit for their intended purpose of providing
consumers with safe and reliable transportation. Nevertheless,
Defendant failed to disclose this defect to Plaintiff and Class
Members at the time of purchase or lease and thereafter.
Had Plaintiff and Class Members known about the Transmission Defect
at the time of sale or lease, as well as the associated costs
related to the Transmission Defect, Plaintiff and the Class Members
would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less
for them. As a result of their reliance on Defendant's omissions
and/or misrepresentations, Plaintiff and other owners and/or
lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable loss of
money, property, and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicles, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff leased a 2019 Ford Ranger with the 10R80 10-speed
transmission.
Ford, through its various entities, designs, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells its vehicles in this District and many other
locations in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Suite PH
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: 917-471-1894
Facsimile: 310-496-3176
Email: astraus@milberg.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Leland Belew, Esq.
Ryan P. McMillan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: 865-247-0080
Facsimile: 865-522-0049
Email: gcoleman@milberg.com
lbelew@milberg.com
rmcmillan@milberg.com
- and -
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
Tyler Litke, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 630-796-0903
Facsimile: 865-522-0049
Email: mbreit@milberg.com
tlitke@milberg.com
- and -
John R. Fabry, Esq.
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305
Round Rock, Texas 78664
Phone: 512-671-7277
Facsimile: 512-238-0275
Email: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com
- and -
Sidney F. Robert, Esq.
BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES
300 Fannin, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: 713-225-1682
Facsimile: 713-225-1785
Email: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com
- and -
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER LLP
150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-589-6280
Facsimile: 312-275-8174
Email: mrm@wallacemiller.com
GEICO ADVANTAGE: Class Certification Order in Angell Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Philip Angell; Steven Brown; Tonnie Beck; Tammy
Morris; Dawn Burnham, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. GEICO Advantage
Insurance Company; Geico Indemnity Company; Government Employees
Insurance Company; GEICO County Mutual Insurance Company; GEICO
Choice Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 22-20093
(5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms
the district court' order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of insureds claiming that
GEICO failed to fully compensate them for the total loss of their
vehicles under their respective insurance policies. The district
court held that the Plaintiffs had standing to sue on behalf of the
proposed class and subsequently granted class certification. GEICO
now appeals both holdings.
The appeal arises out of a class-action lawsuit filed by
Plaintiffs-Appellees Philip Angell, Steven Brown, Tonnie Beck,
Tammy Morris, and Dawn Burnham against Defendants-Appellants GEICO
Advantage Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., Government Employees
Insurance Co., GEICO County Mutual Insurance Co., and GEICO Choice
Insurance Co. (collectively, "GEICO"). Each Plaintiff possessed a
vehicle that was subject to a private passenger auto insurance
policy with a different Defendant-Appellant (collectively, the
"Policies"). Each Plaintiff's vehicle was involved in an auto
collision while insured under one of the Policies.
The contractual language at issue in the case is identical across
all of the Policies. The Policies provide collision and
comprehensive coverage for a "loss" sustained by a covered vehicle.
The Policies define a "loss" as a direct and accidental loss of or
damage to: a. The auto, including its equipment; or b. Other
insured property. They limit GEICO's liability for a "loss" to the
lesser of the: "a. Actual cash value of the stolen or damaged
property; b. Amount necessary to repair or replace the property
with other of like kind and quality; or c. Amount stated in the
Declarations of this policy." Actual cash value ("ACV") is defined
as the replacement cost of the auto or property less depreciation
and/or betterment.
In March 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint, which
they amended twice. In their second amended complaint (the
"Complaint"), the Plaintiffs allege that the Policies require GEICO
to remit the ACV for a covered vehicle involved in a covered loss
if the amount necessary to repair the vehicle (plus any salvage
value) exceeds the value of the vehicle prior to the loss, that is,
if there is a complete or "total" loss of the vehicle. The
Complaint further alleges that under Texas law, ACV includes a
covered vehicle's sales tax, title fees, and registration fees
(collectively, the "Purchasing Fees"). It also alleges that the
Plaintiffs did not receive ACV payments that included the entirety
of their Purchasing Fees. No Plaintiff claims that he or she has
been denied payment of all three Purchasing Fees.
The Complaint contains six causes of action. The first five counts,
each brought by a specific named Plaintiff against his or her
respective insurance company and on behalf of a proposed class of
similarly situated individuals, allege that GEICO breached the
Policies by failing to pay the entirety of their corresponding the
Plaintiff's Purchasing Fees. Of the five named Plaintiffs, not one
claims that he or she was denied payment of all three of the
individual fees that collectively comprise the Purchasing Fees.
Specifically, Angell, Beck, Morris, and Burnham (all of whom owned
their vehicles), allege that they are owed registration fees
(having received payments for their sales tax and title fees),
while Brown (who leased his vehicle), alleges that he is owed both
his registration fees and sales tax. No named Plaintiff alleges
that he or she is owed his or her title fees. The sixth count,
brought by all Plaintiffs against GEICO on behalf of the entire
proposed class, alleges a violation of the Texas Prompt Payment of
Claims Act (the "TPPCA").
In July 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification, seeking
to represent a class defined as: "All individuals insured under a
Texas auto physical damage policy issued by GEICO who (1) made a
first-party property damage claim from March 5, 2016 through the
date on which the Class is certified, (2) where such claim was
determined to be and adjusted as a total loss," pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
The district court issued an order granting class certification in
November 2021. In its order, the court first addressed GEICO's
argument that Plaintiffs lacked standing to represent their
proposed class, determining that each Plaintiff met Article III's
standing requirement because he or she alleged an underpayment of
ACV traceable to GEICO's alleged breach of contract. The court then
turned to the issue of class certification, ruling that the
Plaintiffs could adequately represent their proposed class and that
the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement. It also certified the class with respect to the
Plaintiffs' TPPCA claim, stating that there was no reason to
distinguish between that claim and the other claims for breach of
the Policies because nothing in the TPPCA would excuse an insurer
from liability for TPPCA damages if it was liable under the terms
of the policy but delayed payment beyond the applicable statutory
deadline.
After granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the
court later clarified that the proposed class definition be
modified so that it extended "only to covered total-loss claims and
claims submitted under collision and/or comprehensive coverage."
Therefore, the amended class includes: All individuals insured
under a Texas auto physical damage policy issued by GEICO who (1)
made a first-party property damage claim under collision and/or
comprehensive coverage determined by GEICO to be a covered
total-loss claim from March 5, 2016 through the date on which the
Class is certified, (2) where such claim was determined to be and
adjusted as a total loss.
GEICO subsequently appealed the district court's order certifying
the class. It challenges both Plaintiffs' standing as class
representatives and the district court's certification of the class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The Fifth Circuit finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated their
standing under either the class certification or standing approach.
It says the Plaintiffs' interests are sufficiently aligned with
those of the class. The remaining elements of standing are not in
dispute, i.e., causation and redressability. If the Plaintiffs were
indeed harmed, no one contests that this harm must have been caused
by GEICO's underpayment of ACV. And such an underpayment may be
remedied through money damages.
Because the Plaintiffs have class standing, the Fifth Circuit turns
to the remaining issues concerning class certification. It finds
that (i) the course of conduct is virtually the same across the
alleged deprivations of each Purchasing Fee, i.e., whether GEICO
breached the Policies; (ii) it was accordingly within the district
court's discretion to rule that the Plaintiffs are adequate class
representatives; (iii) the Plaintiffs articulate a reasonably
ascertainable formula; and (iv) whether GEICO's payments were
reasonable does not preclude class certification so the district
court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class as to
the TPPCA claim.
In view of its analysis, the Fifth Circuit affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/3xzup from Leagle.com.
GEICO GENERAL: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Gardner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARMEN GARDNER AND MARK RUDOLPH, Appellants v. GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, Case No. 2022-CA-0306-ME (Ky.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirms the Jefferson
Circuit Court's Feb. 11, 2022 order:
(1) granting judgment in favor of Appellee GEICO; and
(2) denying the Appellants' motion to certify a class pursuant
to CR 23 as moot.
The Appellants each had separate motor vehicle insurance policies
with GEICO, which included basic reparation benefits ("BRB") of up
to $10,000 per person per accident. Gardner was injured in a motor
vehicle accident that occurred on March 6, 2017; Rudolph was
injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 29,
2017.
Gardner and Rudolph each submitted timely notifications to GEICO
along with applications for BRB. Gardner sought BRB for medical
care she received in March and April 2017 from Exacta Care and
Kentuckiana Pain Associates totaling $10,197.30. Rudolph sought BRB
for medical care he received in September and October 2017 from
Kort, LLC and Shannon S. Voor, PhD, PLLC, totaling $2,718.
After receiving the Appellants' respective BRB applications, GEICO
tendered payment to the Appellants' medical providers along with
Explanation of Reviews ("EORs"). The EORs indicated that GEICO had
reduced certain line-item charges billed by the medical providers.
In total, Gardner submitted medical bills to GEICO totaling
$10,197.30, but GEICO tendered only $5,632.66 to Gardner's medical
providers. Similarly, Rudolph submitted medical bills totaling
$2,718.00, but GEICO tendered only $1,460.58 as payment for those
bills. The medical providers cashed the checks GEICO tendered them
without any indication that they were doing so under a reservation
of right. Despite having provided affidavits as part of this action
that they have not written off the balances, none of the providers
has sought payment directly from either Gardner or Rudolph.
After learning that GEICO had reduced their bills, the Appellants
filed a putative class action in Jefferson Circuit Court seeking to
recover damages as a result of GEICO making a unilateral reduction
in payment of its insureds' incurred medical charges, leaving its
insureds legally responsible for the balance and subject to a
lawsuit or collection efforts from the medical provider. As relief,
they demanded payment from GEICO for the difference between the
submitted bills and the reduced amounts actually paid, 18% interest
on those outstanding balances, and attorney fees. Additionally,
they sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including the
protection of a release and indemnification from GEICO on all
medical bills GEICO unilaterally reduced and only partially paid to
their medical providers.
After being served with the Appellants' complaint, GEICO moved the
trial court for an extension of time to answer or file a
dispositive motion. In the interim, on July 18, 2018, the
Appellants filed their motion for class certification kicking off a
multi-year period of motions and related briefings, including
several hearings before the trial court concerning class
certification as well as the legal viability of the Appellants'
substantive claims against GEICO. Ultimately, the Appellants'
motions for class certification, for summary judgment, and for
declaratory/injunctive relief, along with GEICO's motion to
dismiss, came before the trial court for determination.
On Feb. 18, 2022, the trial court entered an order addressing the
pending motions. It determined that the Appellants had failed to
allege individually viable legal claims and granted judgment in
favor of GEICO. It then denied their motion for class certification
as moot. The appeal followed.
The Court of Appeals opines that the appeal is not so much a review
of whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied
certification, as it is about whether the trial court properly
granted summary judgment to GEICO on the Appellants' individual
claims. If summary judgment was properly granted, there was no
abuse of discretion in denying the class certification motion as
moot. If summary judgment was improperly granted, then the class
certification decision is clearly not moot and must be addressed on
remand.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals turns to substantive issues with
respect to the viability of the Appellants' individual claims. It
finds that the notation on GEICO's EORs cited KRS 304.39-245 and
was offered as payment for what it believed was the reasonable
amount for the care provided to Appellants. By cashing the checks
without reserving their rights, the medical providers agreed to
accept the amount tendered as full payment cutting off their right
to pursue Appellants for the balances. Having accepted the amount
tendered without a reservation, they are precluded by statute from
collecting the balance from their patients.
The Appellants' complaint is clear that their claims are predicated
on the fact that GEICO's actions left them legally responsible for
the balance and subject to a lawsuit or collection efforts from
their medical providers. However, the medical providers have no
right to seek payment from the Appellants, meaning the Appellants
have no claim against GEICO. Accordingly, the trial court properly
granted summary judgment to GEICO.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the Jefferson
Circuit Court.
All concur.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://rb.gy/bnvit from Leagle.com.
Damon B. Willis -- damonwillislawyer@yahoo.com -- C. David Ewing --
ewingwillislaw@yahoo.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEFS FOR THE
APPELLANTS.
Edward H. Stopher -- estopher@bsg-law.com -- Earl L. Martin, III --
emartin@bsg-law.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR THE
APPELLEE.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over GM's 8-Speed Transmission
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Car Guide reports that a class action lawsuit against General
Motors of Canada has been filed in the Court of King's Bench for
Saskatchewan on behalf of anyone who purchased or leased a new or
used GM vehicle equipped with an eight-speed automatic
transmission.
Similar class actions exist in the U.S., some dating back to spring
2019, but it's the first one specifically targeting GM Canada.
The lawsuit alleges the Hydra-Matic 8L90 or Hydra-Matic 8L45
transmission may produce "a terrifying jolt or shake while
driving," which can cause "delays in acceleration and stopping, as
well as other dangerous driving conditions."
Possible causes include a defective torque converter, excess
friction between transmission components and bad transmission
fluid.
The eight-speed autobox can be found in numerous vehicles built on
a rear-wheel-drive platform, mostly sports cars, luxury sedans,
trucks and SUVs. Below is the full list of models identified in the
class action lawsuit:
2016-2023 Chevrolet Camaro
2015-2023 Chevrolet Colorado
2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette
2017-2023 Chevrolet Express (2.8L diesel engine/4.3L gas engine
only)
2015-2023 Chevrolet Silverado
2016-2020 Cadillac ATS-V, CT6 and CTS-V
2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade
2015-2019 GMC Canyon
2017-2023 GMC Savana (2.8L diesel engine/4.3L gas engine only)
2015-2019 GMC Sierra
2015-2017 GMC Yukon Denali XL
According to the lawsuit, General Motors has known about the
problem for years but has failed to adequately address it.
"Instead, GM has tried to convince customers that the problem is
normal, including the dramatic 'surging' or 'unexpected
acceleration' that are characteristic of the defect. This has led
many customers to believe that the issue is not serious or that
they are simply experiencing a normal driving condition. However,
the reality is that these transmissions pose a serious safety risk
to drivers and passengers alike."
A judge in Saskatchewan will decide whether to certify the class
action or not later this year. For more information, click here.
[GN]
GEOSNAPSHOT PTY: Moomaw Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Adam Moomaw, Regan Moomaw, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Geosnapshot Pty Ltd.,
Geosnapshot, Inc., Case No. 23 LA 365 was removed from the Circuit
Court for the 20th Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois on April 21, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01321-GCS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
GeoSnapShot -- https://geosnapshot.com/ -- is your all in one media
management solution..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Joseph Limoli, Esq.
DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
211 N. Broadway, Suite 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: matthew@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Juan Ponce de Leon, 6th Floor
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (618) 444-6049
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@jjlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John C. Ellis, Esq.
ELLIS LEGAL P.C.
200 West Madison, Ste. 2670
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 967-7629
Email: jellis@ellislegal.com
GKN DRIVELINE: Court Decertifies 3 Classes in Mebane Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES MEBANE and ANGELA WORSHAM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GKN
DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18CV892
(M.D.N.C.), Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina:
a. granted the Defendant's Motion to Decertify the Class and
Collective Action; and
b. denies as moot both parties' cross-motions for partial
summary judgment.
On Nov. 5, 2020, the Court conditionally certified the Plaintiffs'
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and certified
the following North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA") class
under Rule 23 ("Rounding Class"): "Individuals who were, are, or
will be employed at Defendant GKN's North Carolina facilities on
the manufacturing floor in non-managerial positions, were not
compensated all promised, earned, and accrued wages due to
Defendant's rounding policy, including, but not limited to,
compensation for all hours worked up to forty (40) in a week and
for hours worked above forty (40) in a week within two years prior
to the commencement of this action, through the present."
After the Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court
certified an additional Rule 23 class on Aug. 2, 2022, including
employees that worked during their scheduled lunch breaks and were
impacted by the Defendant's "Automatic Deduction Policy"
("Automatic Deduction Class").
The Court defined that class as: "Individuals who were, are, or
will be employed at Defendant GKN's North Carolina facilities on
the manufacturing floor in non-managerial positions, were not
compensated all promised, earned, and accrued wages for hours
worked during unpaid meals due to Defendant's automatic deduction
policy, including, but not limited to, compensation for all hours
worked up to forty (40) in a week and for hours worked above forty
(40) in a week within two years prior to the commencement of this
action, through the present."
On Aug. 16, 2022, the Defendant requested reconsideration of the
Court's order certifying the Automatic Deduction Class arguing that
(1) the Court incorrectly certified the Automatic Deduction Class
without requiring Plaintiff Mebane to establish that the class is
ascertainable and (2) the Automatic Deduction Class is an improper
merits-based fail-safe class.
On Nov. 16, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to reconsider and found that modification of the
Automatic Deduction Class definition was necessary to avoid it
being an impermissible fail-safe class. It requested that the
Plaintiffs submit a proposed redefinition of the Automatic
Deduction Class.
The Plaintiffs then proposed the following redefinition: "All
Individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant GKN's
North Carolina facilities on the manufacturing floor in
non-managerial positions, subjected to an automatic 30-minute meal
break deduction, and who have or may have worked through or during
unpaid meal breaks without compensation at least once at any time
within two years prior to the commencement of this action, through
the present."
The Defendant now moves to decertify the Plaintiffs' FLSA
collective action, the Rule 23 Rounding Class, and the Rule 23
Automatic Deduction Class. It also moves for partial summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' collective and class claims related to
the Rounding Class, as well as Plaintiff James Mebane's individual
claims. The Plaintiffs likewise move for partial summary judgment
on their claims related to both the Rounding Class and Automatic
Deduction Class.
Judge Biggs first determines whether both the Rounding Class and
Automatic Deduction Class can still satisfy the requirements for
collective and class certification under the FLSA and Rule 23. She
finds that the Plaintiffs' rounding claim cannot move forward as a
collective action given the individualized inquiries necessary to
assess the Defendant's liability for their pre- and post-shift
work. The record is replete with evidence highlighting disparate
factual settings of each individual plaintiff and the procedural
unfeasibility of moving forward with this collective action.
Accordingly, in applying this heightened fact-specific standard,
Judge Biggs finds that the Plaintiffs are not "similarly situated"
and cannot proceed as a collective action under the FLSA. She
therefore finds that decertification is warranted. She further
finds that the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Rounding Class must be
decertified for the same reasons outlined in her discussion of the
collective action.
With respect to the Automatic Deduction Class, Judge Biggs finds
that the individualized factfinding necessary to establish these
elements warrants decertification of the Automatic Deduction Class.
In addition to the deficiency of whether plaintiffs actually worked
during meal breaks, says without any common basis for determining
whether the Defendant knew of unpaid meal break work, she follows
the guidance of several other courts and finds the Automatic
Deduction Class must be decertified.
Judge Briggs concludes that the evidentiary record makes clear that
that both the automatic deduction claims and rounding claims
implicate highly individualized facts and circumstances unique to
each Plaintiff, making it untenable to allow the matter to proceed
on a class and collective basis. The Plaintiff advances no
meaningful way to address such issues. Accordingly, the Defendant's
motion to decertify the FLSA collective action, Rule 23 Rounding
Class, Rule 23 Automatic Deduction Class is granted, and both
parties' motions for summary judgment are denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://rb.gy/uwxlf from Leagle.com.
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Lamons Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kerry Lamons, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Glanbia Performance Nutrition NA, Inc.
doing business as: Optimum Nutrition doing business as: BSN; Does 1
Through 100, inclusive; Case No. CVRI2300961 was removed from the
Riverside Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 14, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00654-ODW-KK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Glanbia Performance Nutrition -- https://www.glanbia.com/ -- is the
number one sports nutrition company in the world, with leading
brands in performance and lifestyle nutrition.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Mackey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY
660 Baker Street, Building A, Suite 201
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (412) 370-9110
Email: bobmackeyesq@aol.com
The Defendants are represented by:
William P Cole, Esq.
Matthew R Orr, Esq.
Richard L. Hyde, Esq.
AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN LLP
515 South Flower Street 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 933-2330
Fax: (312) 884-7352
Email: william@amintalati.com
matt@amintalati.com
richard@amintalati.com
GLOBAL PLASMA: Fishlock Sues Over Deceptive Air Treatment Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fishlock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL PLASMA SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00522-UNA (D. Del., May 15, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for deceit and fraudulent concealment,
breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose, unjust enrichment, and violations of State
Consumer Protection Statutes and the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant preys on people desperate
to cleanse the air and protect themselves from ailments including
the COVID-19 virus. The Defendant represents that its products that
used needlepoint bipolar ionization technology eliminate the
COVID-19 virus, even though these products do not. To further its
deception -- while also hiding significant defects in its products
-- Defendant deceptively represents company-funded testing as
"independent" while also using test conditions that are not
representative of the real-world use of the products, says the
suit.
The Defendant's representations that its products are a safe
technology to cleanse the air of the COVID-19 virus is false,
misleading, and designed to deceive consumers, including Plaintiff,
into paying a price premium and choosing its products over a
competitor's product, the suit asserts.
Global Plasma Solutions, Inc. is an indoor air quality company
based in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
REICH & BINSTOCK LLP
4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77024
Telephone: (713) 622-7271
Facsimile: (713) 623-8724
E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com
- and -
Michael A. Mills, Esq.
THE MILLS LAW FIRM
8811 Gaylord Drive Suite 200
Houston, TX 77024
Telephone: (832) 548-4414
Facsimile: (832) 327-7443
E-mail: mickey@millsmediation.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste. 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Hall Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodwill Industries
of the Southern Piedmont, Inc. The case is styled as Debra Hall,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Look Both Ways Insurance LLC doing business as: Millennium Health
Advisors, Case No. 3:23-cv-00250-RJC-SCR (W.D.N.C., April 28,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Goodwill Industries of The Southern Piedmont, Inc. --
https://goodwillsp.org/ -- operates as a non profit organization.
The Organization provides job training and employment
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Christopher Schehr, Esq.
SCHEHR LAW PLLC
101 N McDowell St
Charlotte, NC 28204
Phone: (704) 900-0336
Fax: (980) 326-1717
Email: chris@schehrlaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Collects Health Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE I; and JOHN DOE II, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:23-cv-02431 (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant's unlawful tracking, collection, and
monetization of Americans' private health information from Health
Care Provider web properties in the United States.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Google's unlawful
tracking, collection and monetization of Health Information occurs
through the Google Source Code. When a patient interacts with a
Health Care Provider web property where Google Source Code is
deployed, the patient is effectively tagged by Google via Google
Source Code, Google Cookies, and other identifiers. Almost
immediately, the Google Source Code deposits and accesses Google
Cookies on the patient's device.
Google's tracking, collection and monetization of patients' Health
Information is in violation of federal, state, and common law that
provide strict protections and safeguards regarding the inherently
private and sensitive nature of this information, says the suit.
GOOGLE LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products. The Company focuses on
web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine,
cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
Email: kiesel@kiesel.law
koncius@kiesel.law
ramirez@kiesel.law
- and -
Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
Eric Johnson, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
Email: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid to Decertify Hart Suit Due June 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN OLIVIA HART, et al,
v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a GEICO, Case No.
4:21-cv-00859-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann
entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend all
briefing deadlines:
-- Deadline for GEICO's Opposition May 29, 2023
to the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification:
-- Dispositive Motions: June 7, 2023
-- Motion to Decertify the June 7, 2023
Collective Action:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply in June 28, 2023
Support of Their Motion for
Class Certification:
GEICO is a private American auto insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43j5GJq at no extra charge.[CC]
H&M HENNES: E.D. Missouri Grants Bid to Dismiss Lizama Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABRAHAM LIZAMA, et al., Plaintiffs v. H&M HENNES &
MAURITZ LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:22 CV 1170 RWS (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, dismisses the Plaintiffs'
complaint.
Abraham Lizama purchased a sweater from Defendant retailer H&M's
"conscious choice" collection. According to Lizama, he believed
this meant his sweater was made using "more sustainable and
environmentally friendly" manufacturing practices. According to
Lizama, however, this product is not "environmentally friendly,"
and he felt so misled by the representation that he now brings a
nationwide putative class action over the alleged
misrepresentation.
Lizama asserts claims under Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act
(MMPA) as well as claims for unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud. He asks this Court to name him as the
class representative to prosecute the MMPA and Missouri state law
claims on behalf of a subclass of Missouri residents who purchased
any "conscious choice" product from H&M (the Missouri subclass), in
addition to naming him as one of two class representatives to
prosecute nationwide class claims for unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers who did the same (the nationwide subclass).
Mark Doten is the second class representative named in the
complaint. He is a California resident who made a similar
"conscious choice" purchase from H&M in California. He brings
claims similar to Lizama under California law and seeks to
represent California residents who purchased "conscious choice"
items in California (the California subclass) as well as the
nationwide subclass.
H&M moves to dismiss the complaint and/or strike the class action
allegations for a litany of reasons: the complaint fails to
adequately allege the elements of the state law claims; the
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek injunctive or
equitable relief and to seek relief for products they did not
purchase; the nationwide class allegations should be stricken
because there is no possibility that a nationwide class of state
law fraud claims will ever be certified; and, the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over the non-resident's claims. Plaintiffs
have responded to each of these arguments, and the issues are fully
briefed.
First, Judge Sippel says there is no dispute that Doten's claims do
not arise out of or relate H&M's contacts with Missouri because he
alleges that he is a California resident who made a "conscious
choice" purchase in California. Hence, the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over H&M with respect to the claims brought by Doten.
Nor can the Court exercise pendant jurisdiction over Doten's claims
by virtue of its jurisdiction over Lizama's claims, as it lacks
personal jurisdiction over any single claim brought by Doten and
the California subclass against H&M.
As the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over H&M with respect to
claims brought by Doten, Judge Sippel dismisses all claims brought
by Doten (Counts VI, VII, VIII, and Counts IX, X, and XI to the
extent brought by Doten) for lack of personal jurisdiction. He need
not, and therefore does not, reach the personal jurisdiction issue
with respect to the claims of putative nonresident absent class
members raised by H&M in its brief because all remaining claims
brought by Lizama are subject to dismissal.
Second, Judge Sippel says the Court may take judicial notice of
H&M's publicly available website without converting the motion to
dismiss to one for summary judgment, as Lizama alleges that these
misrepresentations come from H&M's website. He denies Lizama's
motion to strike the exhibits is denied as the Court is not
constrained to accept Lizama's allegations about what the website
says and may instead consider the content of the website in its the
entirety when determining whether any false statements were made.
He denies Lizama's motion to strike Exhibits 10 and 11 for the same
reason, as Lizama's complaint repeatedly cites these two exhibits.
He denies as moot the motion to strike with respect to Exhibit 9,
which the Court has not considered in deciding the motion.
Third, Judge Sippel dismisses Lizama's Missouri statutory and
common law claims for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). He finds that Lizama's claims all depend upon his
allegations that H&M's representations about the conscious choice
line are deceptive and misleading. He finds that (i) Lizama's
claims of consumer deception based on statements that H&M never
made must be dismissed for failure to state a claim; (ii) Lizama's
claims that he was misled into believing something that was never
represented by H&M must fail; and (iii) there is no basis for the
reasonable consumer to be misled about the materials used by H&M in
its conscious choice collection or its relative sustainability in
comparison to virgin polyester. As a result, the complaint fails to
set forth cognizable claims under the consumer deception statutes
(Counts I to V) and must be dismissed.
Fourth, Count III seeks to set forth a distinct MMPA violation
based upon omission rather than misrepresentation. Judge Sippel
holds that reasonable consumers can ascertain the exact materials
used in their garments before purchase, review H&M's discussion of
the environmental impacts of those materials, and then
independently verify whether these representations are consistent
with other, publicly available data. Lizama has failed to identify
any material facts regarding the composition or environmental
impact of H&M's conscious choice materials that are not already
known to the reasonable consumer prior to purchase. Without an
actionable omission by H&M, Count III fails and must be dismissed.
Fifth, Count V alleges that H&M's alleged misrepresentations
constitute an "unfair practice" under the MMPA because they violate
the Federal Trade Commission's Guides for the Use of Environmental
Marketing Claims. Judge Sippel holds that a H&M has substantiated
and qualified its representations with respect to the conscious
choice clothing line, the complaint fails to allege a violation of
the Green Guides. Count V is dismissed.
Finally, Lizama's common law claims (Count IX for unjust
enrichment, Count X for negligent misrepresentation, and Count XI
for fraud) are based on the same allegations of consumer deception,
and also require a misrepresentation to be actionable. Accordingly,
they must be dismissed. As Lizama has failed to establish that
H&M's representations were not factually accurate Counts X and XI
must be dismissed. Lizama's claim for unjust enrichment in Count IX
is based on the same nonactionable conduct as his statutory claims
and is therefore also dismissed.
Because Judge Sippel is dismissing the complaint for the reasons he
stated, he need not, and therefore does not, consider the
alternative arguments of H&M in support of dismissal. Accordingly,
the amended motion to dismiss and/or strike is granted in part only
as set out, and Doten's claims are dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction, and Lizama's claims are dismissed for failure to
state claims against the Defendant.
The Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied in part and denied as
moot in part.
A separate Judgment in accordance with the Memorandum and Order is
entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/elklh from Leagle.com.
HITACHI ASTEMO: Settles Automotive Parts Antitrust Suit for $6M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Hitachi Astemo and KYB agreed to pay
a combined $6 million to resolve claims they worked with other auto
parts manufacturers to fix the price of shock absorbers.
The settlement benefits individuals and entities who purchased
shock absorbers directly from Hitachi Astemo and/or KYB between
Jan. 1, 1995, and Sept. 18, 2021.
Several companies, including Hitachi Astemo and KYB, are accused of
conspiring to fix the prices of automotive parts in violation of
federal antitrust laws. The two companies are specifically accused
of fixing the prices of shock absorbers, part of the suspension
systems in vehicles.
Hitachi Astemo is an automotive parts manufacturer based in Japan.
KYB is a shocks and struts manufacturer that does business around
the world, including in North America.
Hitachi Astemo and KYB haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed
to a $6 million settlement to resolve the shock absorbers antitrust
class action lawsuit. Hitachi Astemo will contribute $2.5 million
while KYB will pay $3.5 million. These settlements are the latest
in a series of settlements in the antitrust multidistrict
litigation.
Under the terms of the settlement, direct purchasers can receive a
cash payment based on the amount they paid in documented shock
absorber purchases. Exact distribution details are not available at
this time.
The exclusion deadline was May 1, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the shock absorbers settlement is
scheduled for June 8, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by June 22, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals and entities who purchased shock absorbers directly
from Hitachi Astemo and/or KYB between Jan. 1, 1995, and Sept. 18,
2021
Potential Award
TBD
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of shock absorber purchases
Claim Form Deadline
06/22/2023
Case Name
In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:12-md-02311, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan
Final Hearing
06/08/2023
Settlement Website
AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com
Claims Administrator
Shock Absorbers Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
P.O. Box 3170
Portland, OR 97208-3170
877-393-1069
Class Counsel
Steven A Kanner
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
Joseph C Kohn
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
Gregory P Hansel
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
William G Caldes
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC
Defense Counsel
Kendall Millard
Bradley Love
Alexander Barnstead
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
Craig P Seebald
Alden L Atkins
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
Clayton Everett Jr
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN]
HOME DEPOT: Harter Sues Over False Product Labels of Lanterns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shan Harter, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
Satco Products, Inc., a New York corporation, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-03705 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' deceptive and unfair business practices in the
marketing and sale of exterior post-mounted and wall-mounted
lanterns.
Satco manufactures, and Home Depot markets, sells and distributes
over the Internet and in its retail stores, exterior post-mounted
and wall-mounted lanterns with "clear beveled glass" shade, and are
available in black or white finish. In this complaint, Plaintiff
Harter claims that the lanterns' shade are not constructed entirely
of clear beveled glass as represented. He asserts that each of the
eight panels comprising the shade are partially constructed of
clear beveled plastic. He also alleges claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the New York
Consumer Law for Deceptive Acts and Practices.
Home Depot is a public corporation incorporated under the laws of
the state of Delaware. Its corporate headquarters is located at
2455 Paces Ferry Road S.E., Suite #C-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30339. It
promotes, markets, distributes, and sells the lanterns to consumers
nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
850 3rd Ave, Suite 402
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Telephone: (212) 738-6839
Facsimile: (813) 222-2439
E-mail: jsedgh@forthepeople.com
- and-
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin St. 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
fburne@forthepeople.com
- and -
Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
Colleen M. Auer, Esq.
AUER RYAN, P.C.
20987 N. John Wayne Parkway #B104-374
Maricopa, AZ 85139
Telephone: (520) 705-7332
E-mail: eryan@auer-ryan.com
cauer@auer-ryan.com
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Dziura Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., filed an appeal from
the Court's Decision and Order dated April 11, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled MARIANNA DZIURA, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., HDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,
INC., and H.D.A. Inc., Plaintiffs v. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,
INC., HDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., and H.D.A. Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 159998/2018, in the New York Supreme
Court, New York County.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours"
compensation, as well as damages arising from Defendant's breach of
contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are citizens of the
State of New York and are presently or were formerly employed by
Defendant to provide personal care, assistance, health-related
tasks and other home care services to Defendant's clients within
the State of New York. The Defendant has maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of 10
hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for
all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours"
compensation, the lawsuit says.
On April 11, 2023, Judge Verna L. Saunders entered a Decision and
Order that Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add Empro,
Inc., HDA CDPAS, LLC, HDA NY, LLC and individual Joel Zupnick as
defendants, is granted; that Plaintiffs' motion seeking
certification of this action as a class action is granted in its
entirety; that the part of the motion to appoint certain lead
counsel is granted; and that the Court appoints Virginia &
Ambinder, LLP as class counsel.
The appellate case is captioned as MARIANNA DZIURA, on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated who were employed by HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., HDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,
INC., and H.D.A. Inc., EMPRO, INC., HDA CDPAS, LLC, HDA NY, LLC,
and JOEL ZUPNICK vs. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. et al.,
Case No. 2023-02379, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on May 11,
2023.[BN]
HUMANA INC: Agrees to Settle 401(k) Fee Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Humana Inc. agreed to
have litigation over its 401(k) plan fees resolved as a class
action covering more than 48,000 people.
The proposed class includes everyone covered by the Humana
Retirement Savings Plan since April 2015, excluding the defendants
and their immediate family members. The parties' stipulation, filed
May 22, 2023 in the US District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, also includes an agreement to dismiss claims levied
against Humana's board of directors. [GN]
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Thomas Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CORRINE MORGAN THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF
HUMBOLDT, CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-05725-RMI
(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Eureka Division,
grants the Defendants' requests for judicial notice and their
motion to dismiss the operative complaint with prejudice.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the Declaratory Judgment
Act (28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-02), on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, five individuals have sued Humboldt
County (California), its Planning and Building Department, its
Board of Supervisors, and six individual county officials. The five
named Plaintiffs are Corrinne and Doug Thomas, Blu Graham, Rhonda
Olson, and Cyro Glad -- all of whom find themselves embroiled in
disputes related to the County's abatement efforts related to the
appendages of illegal cannabis cultivation activity, as well as its
non-cannabis code enforcement efforts. In addition to the County
and its named subdivisions, the Plaintiffs have also sued John H.
Ford (the Director of the Planning and Building Department), as
well as the following five members of the County Board of
Supervisors: Steve Madrone, Rex Bohn, Mike Wilson, Michelle
Bushnell, and Natalie Arroyo.
The Plaintiffs' class-action allegations are only advanced by
Plaintiffs Corrine and Doug Thomas, Olson, and Glad; Plaintiff
Graham was planning to be a class representative until the County
suddenly agreed to dismiss his abatement order the week before
filing the initial complaint.
The Plaintiffs propose a class to be defined as such: all persons
who are currently facing proposed penalties for cannabis-related
Category 4 violations -- that were "levied" after Jan. 1, 2018 --
and who requested administrative hearings within 10 days of service
but who still have not received a hearing for their appeal. They,
and the members of the proposed class, reportedly will suffer under
a litany of asserted policy failures by the County including --
inter alia -- the County's alleged issuance of cannabis-related
code violations without adequate investigation or due regard for
probable cause; its delays in providing administrative hearings;
and, its failure to provide a jury at the administrative hearing.
The Plaintiffs plead five causes of action: a claim asserting
procedural due process violations focused on alleged defects in the
County's administrative processes (Claim-1); a claim asserting
substantive due process violations that, in essence, contends that
the allegedly baseless allegations, coupled with the delays in the
hearing process, and the alleged interference with the Plaintiffs'
right to develop their properties while awaiting resolution of the
code enforcement matters result in unconstitutional deprivations of
life, liberty, or property when there is no governmental interest
in the deprivation (Claim-2); a claim premised on the notion that
the County's permitting fees, its settlement offers, its fines, and
its fees all constitute "unconstitutional exactions" in violation
of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine (Claim-3); a claim
alleging the levying of excessive fines and fees under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments (Claim-4); and, a claim asserting that
the Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments should be construed to
mandate jury trials in the sort of administrative hearings of which
the Plaintiffs have complained, at least as to the factual
determination of whether or not a landowner has violated the code
(Claim-5).
By way of relief, the Plaintiffs seek the certification of the
aforementioned class; a bevy of declaratory and injunctive relief;
an award of nominal damages for the named Plaintiffs; an award of
$795.92 in damages or restitution in addition to nominal damages
for Blu Graham; and, an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.
Now pending before the court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and Request for Judicial Notice ("RFJN"); the Plaintiffs have filed
a Response in Opposition and have objected to the Defendants' RFJN;
the Defendants filed a Reply Brief, a Supplemental Request for
Judicial Notice ("SRFJN"), as well as a Response to the Plaintiffs'
objections to Defendants' RFJN.
Because the Plaintiffs do not offer any factual dispute about any
of the contents of the Defendants' RFJN cited (as well as the
Defendants' SRFJN) -- namely, the records and reports of
administrative agencies, as well as the local laws, ordinances and
regulations, law enforcement records, a court decision, and the
other official county records and documents -- judicial notice is
proper. Thus, Judge Illman overrules the Plaintiffs' unspecific and
unsupported objection and grants the Defendants' RFJN and SRFJN.
As to the motion to dismiss, Judge Illman holds that as far as
factual allegations go, the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
paints an implausible picture of the events underlying the
mentioned claims. He says despite the FAC's length, overlooking its
irrelevant content, and its conclusory and implausible assertions
it becomes clear that the underlying facts do not, and simply
cannot, entitle these Plaintiffs to any relief against these
Defendants.
Judge Illman finds that (i) given that no Plaintiff has sustained
any actual injury in the nature of excessive fines and fees in
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and given the
fact that any future injury is speculative at best, the Plaintiffs
lacks standing to pursue a claim that they have been subjected to
"excessive fines and fees" as described in Claim-4; (ii) the
Plaintiffs allegations about the blanket denial of land use permits
(asserted in support of Claims 1, 2, and 3) are unripe and,
therefore, are not considered; (iii) the Humboldt County rationally
concluded that the public's interest would be better served by
allowing for the selection of an administrative forum for the
initial phase of the overall adjudication of its code enforcement
case; and (iv) Defendants Madrone, Bohn, Wilson, Bushnell, Arroyo,
and Ford are dismissed from action because each of the 5 causes of
action is only brought "against the County," without so much as a
mention of the individual defendants.
In addition, Judge Illman holds that (i) Claim-1 (denial of
procedural due process) is dismissed with prejudice because no
Plaintiff has been subjected to any deprivation of any
constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest, or any
denial of adequate procedural protections, it cannot be plausibly
contended that any of them have suffered any procedural due process
violations; nor does it appear that these defects could be remedied
by further amendment; (ii) Claim-2 (denial of substantive due
process) is dismissed with prejudice because the Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim for any substantive due process violations
and it is clear that this defect cannot be cured by further
amendment; and (iii) Claim-3 (alleging violations of the
unconstitutional conditions doctrine) is dismissed with prejudice
because the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim under the
unconstitutional conditions doctrine and that it appears that
further opportunities for amendment would be futile.
The Court will issue a separate judgment as required by Rule
58(a).
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/mufrb from Leagle.com.
ICON MEALS: Fails to Make Full Payment of Agricultural Goods
------------------------------------------------------------
DJD OPERATING, LLC D/B/A BUD'S SALADS, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly-situated trust beneficiaries, Plaintiff v. ICON
MEALS, INCORPORATED and TODD ABRAMS, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00438 (E.D. Tex., May 15, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for enforcement/breach of the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 Trust (PACA), breach of
fiduciary duties, and injuctive relief.
The Plaintiff and ICON entered into multiple contracts under which
Plaintiff agreed to sell certain goods, namely perishable
agricultural commodities. ICON ordered the goods and agreed to
purchase certain goods from Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also agreed to
sell the goods to ICON for use in its business.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide full
payment or otherwise deliver good funds to Plaintiff despite
repeated demands from the Plaintiff or its representatives. As a
direct result of the Defendants' failure to properly protect the
PACA Trust Assets from dissipation, the Plaintiff has suffered
damages which are covered under the PACA trust in the current
aggregate amount of the produce items, plus further interest and
contractually due costs of collection, including attorneys' fees,
incurred in this action, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a grocery wholesaler and supplier of produce in
wholesale quantities.
Icon Meals, Inc. is a provider of fresh custom meals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Akerly, Esq.
AKERLY LAW PLLC
2785 Rockbrook Drive, Suite 201
Lewisville, TX 75067
Telephone: (469) 444-1878
Facsimile: (469) 444-1829
E-mail: bakerly@akerlylaw.com
IMA FINANCIAL: Faces Masterson Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
MARK MASTERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IMA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-02223-HLT-ADM (D. Kan., May 18, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied
contract, and invasion of privacy in connection with the data
breach that was detected on or around October 19, 2022.
On or about April 7, 2023, IMA sent a "Notice of Data Security
Incident" to individuals whose information was compromised as a
result of the incident. Based on the Notice, IMA detected unusual
activity on some of its computer systems on or around October 19,
2022, through which unauthorized parties gained access to certain
company files that included Plaintiff's and Class Members' private
information. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action
lawsuit to address IMA's inadequate safeguarding of class members'
private information that it collected and maintained, and its
failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
class members of the types of information that were accessed, and
that such information was subject to unauthorized access by
cyber-criminals. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has violated the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, says the
suit.
Founded in 1973, IMA is an integrated financial services company
based in Wichita, Kansas. IMA provides insurance and wealth
management solutions through six entities: IMA, IMA Select, IMA
Wealth, Eydent, Towerstone and Highwing. It employs over 1,800
people and generates approximately $1.5 billion in annual revenue.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
BOULWARE LAW LLC
1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 492-2826
E-mail: Brandon@boulware-law.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Phung Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thi Nhat Le Phung, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-21470-CMA (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2023), is brought against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") of more than 4.2 million individuals.
Prior to and through July 5, 2022, ILS obtained the PII and PHI of
Plaintiff and Class Members, including by collecting it directly
from Plaintiff and Class Members and/or by collecting it from their
medical providers who were customers of ILS. Prior to and through
July 5, 2022, ILS stored the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class
Members unencrypted and in an Internet-accessible environment on
ILS' computer network.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members, ILS assumed legal and
equitable duties, under various statutes, regulations, and common
law, to those individuals to protect and safeguard the information
from unauthorized access and intrusion. Congress has passed
legislation under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") in order to protect this
highly confidential data, because in the wrong hands, bad actors
may target and exploit the most sensitive and vulnerable
populations among the public. The Defendant is a covered business
associate under HIPAA and is required to comply with the HIPAA
Privacy Rule and Security Rule.
On March 14, 2023, ILS confirmed in a Supplemental Notice of Data
Event posted on its website that it had suffered a data event that
impacted personal and/or protected health information ("PII" and
"PHI") (the "Data Breach"). ILS detected the attack on July 5, 2022
when some of its systems "became inaccessible" and later learned
that an unauthorized actor obtained access to certain ILS systems
between June 30, 2022 and July 5, 2022 and during the same period
"some information stored on the ILS network was acquired by the
unauthorized actor, and other information was accessible and
potentially viewed." Even though ILS discovered the breach as early
as July 5, 2022, the methodologies it employed in responding to the
Data Breach delayed the provision of individual notice to the Data
Breach victims for eight-and-one-half months.
As a result of ILS's actions and this delayed response, Plaintiff
and Class members had no idea their PII and PHI had been
compromised, and that they were, and will continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various forms of personal,
social, and financial harm, including the sharing and detrimental
use of their sensitive PII and PHI which will continue for their
respective lifetimes.
The Plaintiff and the Class experienced injury and damages from:
theft of their PII and PHI and the resulting loss of privacy rights
in that information; improper disclosure of their PII and PHI; loss
of value of their PII and PHI; the amount of out-of-pocket expenses
associated with the prevention, detection and recovery from
identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII and
PHI; ongoing reasonable identity-defense and credit monitoring
services made necessary as mitigation measures; ILS's retention of
profits attributable to Plaintiff's and other customers' PII and
PHI that ILS failed to adequately protect; economic and
non-economic impacts that flow from imminent, and ongoing threat of
fraud and identity theft to which Plaintiff is now exposed to;
ascertainable out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
allocated to fixing or mitigating the effects of this Data Breach;
overpayments of ILS's products and/or services which Plaintiff
purchased; and the continued and increased risk to their PII and
PHI which remains in the hands of unauthorized third parties and
available for them to abuse, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual who had her PII and/or PHI
compromised in the Data Breach.
Independent Living Systems, LLC (ILS) offers a range of services
including clinical and third-party administrative services to
managed care organizations, home and community-based programs, and
other medical providers that serve patient populations in the
Medicare, Medicaid, and Dual-Eligible Market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Phone: (305) 357-9000
Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
- and -
Michael A. Hanzman, Esq.
Mitchell E. Widom, Esq.
BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP
1450 Brickell Avenue, 23rd Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 374-7593
Email: mhanzman@bilzen.com
mwidom@bilzen.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036-8718
Phone: (917) 438-9189
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
JBS USA: Edwards Sues for Discrimination
----------------------------------------
ROBERT EDWARDS, CURTIS J. BUTTS, JR., HERBERT L. ROBINSON, HERBERT
ROBINSON JR., KRISTINA JOHNSON, KAREEM BROWN, TIMOTHY MYERS, JR.,
TROY JONES, GREGORY MEGGINSON, JAMES SKINNER, TRACEY PLUMMER, JAMES
ROBINSON, KAALIYM MUHAMMAD, and individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JBS USA Holdings, Inc., and JBS Souderton, Inc., a
division of JBS Regional Beef: Adrian Ramos (& Predecessors),
General Manager(s) Stephanie Vega, (& Predecessors) HR Director(s)
Oumou "Ami" Thiam, (& Predecessors) QA Manager(s) Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01789-MSG (E.D. Pa., May 15, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' conduct of actively discriminating Plaintiffs and other
Black/African Americans in the workplace and in the hiring/rehiring
process having no equal opportunity to employment.
According to the complaint, as a matter of practice and custom JBS
Corporate, JBS Regional Beef and specifically, JBS Souderton Inc.
has failed to hire, rehire, promote and/or otherwise encourage the
employment of Black/African American in an effort to circumvent the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex or national origin with the hiring
and promotion of Black Immigrants, and other ethnic minority
groups.
The Defendants denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to be rehired or
to finish their careers with JBS, denying them salaries/wages,
bonuses and employer's medical plan as awarded to similarly
situated returning employees, says the complaint. The Defendants'
employment denial was intentional discrimination based on
Plaintiffs' race; created injury to dignity, feelings, and
self-respect. Further, the Defendants use recruitment and hiring
methods that perpetuated its largely Hispanic, Haitian, and African
workforce has a disparate impact on the Black/African American
employees, alleges the complaint.
JBS USA Holdings, Inc. is an American food processing company and
an independent subsidiary of the multinational company JBS
S.A.[BN]
Plaintiff Robert Edwards, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, appears
pro se.
JM SMUCKER CO: Mullins Sues Over Misleading Ads of Peanut Butter
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES C. MULLINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01004 (N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2023) alleges
claims against the Defendant for negligence, breach of warranties,
fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment, and for violation of
the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act for its unfair and deceptive
acts or practices.
Plaintiff Mullins seeks redress for Defendant's business practices
designed to mislead the public in connection with Defendant's
promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling,
distribution, and/or sale of Jif peanut butter products which
Defendant promoted as containing ingredients safe for human
consumption and being safe for use, when, in fact, they cause
bacterial infections, gastrointestinal illnesses and other
illnesses resulting from Salmonella contamination.
J.M. Smucker Co. is incorporated in Ohio and has its company
headquarters in Orrville, OH. Its peanut butter products are sold
and purchased throughout the US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq.
DANN LAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
jeff@attorneyzim.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Fatnani Sues Over Unregistered Sale of Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMIT FATNANI individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., EVOLVE BANK AND TRUST,
INTERTRUST GROUP BV, PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., KEYCORP,
and COLUMBIA BANKING SYSTEM, INC. AS SUCCESSOR TO UMPQUA HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00712-SI (D. Or., May 15,
2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged engagement in
unregistered sale of securities or the operation of a Ponzi Scheme
in violation of the Oregon Securities Law.
In 2022, a Portland man named Sam Ikkurty and his business partner
were charged by the federal government with organizing a $44
million Ponzi Scheme that defrauded at least $18 million from 170
individuals through the unlawful sales of securities. Plaintiff
Amit Fatnani, an individual who lost $350,000, files this class
action to hold six separate banks and financial companies
accountable for their roles in the Ponzi Scheme.
According to the complaint, due to governmentally mandated initial
and ongoing due diligence obligations for banks, each Defendant
further had detected, or disregarded with recklessness or gross
negligence, that (a) Ikkurty's company, Jafia Group, was selling
unregistered securities to investors, (b) agents of Jafia Group
entities, including Ikkurty and his business partner Ravishankar
Avadhanam, were not licensed to solicit and sell securities, and/or
(c) the Jafia Group and its agents were selling securities to
investors by making untrue statements of material facts and by
omitting material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading.
Under ORS 59.115(2)(a), upon tender of the securities, the
Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the consideration
paid for the securities, plus interest from the date of payment
equal to the greater of the rate of interest provided in the
security or 9%, less any amounts Plaintiff and the Class received
on the securities, says the suit.
The Defendants are financial services companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Fuller, Esq.
OLSENDAINES
US Bancorp Tower
111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 222-2000
E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com
KPG NORTHEAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clement Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
TITILOYE CLEMENT; ANASTACIA RIVERA; CARMEN RAMOS; DIMARY CRUZ; and
ANA CERVANTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KPG NORTHEAST LLC d/b/a FOURPOINTS by
SHERATON; KPG HOTEL MANAGEMENT LLC; and DELAWARE HOTEL GROUP LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 230501850 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty.,
May 17, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid wages,
unpaid predictability pay, damages, interest, costs, and attorney's
fees.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as housekeepers.
KPG NORTHEAST LLC owns and operates hotels and motels. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAM & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3600
Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Kysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
Email: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
- and -
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS, P.C.
705 8th St SE #100
Washington DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 830-2016
Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
KROGER LIMITED: Austin Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DONALD AUSTIN, DEBORAH WINSTON, SHARON SIMPSON and
LORI DALTON, individually and on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I MID
ATLANTIC MARKETING AREA, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00048, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on May 15, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:23-cv-00287-JPH-SKB to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated against Defendant Kroger for failing to pay its
employees legally required wages and overtime premiums in violation
of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment
Law, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, the Virginia Minimum Wages
Act, the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the
West Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Standards for
Employees Act.
Kroger Limited Partnership owns and operates a chain of Kroger
retail grocery stores in Virginia and West Virginia, among other
states.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martha Elizabeth Guarnieri, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
1727 Snyder Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19145
Telephone: (215) 422-3478
Facsimile: (844) 300-1952
E-mail: mguamieri@hfajustice.com
- and -
Matthew Keith Handley, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
200 Massachusetts Avenue NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 559-2433
Facsimile: (844) 300-1952
E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com
- and -
Rachel Emily Nadas
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
1201 Connecticut Avenue NW, Ste 200K
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 899-2991
E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark A. Knueve, Esq.
Robert A. Harris, Esq.
VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP
PO Box 1008
52 E Gay Street
Columbus, OH 43216-1008
Telephone: (614) 464-6400
E-mail: maknueve@vorys.com
raharris@vorys.com
- and -
Peter Christopher Nanov, Esq.
VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP
1909 K Street NW, Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 467-8831
Facsimile: (202) 533-9041
E-mail: pcnanov@vorys.com
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NC
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated
Bouffard and Anderson class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.
On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.
The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices
unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with
private and public health insurers in violation of various state
consumer protection laws.
The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or
quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks
statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was
granted in March 2018 without prejudice.
On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.
The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar
relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts
regarding state consumer protection laws.
On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions.
On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations.
On August 16, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and
denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations.
On August 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.
On February 13, 2023, the court entered an order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
On February 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal the court’s order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.
On April 5, 2023, the Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs’
Petition.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America of America Holdings disclosed in
its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023,
that the Company continues to defend itself from the Davis class
suit in the Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for
Hillsborough County, Florida.
On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.
The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were
collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses.
In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Florida
Second District Court of Appeal.
On October 16, 2019, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal
reversed the Circuit Court’s dismissal, but certified a
controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court.
On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted
jurisdiction of the lawsuit.
The court held oral arguments on December 9, 2020. On May 26, 2022,
the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion approving the result of
the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in favor of the
Plaintiff.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Marshall Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lamoille Health Partners, Inc. filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated April 13, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled Patricia Marshall, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. LAMOILLE HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., Case
No. 2:22-cv-00166-wks, in the United States District Court for the
District of Vermont.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 19, 2022, the
suit arises from the recent targeted cyberattack against the
Defendant that allowed a third party to access Defendant LHP's
computer systems and data, resulting in the compromise of highly
sensitive personal information belonging to thousands of current
and former patients of LHP (the "Data Breach").
Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and more than 59,381 1
other victims suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss
of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the
value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the
effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of
future harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal
information. Information compromised in the Data Breach includes
names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, patient
identification numbers, account numbers, financial information,
health insurance information, medical information, and other
protected health information ("PHI") as defined by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), and
additional personally identifiable information ("PII") that
Defendant collected and maintained (collectively the "Private
Information").
On February 2, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and incorporated a memorandum
of law, which the Court denied on April 13, 2023 through an Order
signed by Judge William K. Sessions III.
The appellate case is captioned as Patricia Marshall v. Lamoille
Health Partners, Inc., Case No. 23-800, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 12, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant Lamoille Health Partners, Inc. is represented
by:
John Charles Cleary, Esq.
POLSINELLI PC
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 413-2837
Plaintiff-Appellee Patricia Marshall, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Matthew B. Byrne, Esq.
GRAVEL & SHEA PC
76 St. Paul Street
P.O. Box 369
Burlington, VT 05402
MANPOWER US: Flores Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------
JESSE FLORES, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. MANPOWER US INC., MANPOWERGROUP US INC.,
ZARA USA, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 23GDCV01005 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment
records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to
provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay
split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Operations Associate on December 17, 2022 until February 16, 2023.
Manpower US Inc. is a multi-national staffing agency for permanent
and temporary recruitment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Melissa Robinson, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
melissa@hbklawyers.com
MARKWEST ENERGY: Hamilton FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN ISON and CHRIS HAMILTON, individually and for
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARKWEST ENERGY PARTNERS,
LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00333, was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on May 15, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00782-NR to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from MarkWest Energy Partners under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio Rev. Code.
MarkWest Energy Partners, LP is engaged in the gathering,
processing, and transportation of natural gas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
James S. Nelson, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO
Suite P-1200
405 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-2889
Facsimile: (304) 346-2895
E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com
jamesnelsonwv@aol.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Taylor Ashley Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian M. Hentosz, Esq.
Christopher Michalski, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor
EQT Plaza
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 201-7676
Facsimile: (412) 456-2377
E-mail: bhentosz@littler.com
cmichalski@littler.com
- and -
Kameron Miller, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
707 Virginia Street East, Suite 1010
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 599-4600
Facsimile: (304) 881-0871
E-mail: Kmiller@littler.com
MDL 2913: Fabius-Pompey Central Sues Over E-Cig. Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FABIUS-POMPEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-02353 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, worked together to implement their
shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the
combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to:
(1) create an highly addictive product that users would not
associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative
youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was
a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help
smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted
marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and
deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay
regulation of e-cigarettes.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of New York, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its
students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products
and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette
products on Plaintiffs' property.
The Fabius-Pompey Central School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Fabius-Pompey Central School District is a public school district
organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of
New York with its geographic boundaries located in Onondaga
County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2966: $3.4-Mil. Class Deal With Amneal & Lupin Wins Prelim. Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE XYREM (SODIUM OXYBATE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 20-md-02966-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California:
a. grants the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of two
classes;
b. denies the Defendants' motion to exclude portions of the
Plaintiffs' expert testimony; and
c. grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a
class settlement with two of the Defendant corporations.
The Plaintiffs, a mix of insurers and individual consumers, aver
violations of federal and state antitrust laws by the Defendants, a
group of pharmaceutical manufacturers, surrounding the alleged
delay of a generic version of Xyrem, a narcolepsy drug. The current
phase of litigation involves seven claims for relief. Claims 7 to
11 of the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") each
aver conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade under state
law; Claim 12 avers monopolization and monopolistic scheme under
state law; and Claim 17 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for
violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2.
For Claims 7 to 12, the Plaintiffs (except Ruth Hollman) seek
certification of the following class under Rule 23(b)(3) ("the
Damages Class"): All entities in the Class States that, for
consumption by their members, employees, insureds, participants, or
beneficiaries, and other than for resale, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for some or all the purchase price for Xyrem and/or
Xywav during the time from Jan. 17, 2017, through and until the
date of class certification. The Class is composed of insurers,
i.e., third-party payors ("TPPs"), rather than individual
consumers.
For Claim 17, the Plaintiffs seek certification of the following
class under Rule 23(b)(2) ("the Injunctive Relief Class"): All
individuals and entities in the United States that, for consumption
by themselves, their families, or their members, employees,
insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, and other than for
resale, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all the
purchase price for Xyrem and/or Xywav during the time from Jan. 17,
2017, through and until the date of class certification.
Both Classes also exclude certain entities and individuals,
including the Defendants, federal and state governmental entities,
and certain other insurers. The Plaintiffs also seek appointment as
class representatives and for the appointment of Class Counsel
under Rule 23.
In support of class certification, the Plaintiffs offer expert
reports from Dr. Rena Conti and Laura Craft. Dr. Conti's opening
report primarily focuses on projecting a "generic conversion rate"
for Xyrem -- that is, the rate at which generic Xyrem would have
supplanted brand Xyrem once generic competition began. From this,
Dr. Conti calculates damages stemming from the alleged delayed
entry of generic Xyrem, using the narcolepsy drug Provigil as a
"yardstick" to estimate what would have happened absent the alleged
anticompetitive conduct. Craft's opening report, meanwhile,
discusses the various data sources available to analyze Xyrem sales
and prescriptions. For his part, the Defendants' expert, Dr. James
Hughes, critiques Dr. Conti's methodology and conclusions, and in
general suggests that various unique features of Xyrem indicate
there are potentially many uninjured class members. The reply
reports from Dr. Conti and Craft respond to Dr. Hughes's critiques
and, in turn, provide their own critiques of his analysis. The
Defendants have moved to exclude certain portions of Dr. Conti's
and Craft's testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
On March 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs, along with Defendants Amneal and
Lupin, filed a motion for preliminary approval of class settlement.
The settlement agreement generally releases all claims against
Amneal and Lupin, in exchange for a settlement fund in the amount
of $3.4 million to be used to support continued litigation against
the remaining Defendants (namely, Jazz and Hikma). The Settlement
Class definition largely overlaps with the Damages Class
definition, though it contains both individual consumers and TPPs.
First, the Defendants do not contest that both proposed classes
meet the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, and
typicality. Instead, their opposition focuses on a few select
areas. With respect to the Damages Class, they argue the Rule
23(b)(3) predominance and superiority requirements are not met
because of the existence of uninjured class members. They further
contend that the Class' claims relating to Xywav prescriptions must
be dropped, along with claims from several of the Class States. For
the Injunctive Relief Class, Defendants argue that (1) there are no
adequate representatives for the Class among the Class Plaintiffs;
(2) the Plaintiffs have insufficiently described the injunctive
relief they seek; and (3) the Class cannot be certified because the
Class Plaintiffs are primarily seeking monetary relief in this
case. With respect to both Classes, the Defendants argue the
Plaintiffs have impermissibly expanded the class definitions beyond
what was included in the CAC.
Judge Seeborg finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. Among other things he says
(i) the Plaintiffs have shown that issues common to the Damages
Class predominate over any issues affecting individual class
members; (ii) given the number of claims and class members and the
complexity of the common questions, the Plaintiffs have more than
satisfied their burden to show why the class device is superior
with respect to the Damages Class; (iii) individualized inquiries
regarding Xywav prescriptions would not only arise but would
necessarily predominate over common questions; (iv) the alleged
overcharge would still have occurred and that is all that need be
shown on a classwide basis; and the Class Plaintiffs themselves
clearly have Article III standing: they have demonstrated injury at
least in the states in which they paid for Xyrem prescriptions; and
(v) Xywav purchases will be excluded for the same reasons
articulated with respect to the Damages Class.
Next, regarding the Defendants' Daubert Motion, it seeks to exclude
certain portions of the Plaintiffs' expert testimony: (1) Dr.
Conti's opinions related to the generic conversion rate for Xyrem
in the but-for world and the use of Provigil as a yardstick drug;
(2) Dr. Conti's opinions on "the application and impact of
couponing in the but-for world;" (3) both experts' opinions on the
rate of DAW prescriptions; and (4) both experts' opinions on the
veracity of a particular survey cited by Dr. Hughes.
While these arguments are not without merit, Judge Seeborg finds
that they each at their core go to the weight of the experts'
testimony, rather than its admissibility. He says (i) Dr. Conti's
report provides not only adequate but ample reasons for selecting
Provigil; (ii) Dr. Conti's statements in her opening report and her
reply report are entirely consistent; (iii) while neither expert
has suggested they have significant background or training in
prescription form design, their experience in the medical and
pharmaceutical field generally is sufficient to support their
opinions about the Xyrem forms; and (iv) the Defendants' critiques
go solely to the weight of the experts' testimony, and the
Defendants are free to bolster the survey's credibility in their
own case or to attack the Plaintiffs' expert testimony on
cross-examination.
Finally, Judge Seeborg turns to the motion for preliminary
approval. The Plaintiffs have negotiated a settlement agreement
with Defendants Amneal and Lupin. The agreement establishes a $3.4
million settlement fund, with Amneal contributing $1.9 million and
Lupin contributing the remaining $1.5 million. Instead of
distributing the fund to the Settlement Class members, the fund is
to be used to support continued litigation against the remaining
Defendants. In turn, the agreement releases all claims against
Amneal and Lupin in connection with this action.
After reviewing the agreement and the motion, Judge Seeborg holds
that the Settlement Class meets the Rule 23(e) requirements and the
Northern District's procedural guidance for class action
settlements. It appears to be the product of arm's length,
non-collusive, negotiated resolution and the Plaintiffs' counsel
has more than enough experience to determine that such a settlement
is advisable and beneficial for the class members in the context of
the overall case. As such, the motion for preliminary approval is
granted. Further steps toward finalization of the settlement,
including distributing class notice, are detailed in the Order.
In view of his analysis, Judge Seeborg grants the motion for class
certification is granted, except insofar as the Classes attempt to
include Xywav prescriptions.
The following Damages Class is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(3): All entities in Arizona, California, Connecticut,
District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
that, for consumption by their members, employees, insureds,
participants, or beneficiaries, and other than for resale, paid
and/or provided reimbursement for some or all the purchase price
for Xyrem during the time from Jan. 17, 2017, through and until May
12, 2023.
The Class Plaintiffs (with the exception of Class Plaintiff Blue
Shield Blue Cross Association ("BCBSA"), which has been dismissed,
and Ruth Hollman, who is not a member of the Class) are appointed
as the Damages Class representatives.
The following Injunctive Relief Class is certified pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2): All individuals and entities in the
United States that, for consumption by themselves, their families,
or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or
beneficiaries, and other than for resale, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for some or all the purchase price for Xyrem during
the time from Jan. 17, 2017, through and until May 12, 2023.
The Class Plaintiffs (with the exception of BCBSA) are appointed as
the Injunctive Class representatives.
Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Co-lead Counsel and the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee, as listed in the motion for class
certification, are appointed as the Class Counsel for both
certified Classes.
Judge Seeborg denies the Defendants' motion to exclude the
Plaintiffs' expert opinion testimony.
He grants the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement
as to the Settlement Class, under the definition stated in the
motion. Claims against Amneal and Lupin are stayed pending final
approval of the settlement. Citibank is appointed as the Escrow
Agent for the settlement; the Class Plaintiffs (with the exception
of BCBSA, which has been dismissed) are appointed as the Settlement
Class representatives; and Girard Sharp LLP and Motley Rice LLC are
appointed as the Class Counsel.
Within 21 days of the entry of the Order, the Plaintiffs will file
a motion for approval of a notice plan regarding the two certified
Classes as well as the Settlement Class.
A separate order will be entered regarding the related
administrative motions to file under seal.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/c700b from Leagle.com.
MDL 2966: BSBCA Tossed From Xyrem Antitrust Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE XYREM (SODIUM OXYBATE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 20-md-02966-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants
the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Blue Shield Blue Cross
Association without prejudice.
The Defendants move to dismiss Blue Shield Blue Cross Association
("BCBSA") under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, arguing that BCBSA lacks standing. They argue that BCBSA
cannot demonstrate injury in fact because the funds it uses to
purchase prescription drugs on behalf of enrollees belong to the
federal government; thus, it is the federal government, not BCBSA,
that has allegedly been injured.
The Plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation aver that the
Defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct by delaying generic
versions of Xyrem, a drug used to treat cataplexy and daytime
sleepiness in patients with narcolepsy, from entering the market.
The Defendants are all pharmaceutical manufacturers; the Plaintiffs
include eight health benefits plans, including BCBSA, and one
individual purchaser.
BCBSA is a national association of 35 independent and locally
operated Blue Cross Blue Shield ("BCBS") companies providing health
plans to over 100 million members across the country. Since 1960,
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") has contracted with
BCBSA as the carrier for the Federal Employee Program ("FEP"), the
largest of the comprehensive health insurance plans available to
federal employees and established under the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Act of 1959 ("FEHBA"), 5 U.S.C. Section 8902 et
seq. Like other employer-sponsored health care plans, the federal
government (as the employer) pays "about 75% of the premiums; the
enrollee pays the rest. As a carrier, BCBSA's role is to administer
the FEP on OPM's behalf. While the 35 independent BCBS companies
(the "Local Blues") underwrite and administer FEP in their
individual locales for most services, BCBSA itself manages
pharmaceutical benefits for FEP enrollees; this includes, for
example, purchasing Xyrem. It receives a fixed service charge in
exchange for administering the FEP.
Relevant to this motion is the way these prescription drug payments
are made. First, the FEP premiums are deposited into a special fund
(or letter of credit account) within the U.S. Treasury. BCBSA works
with a pharmacy benefits manager ("PBM") that more directly manages
the FEP's prescription drug benefits. Once the PBM does this on
behalf of an enrollee (for instance, by buying a prescription
drug), it sends an invoice to BCBSA. BCBSA, in turn, pays the
invoice using a special FEP operating account; nearly
simultaneously in most instances, BCBSA requests an aggregate
drawdown from the Treasury account to reimburse BCBSA for these
payments. If the FEP funds were ever to run short, BCBSA and the
Local Blues, as the Plan's underwriters, would be obligated to fill
the gap. OPM retains any funds left in the Treasury account at the
end of a given year and determines what to do with them.
Judge Seeborg notes that the first key question raised by the
motion is this: who (or rather, what entity) is injured by the
Defendants' alleged misconduct? He says it is the federal
government -- specifically, OPM -- that is injured by any alleged
overcharges of prescription drugs like Xyrem, and thus it is OPM
that has Article III standing.
Having established that OPM is injured, and BCBSA is not, the next
question is whether BCBSA has been granted authority to bring suit
on OPM's behalf. Judge Seeborg finds that the parties' course of
conduct does suggest BCBSA has been granted such authority. Thus,
BCBSA, acting as OPM's agent, has acted within the scope of its
implied actual authority in suing.
The trouble with this, however, is that BCBSA has expressly
disavowed this position. Judge Seeborg says the proper course,
then, is to grant the motion and dismiss BCBSA, without prejudice
to BCBSA filing a complaint in a representative capacity for OPM,
with OPM's ratification. The fact that the FEHBA carriers are not
excluded under the class definitions is of no moment given the
untenable legal position of seeking to represent the FEP itself.
Judge Seeborg concludes that the Defendants' position is
persuasive: BCBSA has not established that it has been injured,
though it may be able to bring suit on behalf of the federal
government. As such, the motion is granted, without prejudice to
BCBSA filing a new complaint in a representative capacity for OPM.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/of7z7 from Leagle.com.
MDL 2972: Opposition to Mamie Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 15,
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 Mamie Estes 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; Children's 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/3O8h32G at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Mitchell Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Blackbaud,
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00145 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 14, 2021), 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 Mitchell 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; Children's 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/433efYX at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Simkins Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simkins, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00431 (D.S.C. Filed Feb. 10,
2021), 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 Simkins 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; Children's 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/431LJXk at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Zielinski Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zielinski v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04513 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 30, 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 Zielinski 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; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss 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/3MaIbv8 at no extra charge.[CC]
MEDICAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Debarr Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES DEBARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL SERVICE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-01000-SL (N.D. Ohio., May 17, 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 Debarr was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
MEDICAL SERVICE COMPANY supplies home medical equipment. The
Hospital retails oxygen concentrator, walker rollators, aspirator,
batteries, and related products. Medical Service serves customers
in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
MORLEY COS: Class Settlement in Thomsen Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINE THOMSEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. MORLEY
COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10271 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Grant Final Approval of the Settlement
Agreement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorney's
Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Service Awards.
In this data-breach class action against Morley, the Plaintiffs
alleged their personal information was stolen from the Defendant
during a "massive ransomware-type malware attack" in 2021.
After successful negotiations, the Parties reached a settlement
that was preliminarily approved. The Agreement provided for
payments to the members of the Settlement Class, release of claims,
class-notice procedures, settlement administration, attorney's fees
and costs, service awards, and dismissal of the case with
prejudice.
The following settlement class was certified: "all natural persons
residing in the United States who were sent notice letters
notifying them that their Private Information was compromised in
the Data Incident announced by Defendant on or about Aug. 1,
2021."
A final-approval hearing was held on April 19, 2023.
There were only three objections to the Settlement Agreement:
(1) Objection filed by Kathryn Kennedy and Gary Vallad on
Feb. 10, 2023, challenging the fairness and adequacy of the
settlement agreement and notice program's use of QR codes.
(2) Objection raised by Daniel Bennett on behalf of class
member Ms. Marcia Bennett, which was submitted after the Feb. 15,
2023 deadline and noncompliant with the objection procedure listed
in the Notice.
(3) Correspondence submitted by Helen Brome to the Claims
Administrator, objecting to the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Ludington concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate. He finds that the Settlement Agreement and Class
Notice satisfy all the relevant factors and overrules the
objections because they seek extrajudicial relief outside the
purview of the case, were noncompliant with the objection procedure
listed in the Notice and lacked merit. Thus, the reaction of absent
class members weighs in favor of final approval.
For those reasons, Judge Ludington grants final approval of the
Settlement Class, the Settlement Agreement, and the payment of
attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of $1,419,000 and a service
award of $1,500 to the Class Representatives. All such payments
will be made pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Ludington enters a final judgment and dismisses the case with
prejudice. The Settlement Agreement is incorporated into the final
judgment in full and will have the full force of an Order of the
Court.
The Court will retain jurisdiction with respect to implementation
and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement agreement. It is a
final order, and the case is closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/q36wn from Leagle.com.
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Neims Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patrick Joseph Neims, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Neovia Logistics Distribution,
LP, Neovia Logistics Services, LLC, Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. CIVSB2224879 was removed from the San Bernardino Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 21, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00716-PA-SHK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Neovia Logistics LP -- https://www.neovialogistics.com/ -- provides
transit services.The Company offers warehouse management, finished
products distribution, inventory optimization, supply chain
technology consulting, and supply chain consulting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
khaque@aegislawfirm.com
swong@aegislawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tracie L Childs, Esq.
Keenan P O'Connor, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: (858) 652-3100
Fax: (858) 652-3101
Email: tracie.childs@ogletree.com
keenan.oconnor@ogletree.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Doe Allowed to File Amended Class Complaint v. DHHS
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire
Department of Health and Human Services, Civil No. 18-cv-1039-LM
(D.N.H.), Judge Landya B. McCafferty of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire:
a. denies the Plaintiffs' motion to hold the Commissioner's
motion to dismiss in abeyance;
b. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
file a Second Amended Complaint to remedy any possibility
of mootness; and
c. denies the Commissioner's motion to dismiss.
Four individual plaintiffs bring the class action against the
Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human
Services. In the First Amended Complaint, which is the operative
complaint, the Plaintiffs' only remaining claim challenges the
Commissioner's practice of boarding individuals experiencing mental
health crises in hospital emergency departments without procedural
due process, Count I. The Commissioner moves to dismiss Count I on
the ground that it is moot in light of the New Hampshire Supreme
Court's decision in Doe v. Commissioner, 174 N.H. 239 (2021)
(referred to as "Jane Doe"). In response, the Plaintiffs move to
file a Second Amended Complaint to remedy any possibility of
mootness. They also ask the Court to hold the Commissioner's motion
to dismiss in abeyance until it decides their motion to amend.
Count I alleges that the Commissioner's boarding practice violates
the Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment because they are not provided due process while being
detained in hospital emergency departments under an involuntary
emergency admission ("IEA") certificate. The Plaintiffs bring this
claim in the context of the IEA procedures under RSA 135-C:27-33.
Under that statutory framework, an IEA-certified patient is
entitled to a probable cause hearing within three days after
admission to the mental health services system. In conjunction with
the hearing, the patient is entitled to notice of certain rights,
including the right to counsel and the right to apply for admission
on a voluntary basis.
In May 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The following class was certified: As to Counts I, II, and III, a
class is certified of all persons who are currently being, have
been, or will be involuntarily detained in a non-DRF hospital under
RSA 135-C:27-33 without having been given a probable cause hearing
by the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services
of the State of New Hampshire within three days (not including
Sundays and holidays) of the completion of an involuntary emergency
admission certificate.
After the class was certified, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their state law claims in Counts II and III. Therefore, as stated,
the only remaining claim is Count I, which alleges that the
Plaintiffs are not provided due process after IEA certification in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In December 2022, the Commissioner moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claim as moot. The Commissioner argues that the New Hampshire
Supreme Court's decision in Jane Doe, 174 N.H. 239, and the Circuit
Court's telephonic hearing procedures have provided the relief
sought by the Plaintiffs in Count I, rendering the claim moot.
In response, the Plaintiffs moved to amend to add an express
challenge to the Circuit Court's telephonic hearings but assert
that the proposed change is merely a clarification because the
First Amended Complaint alleged a lack of meaningful process in
addition to challenging the timeliness of the probable cause
hearings. They also seek leave to add new parties and claims. They
filed a separate motion to hold the Commissioner's motion to
dismiss in abeyance until after the court decides the motion to
amend.
First, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to consider the motion to amend
before the Commissioner's motion to dismiss, arguing that if the
court permits their motion to amend, the mootness problem raised by
the Commissioner is cured. The Commissioner argues that the Court
cannot consider the Plaintiffs' motion to amend because their claim
is moot, which deprives the court of jurisdiction. Thus, the
Commissioner urges it to dismiss Count I as moot without
considering the motion to amend.
Judge McCafferty holds that there is no need to resolve the
jurisdictional issue that the Commissioner raises because the
Plaintiffs also ask to supplement the First Amended Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d).
Next, the Plaintiffs move to amend the First Amended Complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to add H.M. and J.S.
as plaintiffs, to add Judge King as a defendant, and to add to
Count I challenges to the telephonic hearings that were implemented
during the last year. They also move to add claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act with H.M and J.S. as plaintiffs and Judge King
and the Commissioner defendants. The Commissioner objects to the
motion to amend. In addition to seeking to amend under Rule
15(a)(2), they invoked Rule 15(d) for leave to supplement the First
Amended Complaint.
Judge McCafferty holds that the Plaintiffs have shown good cause to
modify the scheduling order to consider their motion under Rule
15(d). He further holds that although supplementation may require
additional discovery, the Commissioner has not shown that the time
necessary will prejudice her defenses.
Third, the Plaintiffs seek leave to supplement the First Amended
Complaint to add allegations, parties, and claims arising from the
telephonic hearing procedures.
Judge McCafferty holds that (i) the Plaintiffs are granted leave to
supplement the complaint to add H.M. and J.S. as plaintiffs in
Count I and to add the allegations that address the new procedures
related to the telephonic hearings; (ii) the proposed supplement to
add Judge King as a defendant in Count I is allowed without
prejudice to Judge King's ability to raise any appropriate defense;
(iii) he denies the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement to add Counts
II and III and the related Disability Subclass because he does not
permit them to add the disability claims.
Finally, in light of the Court's ruling on supplementation, Judge
McCafferty holds that Count I is not moot. Therefore, he denies the
Commissioner's motion to dismiss Count I.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge McCafferty (i) denies the
Plaintiffs' motion to hold in abeyance; (ii) grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement; and (iii)
denies the Commissioner's motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs are granted leave to supplement the First Amended
Complaint to add H.M. and J.S. as plaintiffs, to add David King,
Administrative Judge of the New Hampshire Circuit Court, as a
defendant, and to add the proposed allegations to Count I. The
Plaintiffs are not granted leave to supplement to add Counts II and
III or the Disability Subclass.
The Plaintiffs will file a Second Amended Complaint with the
supplementation that is allowed but without the allegations related
to the disability claims in Counts II and III. The Second Amended
Complaint will also delete the individual plaintiffs' claims
against the hospitals that have been voluntarily dismissed. It will
be filed within five days of the date of the Order.
Within 30 days after Judge King is served and has appeared in the
case, the parties will submit a joint proposed scheduling order to
address any dates and deadlines to be changed considering Judge
McCafferty's Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/d402t from Leagle.com.
NEW YORK HEALTH: Distribution of Notice to Homecare Workers Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS FRANCK, LI ZHEN
FENG, YERALDIN REYES, CHARISMA BARBER, CASSONDRA FLOYD, and
ELIZABETH GUERRERO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. NEW YORK HEALTH CARE INC., MURRY ENGLARD,
and GLEN PERSAUD, Case No. 1:21-cv-04955-GHW-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Authorizing the Plaintiffs to distribute notice to all
persons
who worked as home care workers at NYHC between June 4, 2015
and
the date of final judgment in this matter;
2. Directing the Defendants to produce the full names,
last-known
addresses, email addresses, home and cell phone numbers, job
position(s), languages spoken, present or last known place of
employment, and dates of employment for all home care workers
employed by NYHC from June 4, 2021, to the present;
3. Approving the Plaintiffs' proposed notice plan; and
4. Tolling the FLSA statute of limitations for potential opt-in
plaintiffs from September 21, 2021, until ten days after the
expiration of the notice and opt-in period.
New York health care provides nursing and assisted living services
to patients in the greater New York City area.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43lIGtn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
Ethan D. Roman, Esq.
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
305 BROADWAY, 7TH FLOOR
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (914) 775-8862
E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com
edr@wittelslaw.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Badu Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALUNE BADU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC. and NEXTGEN
HEALTHCARE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, LLC., d/b/a NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02160-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 12, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally
identifiable information stored within Defendants' information
networks, including without limitation names, dates of birth,
address, and Social Security numbers.
With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants
responsible for the harms they caused and will continue to cause
the Plaintiff and, at least, 1,049,375 other similarly situated
persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly
discovered by Defendants on March 30, 2023, by which cybercriminals
infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected network servers and
accessed highly sensitive PII which was being kept unprotected.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party
seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff
and Class Members in the future, says the suit.
NextGen Healthcare, Inc. is an American software and services
company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Van Horn, Esq.
BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1640
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 261-7711
E-mail: cvanhom@bfvlaw.com
- and -
Molly Munson Cherala, Esq.
Laura Van Note, Esq.
Molly Munson, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com
mmc@colevannote.com
NISOURCE INC: Hardy Suit Moved to Northern District of Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA HARDY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NISOURCE INC., Defendant, Cause
No. 2:22-CV-322-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), Judge John E. Martin of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond
Division, grants NiSource's Motion to Transfer and transfers the
case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.
On Oct. 31, 2022, Hardy filed the putative class action seeking
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. He alleges that NiSource is headquartered in Indiana and Hardy
worked for it in Indiana. NiSource explains that it contracted with
an affiliate of Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, LLC, and
Cypress employed Hardy as a welding inspector assigned to
NiSource's worksites. It argues that Hardy's employment agreements
with Cyprus provide for arbitration in Tulsa, which is in the
Northern District of Oklahoma, and thus that the case must be
transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma. Hardy argues that
the agreement containing the arbitration clause was formed with
Cyprus, not NiSource, and since NiSource is not a party to it,
NiSource cannot move to transfer the case based on the agreement's
forum selection clause.
The matter is before the Court on a Motion to Transfer filed by
NiSource on Dec. 23, 2022. NiSource moves to transfer the case to
the Northern District of Oklahoma to compel arbitration under what
it characterizes as Hardy's binding arbitration agreement. On Jan.
27, 2023, Hardy filed a response and NiSource filed a reply on Feb.
10, 2023.
The parties agree that there was an employment agreement between
Hardy and Cyprus that includes a forum selection clause. Hardy
argues that before the case can be transferred based on the
agreement's forum selection clause, NiSource first must show that
the agreement between Hardy and Cypress is enforceable at all, and
that NiSource is in a position to enforce the agreement. NiSource
argues that only the Northern District of Oklahoma has the
authority to determine questions of the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement, since the Federal Arbitration Act requires
that the agreement's forum selection clause determines where orders
compelling arbitration can be entered.
Hardy argues that if the agreement is not enforceable as to
NiSource, the Court cannot transfer the matter to Oklahoma for a
determination of whether arbitration must be compelled, and
therefore must first determine whether the agreement is
enforceable. NiSource argues that the Court lacks the authority to
determine whether the agreement including the arbitration provision
is enforceable because of the venue provision.
Indeed, the Court may not address whether arbitration may be
compelled, including the enforceability of the arbitration
provisions of an arbitration agreement. The only question, then, is
whether there is an agreement.
Judge Martin holds that the determination of whether the
arbitration agreement is enforceable and arbitration should be
compelled must come from the Northern District of Oklahoma. To the
extent that discovery is needed to determine the extent to which
the NiSource can enforce the arbitration agreement at issue, it can
occur in Oklahoma. As in Gundrum v. Cleveland Integrity Servs.,
Inc., No. 16-CV-369-WMC, 2017 WL 414491, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 31,
2017), Judge Martin opines that the Plaintiff does not identify any
other public interest factor that even arguably weighs strongly, if
at all, in favor of trying his case in this district.
Having failed to establish that the forum selection clauses in
their arbitration agreements with defendant are invalid, or to
demonstrate that there are any 'exceptional factors' weighing
against transfer, the Defendant's motion to transfer to the
Northern District of Oklahoma is granted. The Clerk of Court is
directed to transfer the case to the Northern District of
Oklahoma.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/0jjwr from Leagle.com.
NOVO NORDISK: Bid to Enter Judgment in Insulin Pricing Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE DIRECT PURCHASER INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 20-3426 (ZNQ) (RLS) (D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N.
Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
denies the Motion for Entry of Judgment, or in the alternative,
Certification of Appeal filed by the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.
The matter comes before the Court for the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Entry of Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, Certification of Appeal
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 1292(b). The Plaintiffs filed a brief
in support of their Motion. All the Defendants opposed, and the
Plaintiffs replied. Judge Quraishi has carefully considered the
parties' submissions and decides the Motions without oral argument
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule
78.1.
The Plaintiff brought this case as a class action alleging that the
pricing and marketing practices of the PBM and the Manufacturer
Defendants regarding insulin products violated: (1) Section 2(c) of
the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 13(c), (2) Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and (3) the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Practices, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) & (d). The
PBM and the Manufacturer Defendants each moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
On July 9, 2021, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' commercial
bribery claim under the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
13(c) ("RPA") solely on antitrust standing grounds. It also
dismissed the Sherman Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 1, claim on the
grounds that the Complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to
infer a conspiracy from the Defendant's parallel pricing. The Court
permitted the RICO claim to proceed.
The Plaintiffs seek in this application certification pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) of the portion
of the Court's order dismissing their RPA claim.
Judge Quraishi notes that the Amended Complaint concerns the
marketing, pricing, sale, and distribution of long-acting analog
insulin drugs for the treatment and management of diabetes. The
alleged bribery and kickback scheme is detailed in paragraphs 88 to
119 of the Amended Complaint. These allegations, he says, are fully
incorporated into both the RPA and RICO causes of action in Counts
One, Four, and Five. Further, the Plaintiffs claim the alleged
bribes and kickbacks led to their injuries in Counts One, Four and
Five. Additionally, the damages they seek to recover are
identical: the Plaintiffs' alleged overpayment due to the existence
of the bribery and kickback scheme.
The Plaintiffs' RPA and RICO causes of action, therefore, rely on
the same factual circumstances. Alternative theories of recovery
based on the same factual situation is insufficient for Rule 54(b).
Accordingly, Judge Quraishi opines that the Plaintiffs have failed
to overcome the burden to demonstrate a final judgment under Rule
54(b).
The Plaintiffs alternatively seek to certify the order dismissing
their RPA cause of action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).
Judge Quraishi holds that the July 8, 2021 Order involves a
controlling question of law and the fact that the Plaintiffs
disagree with the Court's application of the facts in the record to
the well-settled legal standard is insufficient to find substantial
ground for difference of opinion. Je further holds that the
Plaintiffs' RICO and RPA causes of action rely on the same alleged
kickback and bribery scheme. An interlocutory appeal of the Court's
July 8, 2021 Order will therefore not eliminate issues to make
discovery easier and less costly because the discovery in both
counts is related to the same kickback and bribery scheme.
For these reason, the Plaintiffs' Motion is denied. An appropriate
Order will follow.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://rb.gy/2ivms from Leagle.com.
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Dismissal of Camelot Event Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the plaintiffs
appealed the New York Supreme Court, County of New York's Camelot
Event Driven Fund dismissal ruling.
In August 2021, Camelot Event Driven Fund filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, County
of New York, and in November 2021, an amended complaint was filed
that, among other changes, added an additional named plaintiff (as
used in this paragraph, the "Complaint").
The Complaint is purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased
shares of the Company's Class B Common Stock and 5.75% Series A
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock pursuant to public securities
offerings completed in March 2021, and was filed against the
Company, certain senior executives, members of our Board of
Directors, and the underwriters involved in the offerings.
The Complaint asserts violations of federal securities law and
alleges that the offering documents contained material
misstatements and omissions, including through an alleged failure
to adequately disclose certain total return swap transactions
involving Archegos Capital Management referenced to our securities
and related alleged risks to the Company's stock price.
In December 2021, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation seeking the
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the outside director
defendants from the lawsuit, which the Court subsequently ordered.
On the same date, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit, which were heard in January 2023.
On February 7, 2023, the Court dismissed all claims against the
Company while allowing the claims against the underwriters to
proceed.
The plaintiffs and underwriter defendants have appealed the
ruling.
Paramount Global -- https://www.paramount.com/ -- is one of the
world's leading producers of premium entertainment content that
connects billions of people in nearly every country in the
world.[BN]
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Sherman Act Class Suit Settlement for Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the settlement in the
Sherman Act-related class suit is subject to the approval of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
In September 2019, the Company was added as a defendant in a
multi-district putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The lawsuit was filed by parties that claim to have purchased
broadcast television spot advertising beginning about January 2014
on television stations owned by one or more of the defendant
television station owners and alleges the sharing of allegedly
competitively sensitive information among such television stations
in alleged violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The action, which names the Company among fourteen total
defendants, seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest as well as injunctions against the allegedly unlawful
conduct.
In October 2019, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the matter, which was denied by the Court in November 2020.
The Company have reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit.
The settlement, which will include no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company, will be subject to Court approval.
Paramount Global -- https://www.paramount.com/ -- is one of the
world's leading producers of premium entertainment content that
connects billions of people in nearly every country in the
world.[BN]
PREFERRED FAMILY: Gordon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
TARA GORDON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREFERRED FAMILY HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00027 (E.D. Mo., May 18, 2023) arises
out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Gordon was employed by Defendant at its Kirksville,
Missouri location as a community support specialist from
approximately June 2013, until her employment was terminated on or
about September 1, 2020. During this timeframe, Plaintiff worked as
a community support specialist and did not manage any employees.
The Plaintiff's job was to engage in a required number of client
encounters per day and complete the associated documentation
related to each encounter. The Defendant's policies required
employees to meet a certain number of encounters and complete all
related documentation no matter how many hours it took. However,
the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other community support
specialists with proper overtime wages for their hours worked in
excess of 40 hours each week, says the suit.
Preferred Family Healthcare Inc. is incorporated in the State of
Missouri, registered to do business with the Missouri Secretary of
State and is authorized to do business in the State of Missouri.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Wunderlich, Esq.
CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
5821 Northwest 72nd Street
Kansas City, MO 64151
Telephone: (816) 581-4040
Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
E-mail: j.wunderlich@cornerstonefirm.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Fails to Warn on Detergent Pacs' Risks, Izzo Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH IZZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02125-BHH (D.S.C., May 18, 2023), arises out of
the Defendant's failure to warn consumers about the explosion and
spewing risk of its dishwasher detergent pacs (including, but not
limited to, Cascade Platinum Action Pacs).
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages because the said products
are adulterated, defective, worthless, and unfit for human use due
to the risk of explosion. This explosion releases harmful chemicals
into the air and onto the surrounding surfaces which greatly
increases the risk of contact with skin and/or eyes. The Plaintiff
suffered personal injury damages due to Defendant's misconduct and
he seeks relief and restitution for personal injury damages
incurred as a result of usage of the products he purchased from
Defendant. Among other things, the Plaintiff also alleges claims
for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, and fraudulent concealment.
The Procter & Gamble Company is multinational company that has been
incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio since 1905.
Defendant's corporate headquarters are located at 1 Procter &
Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45202. P&G manufactures, distributes,
markets, and sells many types of cleaning products, including the
Cascade products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Doolittle, Esq,
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
QUEBEC MAJOR: Faces $15M Class Suit Over Alleged Hazing Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sidhartha Banerjee of The Canadian Press reports that a former
player with the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League has filed an
application for a class-action lawsuit of more than $15 million
against the league and its teams over alleged hazing abuse.
Carl Latulippe played in Quebec's main junior league between 1994
and 1996 and claims he was abused during hazing rituals with two
teams.
Latulippe, 45, says that during training camp he was forced by
veteran players of the Chicoutimi Sagueneens to undress and
masturbate in front of teammates on a team bus, with full knowledge
of the coaches. He also alleges that team veterans assaulted
rookies with soap wrapped in towels.
The plaintiff's accusations were made public last month in an
article in Montreal's La Presse, at which time the league said it
had already opened investigations into sexual and physical abuse
among its franchises.
Latulippe was Chicoutimi's first-round pick in the 1994 QMJHL
draft. He was 16. After the masturbation incident on the bus, he
left the team without saying why, but the head coach convinced him
to return. Latulippe said he discussed the behaviour of veteran
players with his coach, who allegedly replied that the hazing would
only last a year and that it helped to build character. Latulippe
played six regular season games with the Sagueneens.
Quebec junior hockey league investigating 1990s sexual hazing
allegations
His application for a class action says he was later traded to the
Drummondville Voltigeurs and was also abused by members of that
team during hazing rituals. Latulippe alleges that Voltigeurs
rookies were required to cover themselves in shampoo to make it
difficult for veterans to grab and assault them in the shower.
One Voltigeurs veteran allegedly tore the anus of a rookie by
shoving a hanger inside him. Latulippe also describes being forced
to binge drink at a team initiation event in Drummondville, Que.
After the Voltigeurs, the plaintiff played for the Beauport
Harfangs -- who have since become the Quebec City Remparts. He said
no abusive hazing incidents occurred while he was on that team.
Suit would cover 1969 to present
The class action seeks to represent "all hockey players who have
experienced abuse while they were minors and playing in the Quebec
Major Junior Hockey League, starting from July 1, 1969."
Latulippe says he suffered from several psychological consequences
as a result of the alleged abuse. He says he became addicted to
drugs and gambling, which prevented him from maintaining his
income.
As well, he says he hasn't been able to set foot in an arena since
his time in the Quebec major juniors and refuses to allow his son
to play hockey out of fear the child would suffer similar abuse.
The request to launch the class action dated May 23, 2023 was filed
at the Quebec City courthouse, and a Superior Court judge must
authorize the case before it can proceed.
Latulippe's application targets the Quebec league, its member
franchises and its umbrella organization -- the Canadian Hockey
League -- and seeks $650,000 for the plaintiff in damages,
including pain, suffering and humiliation, as well as lost
productivity and therapy. Another $15 million is to be shared among
other alleged victims.
The proposed lawsuit notes that both the CHL and QMJHL have codes
of conduct in which teams have the obligation to supervise players.
A bylaw for Quebec's league states that players must evolve "in a
safe and formative environment to prepare them for their life as an
adult."
Latulippe's lawsuit says that the defendants, "when they had an
obligation to protect the members of the class and to look after
their well-being, witnessed the abuse, encouraged it, neglected,
tolerated, covered up or ignored it."
He filed his application after the Ontario Superior Court in
February denied authorization for a class action in that province
involving players in Canada's three major junior hockey leagues --
including the QMJHL -- dating back to 1975.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell accepted evidence that
former players suffered "horrific and despicable and unquestionably
criminal acts" at the hands of teammates and staff during
initiations. But the judge said the plaintiffs failed to present a
workable plan to litigate.
The plaintiffs can still appeal that decision or launch individual
lawsuits against the leagues and teams.
The Quebec filing excludes anyone who participates in any
individual lawsuits in Ontario.
In a statement issued May 24, 2023 evening, a spokesperson for the
QMJHL said the league had launched an independent investigation
into Latulippe's allegations.
"The QMJHL takes allegations of maltreatment very seriously and
condemns the conduct of any perpetrators or teams that have acted
inappropriately and outside the expectations and standards of the
QMJHL," wrote Maxime Blouin, the league's communications director.
[GN]
REALPAGE INC: Hollins Sues Over Wrongful Consumer Report
--------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN HOLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC. d/b/a LEASINGDESK
SCREENING, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02247-MLB-LTW (N.D. Ga., May
18, 2023) seeks to recover damages for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
On or around February 13, 2023, Plaintiff received an email in
response to her housing application indicating that she was being
denied housing due the results of the consumer report provided by
Defendant. Specifically, it stated that her application was unable
to be approved due to "Rental history unsatisfactory". When
Plaintiff review the report provided by Defendant, she was confused
because the only rental history being reported pertained to her
time at "Tara Bridge" apartments. The report included "Rental
History" for the years 2006-2009. For 2006, Defendant reported four
late payments and $400.00 in late fees. For 2007, Defendant
reported two late payments and $200.00 in late fees. For 2008,
Defendant reported nine late payments and $900.00 in late fees. For
2009, Defendant reported six late payments and $600.00 in late
fees. The Plaintiff was upset and frustrated because to her
understanding, adverse information such as late rental payments are
not reported on a consumer report beyond seven years, says the
suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Kathleen Hollins alleges that the
LeasingDesk has negligently and recklessly disseminated consumer
reports concerning her and countless others' backgrounds that
wrongfully reported outdated adverse rental history beyond the time
allotted under the FCRA. She seeks statutory and punitive damages,
along with injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.
RealPage, Inc. d/b/a LeasingDesk Screening is a consumer reporting
agency that regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice
of assembling or evaluating credit information or other information
on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to
third parties in exchange for monetary compensation, by means of
interstate commerce. It is a Delaware corporation that maintains a
primary place of business at 2201 Lakeside Blvd, Richardson, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Telephone: (404) 500-7861
E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com
- and -
Joseph Kanee, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1550
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 369-1122
Facsimile: (732 298-6256
RESIDENT HOME: Gutierrez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------
Nora Gutierrez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RESIDENT HOME LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation d/b/a NECTAR SLEEP; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 23STCV09554 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 28,
2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation the
California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") which prohibits both
wiretapping and eavesdropping of electronic communications without
the consent of all parties to the communication.
The Defendant engages in wiretapping the conversations of visitors
to their website nectarsleep.com, and permits third parties to
eavesdrop on these conversations. The Defendant and these third
parties then utilize the collected transcripts for financial gain
in unregulated gray data markets.
The Defendant allows a third-party chat company to collects, and
sells information gathered from its website, including
"Identifiers/Contact Information, Internet or other electronic
network activity information, and inferences drawn from the above"
to undisclosed parties in violation of the CIPA. The Defendant does
not disclose to its users that their interactions, which users
reasonably believe to be between themselves and Defendant, to be
brokered into gray data markets. The Defendant has sold out the
privacy and security of their customers, which is unethical and
unlawful, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of California residing within the County
of Angeles.
Resident Home LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that
owns, operates, and/or controls the website, nectarsleep.com, an
online platform that offers five distinct bedding and mattress
brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler (SBN 241964)
TAULER SMITH, LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (310) 590-3927
Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Winter Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CIVIA WINTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P.,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00772 (ZNQ) (TJB)
(D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey:
a. dismisses Winter's Class Action Complaint without prejudice
for lack of standing; and
b. denies as moot Defendants Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
and Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC's Motion to Dismiss
Winter's Complaint.
At some point prior to Feb. 13, 2021, an obligation was incurred by
Winter, a resident of Ocean County, New Jersey, owed to General
Electric Capital Corp. Also prior to that date, the debt incurred
by Winter was assigned, or sold, to Pinnacle, which contracted with
Resurgent to collect the debt. As alleged, Pinnacle and Resurgent
are in the business of collecting debts incurred for personal,
family, or household purposes on behalf of creditors. Neither party
disputes on this motion that the Defendants are "debt collectors"
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1692, et seq. (the "FDCPA").
On Feb. 13, 2021, Resurgent, on behalf of Pinnacle, sent Winter a
debt collection letter regarding the alleged debt currently owed to
Pinnacle. The Letter was sent to Winter in response to a request
from her regarding verification of the debt. Appended to the Letter
was an account summary, providing current and historical account
information relating to Winter's debt. The Letter also included a
validation notice.
The Plaintiff takes issue with the Letter itself, arguing that it
is materially deceptive in several ways, including, inter alia,
that: (1) the Letter failed to disclose that the statute of
limitations to file a lawsuit to collect on the debt will
recommence upon payment by her; (2) the account summary enclosed
with the Letter fails to detail how the initial amount of the debt
increased to the current balance due of $6,410.67; and (3) the
validation notice in the Letter contains conflicting statements as
to whether the validation of the Debt was completed.
In connection with the alleged defects in the Letter, on Feb. 11,
2022, the Plaintiff commenced the instant class action against the
Defendants, alleging, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, that she was harmed by the debt collection letter that
was sent to her by the Defendants. The Complaint asserts three
claims under the FDCPA, alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections
1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. In lieu of filing an answer,
the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on May 18, 2022.
The Defendants argue that Winter fails to state a claim under the
FDCPA because (1) the Letter is not a communication to collect a
debt in violation of the FDCPA; (2) the Complaint does not allege
that the Defendants made a false, deceptive or misleading statement
about the debt or that they used unfair or unconscionable means to
collect the debt when it contained the statute of limitations
language in the Letter; (3) the Defendants were not required to
detail how the initial debt amount increased to the current balance
owed; and (4) the Defendants did not use contradictory language in
the Letter.
Before Judge Quraishi can address the merits of the Defendants'
arguments, however, he must first determine whether the Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. He finds that the
Plaintiff does not allege an injury beyond statutory violations.
The Supreme Court made clear in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141
S.Ct. 2190, 2204-05 (2021), that this is not sufficient to confer
standing. Accordingly, Judge Quraishi holds that Winter lacks
standing to bring her claims under the FDCPA. He therefore
dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. Winter is given an
opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to remedy her standing
deficiency.
For these reasons, the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of standing, and the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is denied as moot. The Court permits the Plaintiff to file
an Amended Complaint within 30 days to plead concrete injury
consistent with TransUnion. An appropriate Order will follow.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://rb.gy/ivchj from Leagle.com.
ROSC-EL INC: Mandel Sues Over Unlawful Landlord Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
JENNY MANDEL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROSC-EL, INC. d/b/a ZALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
and 2249 W. IOWA BUILDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2017CH07047
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., May 18, 2023) arises out of the Defendants'
violation of the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance.
During 2016, the Plaintiff complained to Defendants about their
failure to provide maintenance and upkeep to the premises,
including failing to mow the lawn for over a month during the
summer. The issues complained about were code violations as
established by the City of Chicago. After Defendants failed and
refused to correct the code violations, Plaintiff contacted
Alderman Brian Hopkins of the 2nd Ward to complain about the code
violations. After Plaintiff complained to the alderman about the
foregoing code violations, Defendants initiated eviction
proceedings against Plaintiff by serving her with a Landlord's Five
Day’s Notice and then filing a complaint for possession against
Plaintiff.
Zale, is an Illinois company registered with the Illinois Secretary
of State to conduct business in Illinois. On the Zale website, it
states that Zale is a full service property management company that
currently manages multiple properties consisting of 260 apartments
and condominiums. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S Sobek, Esq.
JS LAW
29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone (312)756-1330
E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com
SAFELITE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Adams Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01646-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, May 17, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
SAFELITE GROUP INC. repairs and replaces auto glass. The Company
also provides window tinting, and installs windshield wipers and
truck backslider windows for customers throughout the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
SIDWELL AIR: Madsen Files Bid for Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER MADSEN,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
SIDWELL AIR FREIGHT, INC, and DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC., d/b/a DHL
EXPRESS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00008-BSJ (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the case as
collective action, approving the proposed notice plan, and
directing production of the collective list.
The Plaintiff contends that in order to efficiently notify
potential collective members, the Court should order the Defendants
to provide the Plaintiff, within seven days of its order, an
electronic list of all persons who fit within the proposed
collective, including each collective member's: (1) name, (2) last
known mailing address, (3) last known telephone number, (4) last
known personal email address, (5) dates and location of employment,
(6) date of birth, and (7) Social Security number (last four digits
only).
The case arises out of the Defendants' unlawful employment policies
and practices. Those unlawful policies and practices include
failing to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees who deliver packages (Courier Drivers) in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
-- Courier Drivers are similarly situated in that they all: (1)
are
paid pursuant to the same flat rate compensation policy that
violates the FLSA as a matter of law; (2) are subject to a
similar reporting structure; (3) receive similar training;
(4)
perform similar job duties; and (5) routinely work over 40
hours
in a workweek. This is precisely the type of case that should
be
conditionally certified under the FLSA.
On January 26, 2023, the Plaintiff Heather Madsen filed this
lawsuit against the Defendants on behalf of herself and similarly
situated employees who failed to receive overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff asserts claims under
the FLSA on behalf of herself and a proposed FLSA Collective.
Sidwell answered the Complaint on March 22, 2023, and DHL answered
on March 27, 2023.
The Plaintiff worked as a Courier Driver for Sidwell from June 2021
until December 2022, making deliveries on behalf of DHL, throughout
Salt Lake County in Utah.
Sidwell provides last-mile delivery services to DHL in Utah and
other states, such as Texas, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho,
New Mexico, and Ohio.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43ps589 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Michael J. Anderson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
manderson@bm.net
- and -
April L. Hollingsworth, Esq.
Katie Panzer, Esq.
HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC
1881 South 1100 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Telephone: (801)415-9909
Facsimile: (801) 303-7324
E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com
katie@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson Seeks Conditional Status of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01562-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
"All individuals classified as exempt from overtime who
worked
for or work for Siemens Industry, Inc. as a commissioned
employee nationwide at any time from three years before the
filing of this motion through resolution of this action.
2. approving that judicial notice be sent to all putative FLSA
collective action members;
3. approving the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed
judicial notice, consent form, and reminder notice;
4. authorizing a 90-day notice period for the putative
plaintiffs
to join the case;
5. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel
the contact information for each putative FLSA collective
action
member who opts in within ten days in Excel format; and
6. tolling the statute of limitations while this motion is
pending.
The Plaintiff Johnson requests that this Court conditionally
certify a collective of commissioned employees classified by
Siemens as exempt from overtime.
The Plaintiff filed this putative collective action lawsuit seeking
substantial unpaid overtime compensation related to the
Defendant’s failure to maintain a policy compensating its
employees for overtime wages. Rather than maintaining such a
policy, the Defendant wrongfully classified the Plaintiff and other
members of the proposed nationwide collective as exempt in a scheme
purposely designed by the Defendant to avoid paying misclassified
employees all overtime wages owed to them.
Siemens is a multinational corporation focused on developing
technology for buildings and infrastructure, automation and
industrial plant machinery, energy efficiency, and transportation
and logistics.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BS9XI4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Shigufa K. Saleheen, Esq.
Brielle D. Edborg, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Shigufa@lebelaw.com
Brielle@lebelaw.com
SIRIUS XM: Stevenson's False Ad Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
AYANA STEVENSON and DAVID AMBROSE, for themselves, as private
attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Defendant, Case No. C23-00855,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra
Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 15, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-02367-TSH to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current and former
SiriusXM subscribers in California who paid a U.S. Music Royalty
Fee within the applicable statute of limitations. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that Sirius XM has engaged in a deceptive pricing
scheme whereby SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower
prices than it actually charges by failing to include in its
advertised prices the amount of its U.S. Music Royalty Fee.
Sirius XM Radio Inc. is an American broadcasting corporation
headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Diana L. Calla, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 626-3939
Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
E-mail: dcalla@jonesday.com
- and -
Lee A. Armstrong, Esq.
Eric P. Stephens, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 326-3939
Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
E-mail: laarmstrong@jonesday.com
epstephens@jonesday.com
SMITHFIELD FRESH: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Franklin
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Franklin v. Smithfield
Fresh Meats Corp., Case No. 4:23-cv-04054-SLD-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.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45j9hsS at no extra charge.[CC]
STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Black & Decker Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending April 1, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Rammohan class suit in the District of
Connecticut.
On March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Naresh
Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00369-KAD, was filed in the District of Connecticut against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors.
The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between
October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly
false and misleading statements related to consumer demand for the
Company’s products amid changing COVID-19 trends and
macroeconomic conditions.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this action in all
respects.
Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools,
power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial
customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial
customers.[BN]
SVF MURAL SEATTLE: Amorine Sues Over Unlawful Rent Hikes
--------------------------------------------------------
Adam Amorine, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. SVF MURAL SEATTLE, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company; FIRST FIDUCIARY REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company; and AMERICAN REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, a foreign
limited liability company, Case No. 23-2-07038-1 SEA (Wash. Super.
Ct., King Cty., April 18, 2023), is brought against the Defendants
for damages stemming from Defendants' unlawful rent hikes.
On January 28, 2022, Mr. Amorine entered into a 13-month
residential lease agreement with SVF Mural. Under the lease, he was
required to pay $1,558.00 per month for rent. Mr. Amorine's lease
was set to expire on February 27, 2023. The lease provided that,
upon termination, the agreement would automatically renew on a
month-to-month basis unless Mr. Amorine gave SVF Mural 20-days'
notice of his intent to terminate the lease. The lease further
stated, "If we give you at least 180 days written notice of rent
increases or at least 30 days written notice of non-rent lease
changes, effective when the Lease term or renewal period ends, this
Lease Contract will automatically continue month-to-month with the
increased rent or lease changes."
On January 17, 2023, Mr. Amorine received an email notice from SVF
Mural reminding him that his lease would soon expire and providing
him with options to continue living in the building when his lease
ended. His first option was to renew his lease for a one-year term
for $1,791 per month—over $230 (or about 14.9%) more per month
than his rent under the original lease. His second option was to
sign a one-month lease for $6,636, over four times his monthly rent
under the original lease. The January 17, 2023 email included a
letter dated November 15, 2022 containing the foregoing terms.
However, Mr. Amorine never received a copy of that letter before
January 17, 2023.
Mr. Amorine alerted SVF Mural that the January 17, 2023 notice and
Defendants' attempt to increase his rent did not comply with the
Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) because, among other reasons, it did
not provide 180-days' notice before the rent hike went into effect.
This would be true even if Defendants had provided notice on
November 15, 2022, the date on the letter attached to the email.
Despite Mr. Amorine's efforts to inform Defendants of their legal
obligations, Defendants did not retract the January 17 notice or
agree to amend the notice to comply with the law. Given the
inconvenience, stress, and expense of finding a new residence on
the one hand, and the financial burden of potentially quadrupling
his rent obligation on the other, Mr. Amorine had little option but
to renew his lease at the new, increased annual rate set forth in
the January 17, 2023 notice. This rent increase went into effect
February 27, 2023 less than 60 days after Defendants notified him
of the rent increase, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a tenant living in apartment buildings owned
and/or operated by Defendants in the City of Seattle.
SVF Mural owns and/or operates the Mural Apartments located in
Seattle, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Berger, Esq.
Carson D. Phillips-Spotts, Esq.
SCHROETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER
401 Union Street, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 622-8000
Fax: (206) 682-2305
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: $7.25-Mil. Class Deal in Saucillo Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GILBERT SAUCILLO; JAMES R. RUDSELL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. SADASHIV MARES, Objector-Appellant, and JOHN BURNELL; JACK
POLLOCK, Plaintiffs v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA,
LLC, an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED; DOES, Defendants, Case No.
22-55560 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's approval of a class action
settlement between Defendant Swift and the Plaintiffs-Appellees.
The district court approved a $7.25 million settlement, of which
the class counsel would receive approximately $1.8 million in
attorneys' fees.
The Ninth Circuit previously vacated an order by the district court
approving the same settlement agreement because the court applied
the wrong legal standard, failing to engage the heightened fairness
inquiry that is required when a settlement agreement is reached
prior to class certification. On remand, the district court
conducted the requisite "probing inquiry," scrutinizing the
settlement agreement for any subtle signs that the class counsel
allowed pursuit of their own self-interests to infect the
negotiations.
The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in approving the settlement agreement. In scrutinizing
the agreement for subtle signs of collusion, it says the court
appropriately considered the interaction between the agreement's
clear sailing provision and the size of the attorneys' fees and
determined that there was no cause for concern, given that the
attorneys' fees were proportionate, and no portion of the
settlement fund could revert to Swift. The remaining "red flags"
that Mares raises do not otherwise indicate collusion.
First, the fact that the Plaintiffs settled the case after the
denial of class certification was not inherently suspect. Next, the
fact that the settlement states that it settles claims in the
Consolidated Complaint for violations of certain state statutes
that were not named in previously operative complaints does not
evince collusion or result in unfairness. Nor did the district
court err in addressing Mares' concerns regarding Swift's exposure
estimate or in approving that estimate. Finally, any uncertainty in
the number of class members was minor and not indicative of
collusion between the parties.
Given the district court's exposure to the litigants and their
strategies, positions and proof, the Ninth Circuit cannot say that
the court abused its discretion in approving the settlement
agreement. Rather, it scrutinized the settlement agreement for
subtle signs of collusion and appropriately concluded that the
settlement agreement was the product of non-collusive
negotiations.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://rb.gy/71z8a from Leagle.com.
TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone and Data Systems 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 4, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from stockholder class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed
against TDS and UScellular and certain current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
The Complaint alleges that certain public statements made between
May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the "potential class period")
regarding UScellular's business strategies to address subscriber
demand violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period
and demands unspecified monetary damages.
TDS is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of this
action would have a material impact on its results of operations,
financial condition, or cash flows.
TDS intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously on the
merits.
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., is a diversified
telecommunications company providing high-quality communications
services to customers with approximately 5.1 million wireless
connections and 1.2 million wireline and cable connections at
December 31, 2017. TDS conducts all of its wireless operations
through its majority-owned subsidiary, United States Cellular
Corporation (U.S. Cellular). As of December 31, 2017, TDS owned
83% of the combined total of the outstanding Common Shares and
Series A Common Shares of U.S. Cellular and controlled 96% of the
combined voting power of both classes of U.S. Cellular common
stock. TDS provides broadband, video, voice and hosted and
managed services, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, TDS
Telecommunications LLC (TDS Telecom). TDS was incorporated in
1968 and changed its state of incorporation from Iowa to Delaware
in 1998.
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misrepresentation & Omissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 24, 2023, that on February 27, 2023, a proposed
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain
current and former Company executives alleging that the defendants
made material misrepresentations and omissions about the company's
Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Computer (FSDC) technologies and
seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of persons who
purchased Tesla stock between February 19, 2019, and February 17,
2023.
On April 13, 2023, a putative Tesla shareholder filed a related
shareholder derivative complaint against the members of Tesla's
board of directors and certain current and former executives,
alleging contribution for violations of the federal securities law,
breach of fiduciary duties, waste, and unjust enrichment. The
complaint asserts derivative claims and seeks, among other relief,
unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Tesla, Inc. is an automotive company based in Texas.
TESLA INC: Shareholders Hit Musk Tweet on Privatization Rumor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 24, 2023, that between August 10, 2018, and
September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were
filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk's
August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla
private.
On January 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California and added as defendants the members of
Tesla's board of directors. The consolidated complaint asserts
claims for violations of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief. The parties stipulated to
certification of a class of stockholders, which the court granted
on November 25, 2020. The trial started on January 17, 2023, and on
February 3, 2023, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the
defendants on all counts. After the trial, plaintiffs filed a
motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new
trial, which the defendants opposed.
Tesla, Inc. is an automotive company based in Texas.
TESLA INC: Software Updates Cut Battery Capacity, Bui-Ford Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BUI-FORD, IGOR KRAVCHENKO, MICAH SIEGAL, and LUCAS BUTLER, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02321 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2023) asserts
claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a nationwide Class for
Defendant's violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
California's Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California's
Unfair Competition Law, and trespass to chattel under California
law.
According to the complaint, in the Tesla Model S and Model X
vehicles, Tesla recently has been implementing automatic software
updates which, without warning to the customer, deplete the battery
and reduce the driving range of the vehicles by at least 20%. These
updates are implemented by Tesla via entry into the car's computer,
and are done systemically without the need to bring the car into a
dealership for a repair. In many cases, car owners will be
compelled to pay a third party a significant fee to reverse the
software update so that the car owners could continue to experience
the battery performance they had before the update. In some other
cases, the software updates will render the batteries inoperable,
and car owners, including Plaintiffs, need to purchase a new
battery at a cost of up to $15,000, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the Class and Sub-Classes
for all relief to which they are entitled, including but not
limited to compensation for out-of-pocket and incidental expenses,
including compensation for Tesla owners who paid to replace their
battery or to reverse the software updates, punitive damages, and
an injunction compelling Tesla to stop unilaterally updating
software or modifying the performance of their vehicles without
their consent.
Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean
energy company headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Eric J. Harrison, Esq.
ATTORNEY WEST SEATTLE
5400 California Ave. SW Suite E
Seattle, WA 98136
Telephone: (206) 745-3738
E-mail: eric@attorneywestseattle.com
TIMEC SERVICES: E.D. California Narrows Claims in Wilson Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARVONTE WILSON and DOMONIQUE DANIELS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIMEC
SERVICES COMPANY, INC.; FERROVIAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.;
VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA; DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00172 WBS KJN
(E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs Marvonte Wilson and Domonique Daniels brought the
putative class action in Solano County Superior Court against Timec
Services Co., Inc.; Ferrovial Services Infrastructure, Inc.; Valero
Refining Co.-California; and DISA Global Solutions. They allege
employment discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Section
2000e, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"),
Cal. Gov. Code Section 12940; race discrimination in violation of
42 U.S.C. Section 1981; employment discrimination based on
perceived disability in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12112(a); and
negligence under California law. Defendant DISA now moves to
dismiss the complaint, joined in part by Defendants Timec, Valero,
and Ferrovial.
Defendants Timec, Ferrovial, and Valero are businesses in the
refinery industry. At all relevant times, Ferrovial owned Timec.
DISA is a drug-testing company providing services to hundreds of
employers in the refining, chemical, and petrochemical industries,
including defendants Timec/Ferrovial and Valero. It operates the
DISA Contractor's Consortium ("DCC"), an online platform that
provides information about whether employees are compliant with
DISA's drug-testing policies. When an employee fails to comply with
DISA's drug-testing policies, he or she is designated as "inactive"
on DCC. To regain "active" status, employees must pay DISA to
either take a retest or complete a substance abuse course.
DISA uses a variety of drug-testing methods, including urine,
blood, and hair testing. Hair tests cannot detect drug usage that
occurred approximately five to seven days prior to the test but can
detect earlier drug usage. DISA claims that hair testing can detect
repeat drug use up to a 90-day window.
Hair testing is less effective on melanin-rich, or darker, hair. As
a result, samples of melanin-rich hair -- a feature black people
commonly have -- are at a higher risk of false positive test
results than samples of lighter colored hair. Despite these known
issues, DISA advertises its hair testing as an accurate indicator
of drug use.
Plaintiffs Marvonte Wilson and Domonique Daniels are black men.
Wilson was employed by Timec/Ferrovial from 2016 to 2019. Daniels
was employed by Timec/Ferrovial from 2001 to 2019. Through
contracts with Valero, Timec/Ferrovial placed the Plaintiffs at
Valero's work sites. Valero required multiple types of drug tests,
including hair tests, to be administered by DISA.
In January and February 2019, respectively, Daniels and Wilson
received positive hair test results for methamphetamines and
cocaine, respectively, despite never having used those drugs.
Daniels also received saliva and urine tests, which both came back
negative for all drugs. Wilson received a urine test, which came
back negative for all drugs. As a result of the false positive hair
tests, DISA classified the Plaintiffs as "inactive" on the DCC
platform. When the Plaintiffs notified DISA that the results were
false positives, DISA informed them that they had two options: pay
$175 for a retest of the same hair sample by DISA or complete a
substance abuse course administered by DISA at a cost ranging from
$600 to $850. The Plaintiffs informed Timec/Ferrovial that the
results were false positives, but Timec/Ferrovial told them that
they had to resolve the issue with DISA.
Wilson was terminated by Valero and informed that he could not
return to work for Timec/Ferrovial until he regained active status.
A retest of his original sample again came back with a false
positive. He refused to take the substance abuse course and did not
again work for Timec/Ferrovial or Valero.
Daniels inquired repeatedly with DISA about receiving a retest, but
by the time DISA responded, the deadline for retesting had passed.
During the time he was designative "inactive," Daniels was not
allowed to work for either Timec/Ferrovial or Valero. He ultimately
paid for and completed DISA's substance abuse course to regain his
active status on DCC. However, the jobs he subsequently received
were lower-ranking and paid less than his previous employment.
First, the DISA argues that the Title VII, FEHA, and ADA claims
should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish
that DISA was their "employer" and that DISA subjected them to
adverse employment actions. The Plaintiffs argue that DISA was
their indirect employer and that the "inactive" designations on
DISA's platform constituted adverse employment actions.
Judge Shubb finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that
DISA was their indirect employer under Title VII, the FEHA, and the
ADA. He further finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that DISA carried out adverse employment actions as required to
state a claim under Title VII, the FEHA, and the ADA.
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that although the negligence claim was
filed outside that period, the statute of limitations is subject to
equitable tolling.
Judge Shubb holds that the question is whether the Plaintiffs pled
sufficient facts such that they could ultimately prove the statute
was tolled. Given that many of the same facts underlie the
negligence and discrimination claims, he says it is possible that
the claims are at least so similar that the Defendants'
investigation of the administrative claims will put them in a
position to fairly defend the negligence claim such that equitable
tolling applies. Accordingly, he denies the motion to dismiss the
negligence claim.
Third, Judge Shubb concludes that the Plaintiffs have not
adequately pled that race was a but-for cause of the false positive
test results or any resulting actions, including DISA listing them
as inactive on DCC, Timec/Ferrovial suspending their job site
placements, or Valero terminating their employment. The Plaintiffs
have thus failed to state a claim under Section 1981. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs' Section 1981 claim will be dismissed in its
entirety.
Fourth, Judge Shubb says the Plaintiffs have therefore failed to
sufficiently allege that the Defendants perceived them as having
drug addictions. They do not provide any additional facts in
support of their allegation that Timec, Ferrovial, and Valero,
perceived the Plaintiffs as addicts. Accordingly, the ADA claim is
dismissed in its entirety.
Fifth, Judge Shubb holds that the Plaintiffs satisfied the
administrative exhaustion requirements. The Plaintiffs' class and
disparate impact claims could reasonably be expected to grow out of
their administrative charges against Timec, Ferrovial, and Valero.
An investigation into claims of disparate impact on a class of
employees could reasonably be expected to grow out of the
Plaintiffs' charges of discrimination.
Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' Title VII, FEHA,
and ADA claims are time-barred. Judge Shubb finds that the
Plaintiffs' Title VII claims were timely filed and the Plaintiffs
have failed to state claims under the ADA and Section 1981. He says
the Plaintiffs have stated claims under Title VII and the FEHA,
which were timely filed and administratively exhausted. They have
also pled sufficient facts to allege that the statute of
limitations applicable to the negligence claim was subject to
equitable tolling.
For these reasons, Judge Shubb grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' Section 1981 and ADA claims in their
entirety. He denies the motion to dismiss in all other respects.
The Plaintiffs have 20 days from the date of the Order to file an
amended complaint if they can do so consistent with the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/nrs9u from Leagle.com.
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Electronic Court Filing System
------------------------------------------------------------
Rusty Jacobs of North Carolina Public Radio reports that the
rollout of an electronic court filing system in North Carolina has
triggered a class-action lawsuit. The suit claims problems with the
tools have resulted in unlawful arrests and prolonged detentions.
Since the system, known as eCourts, and one of its components, a
case-management program called Odyssey, were rolled out in four
pilot counties in February, there have been significant slowdowns
in high-volume district courtrooms. That is where attorneys and
people representing themselves go to quickly resolve traffic
tickets, seek domestic violence protective orders and to get their
cases continued.
Problems with Tyler were 'entirely foreseeable,' attorney says
In 2019, following a bidding and selection process, the North
Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts -- or AOC -- signed a
$100 million contract with Texas-based Tyler Technologies to
develop and implement eCourts as a replacement for the state's
outdated 1980s-era mainframe computer and paper-based file system.
But the lawsuit filed in federal court on May 23, 2023 claims
eCourts has led to constitutional violations and that such issues
were entirely foreseeable and, thus, avoidable.
"There have been instances where Tyler Technologies has rolled out
similar software in different states over the last decade where
people have been wrongfully arrested, over-detained, re-arrested on
charges that they thought they were cleared," said Zack Ezor, an
attorney with the North Carolina law firm Tin Fulton Walker & Owen,
and a representative of the two named plaintiffs in the
class-action suit.
Dating back to 2011, the lawsuit documents problems with Tyler
rollouts of eCourts-like systems in Texas, California, and in
Tennessee and Indiana where the company settled class-action
lawsuits over alleged wrongful detentions and arrests. And the
lawsuit notes that the selection committee that advised AOC to
partner with Tyler warned the agency to investigate legal claims
against the company before entering into a contract.
"I knew this was coming," said Chas Post, an attorney who practices
criminal law in Lee County, one of North Carolina's four pilot
counties, with Lee, Johnston and Wake, where eCourts was rolled out
in February.
A launch in Mecklenburg County, originally set for May 8, has been
delayed indefinitely.
Lawsuit claims woman arrested after her case was resolved
Post told WUNC in an earlier interview that one of his clients
unjustly spent a night in jail because of eCourts. A couple of
months ago, according to Post, his client had been facing charges
in two separate cases: one a serious offense involving a shooting,
the other a lower-level felonious drug possession case. With little
evidence to go on, the prosecutor dropped the more serious case and
Post's client pled to the drug possession for a probationary
sentence and then went home, only to get arrested that night when
heading out to the store.
Post said he suspects that an earlier arrest warrant that should
have been nullified after his client resolved his cases fell
through one of Odyssey's digital cracks.
It is a situation that is very similar to one of the plaintiffs
represented by Zack Ezor in the class-action lawsuit filed this
week. That woman, Timia Chaplin, had been arrested for missing a
previous court date on a misdemeanor. At a subsequent court
appearance, a judge dismissed the charges and the woman's case was
fully resolved, or so she thought. She ended up being arrested
again on the same failure-to-appear warrant.
"There was no valid reason to arrest her at all," Ezor said.
AOC says it has not "substantiated" any allegations of wrongful
arrest due to Odyssey
Like Ezor, attorney Chas Post said he believes there are many more
cases like that out there.
"When the government takes action and it starts affecting real
people and their constitutional rights, then bad things happen and
lawsuits start coming," Post said.
Tyler Technologies along with the sheriffs' departments from the
four pilot counties are being sued. In response to the WUNC
inquiry, Tyler said it's their standard practice not to comment on
pending litigation.
AOC is not named in the lawsuit but said in a statement: "Since
launching eCourts, NCAOC has consistently solicited court
officials, attorneys, and the public to report any issues like
those alleged in the complaint. We have investigated each report we
have received and have not substantiated that any allegation of
wrongful arrest or incarceration was caused by Odyssey [eCourts]."
[GN]
UCOR LLC: Seeks July 12 Response Date for Speer Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLTON SPEER, MALENA
DENNIS, and ZACHARIAH DUNCAN, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, V. UCOR LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00426-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting an extension of the briefing deadline
related to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification by a period of 37 days.
The Defendant request that the Court grant an order modifying the
Scheduling Order to re-set the deadline for the Defendant to file
an amended response to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification to July 12, 2023, and the deadline for the Plaintiffs
to file a reply to July 19, 2023.
1. The Court initially set a deadline of June 5, 2023, for the
Defendant to file any amended response to the Plaintiff's
motion
for class certification so that the Defendant would have the
opportunity to conduct discovery on the issues surrounding
class
certification.
2. The Court set a deadline of June 12, 2023, for the Plaintiffs
to
file any Reply in further support of their motion for class
certification.
3. The parties have been pursuing written discovery. The
Plaintiffs
anticipate providing additional documents and information to
the
Defendant by May 19, 2023. The parties are currently working
to
schedule depositions of the named the Plaintiffs once the
Plaintiff have produced this additional information.
UCOR is an environmental cleanup contractor.
A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated May 11, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WngFiO at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
William S. Rutchow, Esq.
Darius Walker, Jr., Esq.
Luci L. Nelson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
SunTrust Plaza, Suite 1200
401 Commerce Street
Nashville, TN 37219-2446
Telephone: (615) 254-1900
Facsimile: (615) 254-1908
UNITED STATES CELLULAR: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Cellular 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 4, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the stockholder class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed
against TDS and UScellular and certain current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
The Complaint alleges that certain public statements made between
May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the "potential class period")
regarding UScellular's business strategies to address subscriber
demand violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period
and demands unspecified monetary damages.
UScellular is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome
of this action would have a material impact on its results of
operations, financial condition, or cash flows.
UScellular intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously on the
merits.
UScellular is a wireless telecommunications service provider that
purportedly operates in 21 states that collectively represent a
total population of 32 million.
UPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP: Candido Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upper Darby Township.
The case is styled as Mary G. Candido, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Upper Darby Township, Case No.
2:23-cv-01542-CMR (E.D. Pa., April 21, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Upper Darby Township -- https://www.upperdarby.org/ -- often
shortened to Upper Darby, is a home rule township in Delaware
County, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
701 Camp Street, Suite 2900
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 524-5777
Email: dstanoch@golombhonik.com
- and -
Ruben Honik, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market St., Ste. 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 435-1300
Email: ruben@honiklaw.com
VENEZUELA: PDVSA Appeals Ruling in Gold Reserve Suit to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETROLEOS DE VENEZUELA SA (PDVSA) is taking an appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled Gold Reserve Inc., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, Defendant, Case No. 1-22-mc-00453, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
On Oct. 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a conditional
order authorizing the issuance of a writ of attachment fieri
facias, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Leonard P. Stark on Mar. 31, 2023. The cross-motion to dismiss
filed by Petroleos de Venezuela, SA was denied.
The Court found that PDVSA is not entitled to foreign sovereign
immunity and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The appellate case is captioned Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 23-1652, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Apr. 11, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee GOLD RESERVE INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Katherine G. Connolly, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
555 California Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 94104
Telephone: (628) 231-6816
- and -
Kevin J. Mangan, Esq.
Stephanie S. Riley, Esq.
Matthew P. Ward, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
1313 North Market Street, Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 252-4361
(302) 559-8528
(302) 252-4320
Defendant-Intervenor BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA is
represented by:
Ginger D. Anders, Esq.
Elaine J. Goldenberg, Esq.
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Weiner, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON
601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500e
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 220-1107
(202) 220-1100
(202) 220-1141
Intervenor-Appellant PETROLEOS DE VENEZUELA SA is represented by:
Jamie L. Brown, Esq.
Samuel Taylor Hirzel, II, Esq.
Aaron M. Nelson, Esq.
HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 472-7318
(302) 472-7315
(302) 472-7312
- and -
Aubre Dean, Esq.
Kevin A. Meehan, Esq.
Juan O. Perla, Esq.
Joseph D. Pizzurro, Esq.
Allesandra D. Tyler, Esq.
CURTIS MALLET-PREVOST COLT & MOSLE
101 Park Avenue, 34th floor
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 696-6037
(212) 696-6197
(212) 696-6084
(212) 696-6000
(248) 884-2573
WALGREENS CO: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Theranos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that Walgreens has reached a tentative
settlement in an Arizona class action accusing it of intentionally
disregarding multiple signs that the Theranos "single finger prick"
blood test was not capable of producing reliable results.
In a May 22 notice, the drugstore giant asked Judge David Campbell
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to stay
proceedings pending the filing of a proposed settlement agreement
and a motion for preliminary approval. [GN]
WASHINGTON, DC: Plaintiffs File Second Renewed Bid for Class Cert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELSA MALDONADO, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:10-cv-01511-RJL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their second renewed
motion for class certification.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and Local Civil
Rule 23.1(b), the Plaintiffs renew, for the second time, their
motion to certify the Plaintiff class.
However, the Court has not yet addressed the merits of the
Plaintiffs' request for class certification. On February 14, 2011,
the Court issued a minute order staying briefing on the motion
until after the Court ruled on the Defendants' first motion to
dismiss. After two appeals returned the case to the Court, the
Plaintiffs filed their first renewed motion for class certification
on October 22, 2018. The District filed a motion to stay the
briefing on the Plaintiffs' renewed motion and did not file an
opposition. The Court subsequently denied the motion without
prejudice sua sponte.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IBPhrA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kathleen L. Millian, Esq.
Michael L. Huang, Esq.
Stephanie A. Madison, Esq.
TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP
1816 12th Street, NW, Suite 303
Washington, DC 20009-4422
Telephone: (202) 682-2100, ext. 8474
- and -
Jane Perkins, Esq.
NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
1512 E. Franklin Street, Suite 110
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Telephone: (919) 968-6308
WEC ENERGY GROUP: Continues to Defend Munt Class Suit in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------
WEC Energy Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Munt class suit in the the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Division.
In May 2022, a putative class action, Munt, et al. v. WEC Energy
Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Division.
The plaintiffs allege that WEC Energy Group and others breached
their fiduciary duties with respect to the operation and oversight
of the Employee Retirement Saving Plan (the "Plan") in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.
The class is alleged to be participants in the Plan from May 10,
2016 through the date of judgment. The complaint seeks injunctive
relief, damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Company is vigorously defending against the allegations made in
this lawsuit and intends to continue to do so.
WEC Energy is an American company based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
that provides electricity and natural gas.
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Product Liability Suit
---------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 25, 2023, that the company is currently
defending against two lawsuits that have been certified for
treatment as class actions in U.S. federal court, relating to two
top-load washing machine models.
In December 2019, the court in one of these lawsuits entered
summary judgment in Whirlpool's favor. That ruling remains subject
to appeal, and the other lawsuit is ongoing.
Whirlpool Corporation is a kitchen and laundry company based in
Michigan.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Daly Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Daly, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 2023CH02149 was removed from the Circuit Court for Cook
County, Illinois Chancery Division, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 18, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02427.
The Complaint alleges that WFM Group: (1) engages in deceptive
advertising by selling 365 by Whole Foods Market Tilapia Fillets
("365 Tilapia") in packages containing less than the advertised
amount of fish; (2) intentionally misrepresents the amount of fish
contained in each package of 365 Tilapia; and (3) has been unjustly
enriched by the alleged misrepresentation. Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that WFM Group manufactures, advertises, markets and sells
frozen tilapia filets in bags stating that each package contains
907 grams of fish product. Plaintiff alleges WFM Group short
weighted the fish fillets by overglazing them in ice in order to
sell the fish at a weight higher than the amount of fish actually
delivered. Plaintiff contends he, and consumers like him, were
injured because they were overcharged and deprived of the 907 grams
of fish fillets promised in each bag.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve G. Perry, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C
707 Skokie Blvd., Suite 600
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: (224) 218-0875
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: Steven.perry@toddflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph D. Ryan, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH D. RYAN, P.C.
1896 Sheridan Road
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: (847) 432-5971
Email: jrxan@ryanlawoffices.eom
- and -
Brian R. Blackman, Esq.
Wells Blaxter, Esq.
BLAXTER | BLACKMAN LLP
610 Montgomery Street, Suite 1110
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 500-7704
Email: bblackman@blaxterlaw.com
wblaxter@blaxterlaw.com
WP FREMAUX: Bid for Summary Judgments Due Sept. 27 in Sylve Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAZMYNE SYLVE, ET AL, v.
WP FREMAUX SIDELL-LA OWNER, ET AL, Case No. 2:22-cv-00861-GGG-DPC
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Greg Gerard Guidry entered an order as
follows:
-- All pretrial motions, including motions Sept. 27,
2023
for summary judgments and motions in
limine regarding the admissibility of
expert testimony, shall be filed and
served in sufficient time to permit
hearing no later than:
-- Any motion for partial summary judgment not be considered by
the
Courtunless the movant first obtains leave court, with good
cause
shown, to file such a motion.
-- Additionally, all bases upon which summary judgment is sought
should be included in a single pleading where a party seeks
partial summary judgment on more than one issue.
-- Depositions for trial use shall be taken Sept. 5, 2023
and all discovery shall be completed no
later than:
-- Written reports of experts, as defined by Aug. 18, 2023
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B),
Who may be witnesses for the Defendants
fully setting forth all matters about
which they will testify and the basis
therefor shall be obtained and delivered
to counsel for the Plaintiff as soon as
possible, but in no event later than:
-- Counsel for the parties shall file in the Aug. 18,
2023.
record and serve upon their opponents a
list of all witnesses who may or will be
called to testify at trial and all
exhibits which may or will be used at
trial not later than:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43hBTRr at no extra charge.[CC]
ZOOM VIDEO: Trial in Securities Class Suit Set for May 24, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2023, that the United
States District Court for the NDCA scheduled trial for the
securities class suit on May 20, 2024.
On April 7, 2020 and April 8, 2020, securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company and two of its officers
in the United States District Court for the NDCA.
The plaintiffs are its purported stockholders. The complaints
allege, among other things, that it violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact about its data
privacy and security measures.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On May 18, 2020, the actions were consolidated.
On November 4, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.
On December 23, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
May 20, 2021.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to its motion to dismiss on July 9,
2021.
The Company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed
on August 9, 2021.
On February 16, 2022, the court granted in part, and denied in
part, its motion to dismiss.
On March 14, 2022, it moved for reconsideration of the court's
ruling on the motion to dismiss.
On March 22, 2022, the court ordered plaintiff to respond to its
motion, which plaintiff did on March 29, 2022.
On April 22, 2022, we answered the complaint.
On March 8, 2023, the court denied our motion for reconsideration.
On April 6, 2023, the court entered a scheduling order.
Trial is scheduled for May 20, 2024.
The Company had discussions with lead plaintiff's counsel regarding
a potential settlement of this matter.
Although the Company have not yet reached a binding agreement, and
there can be no assurance that a final settlement will be reached
or that a settlement, if reached, will be approved by the Court,
those discussions are ongoing.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. and its subsidiaries connect
people
through its core unified communications offering, which brings
together video, phone, chat, webinars events, and contact center,
and enables meaningful experiences across disparate devices and
locations.
*********
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 ***