/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230703.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 3, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 132
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Aguilar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Alt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Anderson Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Bailey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
4OVER4.COM INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ABLETON INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADROIT HEALTH: Echols Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Anderson Class Suit
ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 5
AEROSMITH LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALEXANDRIA MOULDING: Faces Roman Wage-and-Hour Suit in New York
ALPHASIGHTS INC: Black Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
AMAZON LOGISTICS: Perry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AMAZON.COM INC: Adams Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Butzke Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN ADVISORS GROUP: Cabezas Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert Bid Filing Date Extended to Sept. 1
AMERICAN TUNA: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to August 7
AMTEC HUMAN: Cooper Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ANGELINA BRYANT PARK: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
APPLE INC: Court Refuses to Reconsider Dismissal of Barrett Suit
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Herrera Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 31, 2024
ARCADIA CONSUMER: Delphia Sues Over False and Misleading Claims
ARDENT MILLS: Arceo Suit Removed to C.D. California
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Crawford Seeks to Certify Purchasers Class
ASIAN BEAUTY ESSENTIALS: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Filing for Class Cert Extended to Nov. 16
BAE SYSTEMS: Sept. 21 Filing Deadline for Class Cert Bid Sought
BARCLAYS BANK: Class Action Settlement in Sonterra Gets Initial Nod
BETTER BOOCH: Dawson Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
BROCK PIERCE: Seeks to Strike Late Served Third-Party Subpoenas
CAPITAL ONE: Court Stays Marquez Class Suit
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Zimmerman Claims
CENTESSA PHARMA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
CGM LLC: White Suit Alleges Failure to Safeguard Customers' Info
CMG MEDIA: Dec. 9 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
COLUMBINE LOGGING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Sadle Says
CONSOLIDATED ANALYTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Stewart Claims
CORECIVIC INC: Court OK's Bid to Seal Exhibits in Bliss Class Suit
CR ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Carter Says
CREDIT SUISSE: Suit Targets Former Executives Over Unfair Practices
CRUNCHBASE INC: Time Extension to Answer Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
DR. SQUATCH: Bilbao Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls
ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Protect Patients' Private Info, Suit Says
ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Secure Private Info, McHugh Suit Claims
ENZO BIOCHEM: Shah Sues Over 3rd Party Access of Patients' Info
FINCH COMPANY: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FUTU HOLDINGS: Henry Sues Over Misleading Disclosure Statements
GARDNER PIE: Must Oppose Class Cert Supplement by July 5
GOLDEN GRAIN: Court Dismisses Claims in Abbott Suit With Prejudice
HUGO R. LANDSCAPING: Lemus Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
INDIANA: Atty. General Appeals State Abortion Ban Certification
JON & VINNY: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Service Fees
JPM SUTTON: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Estrada Says
KIA AMERICA: Sanders's Bid to Remand Suit to Superior Court Denied
LEDUC, AB: Settles Smith Class Suit Over Workplace Misconduct
MAXUM INDEMNITY: Bid to Enforce Settlement in Henry Suit Granted
MDL 2924: Hughley Suit Consolidated in Ranitidine Liability Row
MDL 2924: Panel Denies Remand of Martin Suit to S.D. Ind.
MDL 2936: Panel Remands Nationwide v. Smitty's to E.D. La.
MILLER TUBULAR: Stacey Sues Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime
MURPHY OIL: Overcharges Premium Customers, Class Suit Says
NATIONAL DEBT: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Messages, Schopp Says
NETJETS INC: Faces Suit Over Pilot Training's Systemic Deficiencies
NEW YORK: Affirmance of Dismissal of Drivers Assoc. v. DOT Modified
PHOENIX, AZ: Dismissal of Pope's Anti-diversion Claims Affirmed
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 3rd. Cir. Affirms in Part Suit Dismissal
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Warren Suit Partially Vacated
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Phlebotomists, Pope Claims
QUIKRETE COMPANIES: Thomas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
R&B CORPORATION: Blake Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
RCO REFORESTING: Quintero, Aguilar Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
REGINA CATERERS: Polanco Sues Over Labor Law Violations
RELIANT HOSPICE: Henderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
RELO LLC: Nebieridze, Janikashvili Sue Over Labor Law Violations
RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Mendoza Files Suit in D. Minnesota
RISKIFIED LTD: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Fraud Suit
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Tuso Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
RUGS.COM LLC: Aldimassi Sues Over Misleading Sale Prices
RYAN WIMMER: Ga. App. Affirms Judgment on Pleadings in NASB Suit
SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED: Pierce Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SASKATCHEWAN: Faces Class Suit Over Children Discrimination
SISTERS OF CHARITY: Mismanages Retirement Funds, Macias et al. Say
STREMICKS HERITAGE: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
SUPER BRIGHT LEDS: Valenzuela Files Suit in C.D. California
TASTES ON THE FLY: Bartenders Sue Over Labor Law Violations
TAYLOR COMPANY INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TD BANK NA: Dou Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
TEK-COLLECT INC: Jackson Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
TLF APPAREL HOLDINGS: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Hakeem Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TUBI INC: Campos Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Viewing History
TWITTER INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Annual Bonuses
UHG I LLC: Pochan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
UINTAH BASIN: Miller Files Suit in D. Utah
UINTAH BASIN: Rasmussen Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII
UNIVERSAL CITY: Accornero Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNIVERSAL CITY: Clarke Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Clemensen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
USI INSURANCE SERVICES: Powell Suit Removed to C.D. California
VGW LUCKYLAND: Suit Filed in S.D. New York
VJ & H: Underpays Nail Salon Workers, Weidong Li Suit Claims
VXN GROUP LLC: Thoma Suit Removed to C.D. California
WALGREEN CO: Skutley Suit Removed to E.D. California
WASHINGTON: Settles Garcia Data Breach Class Suit for $3.6-M
WHATNOT INC: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WOW RESTAURANT: Workers Class Conditionally Certified in Chen Suit
XFL PROPERTIES: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
*********
3M COMPANY: Aguilar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Joey Aguilar, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining andManufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARKEMA, INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; 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 PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Case No. 2:23-cv-02785-RMG (D.S.C., June
16, 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 during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with liver 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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Alt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Alt, 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 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-02280-RMG (D.S.C., May 26, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Anderson Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Andrew Anderson, Carlton Ward, Julian Favela
Jr., John Johnson, Peter Smith, Anthony Harbor Sr., David Juarez,
Paul Jones, Roy Timothy Brockway, David Rairdan, Leo R. Devigil,
Roger Mccurley, Alan K. Kulak, Paul A. Kresta, John H. Cook, James
Gipson, Harvey I. Lashinsky, Jefferey Willis, Hussein Glasgow,
Steve Barnes, Kenneth Wayne Maxson, Leroy Robinson, Willis Wilson
Iii, Don R. Jones Sr., Arthur Watson, Medrick Lee, Warren L. Bain,
Scott Worth, Timothy Roberts, Charles Hillman, William Bargfeldt,
Wayne Jetelina, David Michael Sloan, Dennis Berklund, Nathan
Carter, Jerry Stepan, Adan Ramos, Gregory Jones, Willie Carter,
Charles Knoles, Albert Tony Sanchez, Chris Pendleton, Richard King,
Aureo Felix Parrilla, Gregory Lee Bunn, Ira David Sizemore, Patrick
Carey Fahey Sr., Charles Eddie Earls, Gordon Jerome Carter, Paul
Joseph Dudzinski, Charles Bradley Claywell, Henry Updike, Michael
Landstreet, Norman E. Washington, Harvey Marshall, Gary Chetelat,
James Vaughn, Patrick Hall, Keith Cross, Ronald Lee Haynes, Walter
Brown Davis, Jarrett Dews, Richard M. Rodgers, Douglas Cox, Michael
L. Owens, Ronald Hill, Robert L. Johnson Jr., Dwight Adams, Stephen
Richardson, Stephen Royal wheeler, Thomas K. League, Edward D
Phillips, Michael M. Carver, Marc Maxwell, Robert Barry, Philip
Ottman, George Van Gieson, Michael Holzman, Donald Doser, James
Carman, Tom Christensen, Dale Griffith, Michael Rice, James Harold
Patton Jr., Gerald Mitchem, Gary Bruce Humphrey, Philip Kincaid,
Grant Lewis, William Fidler, Steven Broyles, Christopher Foreman,
Joseph Chester Vann, David Ybanez, Gregory Lampman, Todd Robert
Shippee, Patrick Remis, Donald Linhart, John Mclain, Richard
Anderson, Lawrence Schneider, Gerald Ziegler, Junius Martin, Thomas
Mercer, Christopher Don Hensley, Jerry Kimmitt Strom, Mike Fuller,
Dave Moore, Marc Bentovoja, Brian Mcmahon, Maurice Ponce, Maxence
Labbe, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; ARCHROMA US INC; ARKEMA INC;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC; CHEMGUARD INC; CHEMICALS, INC; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY, LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC;
STEDFAST USA, 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); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No.
2023CP0100090 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Eighth
Judicial Circuit, Abbeville County, South Carolina, to the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina on June
15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02712-RMG.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or
selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter
turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in
firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 720-2044
Fax: (843) 720-2047
Email: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 701-8520
Email: dring@mayerbrown.com
3M COMPANY: Bailey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Bailey, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining andManufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARKEMA, INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; 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 PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Case No. 2:23-cv-02789-RMG (D.S.C., June
17, 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 during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with Hashimoto's
disease 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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
4OVER4.COM INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 4Over4.Com, Inc. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. 4Over4.Com, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05136 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
4Over 4.Com Inc. -- https://www.4over4.com/ -- was founded in 2000.
The company's line of business includes commercial or job printing
such as bags, business forms, calendars, cards, and other printed
material.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ABLETON INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ableton, Inc. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Ableton, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05224
(S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ableton -- https://www.ableton.com/en/ -- makes software, hardware
and other creative tools for a global community of music
makers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
ADROIT HEALTH: Echols Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ADROIT HEALTH GROUP, LLC and MEDIAALPHA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:23-CV-00758-LSC (N.D. Ala., June 12, 2023)
arises of the Defendants' violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.
According to the complaint, Adroit Health violated the TCPA and the
Regulations by having its agent, Defendant MediaAlpha Inc., make
two or more telemarketing calls within a 12-month period to
persons, including Plaintiff, who registered their numbers on
National Do Not Call Registry Class while those persons’ phone
numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.
Adroit Health Group, LLC is a limited liability company that
provides individuals and families the access to affordable
supplemental healthcare plans. It commissioned telemarketing
vendors, including MediaAlpha, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com
ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Anderson Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERMAINE ANDERSON,
individually and as a representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, on behalf of the ADVANCE 401(K) PLAN, v. ADVANCE
PUBLICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06826-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Analisa Torres entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
with prejudice.
-- The Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without
prejudice.
By June 27, 2023, the Plaintiff may file a second amended
complaint.
-- In addition, the case management conference scheduled for June
20, 2023, is adjourned sine die.
The Plaintiff states that "discovery conducted following the filing
of the amended complaint has further borne out the Plaintiff's
claims."
The Defendant argues that "the Plaintiff has had multiple chances
to amend; he should not be afforded another."
The Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once. But, because
the deficiencies described in this order might be cured by
amendment, the Plaintiff may amend his complaint.
Advance Publications is a private New York corporation that invests
in a portfolio of companies across media, entertainment,
technology, communications, education and other potential growth
sectors.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43TS5t1 at no extra charge.[CC]
ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 5
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson v. Advance
Publications, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06826-AT (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order a two-week extension
in the Plaintiff's reply deadline, leading to the following
schedule:
-- The Defendant shall file its opposition July 5, 2023
to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiff shall file his reply, July 19, 2023
if any.
On April 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a letter motion seeking
leave to file a motion for class certification. The Defendant filed
a response letter on April 24, 2023, explaining that it did not
oppose the Plaintiff's ability to file a motion for class
certification, but that the Defendant expected to oppose the motion
on the merits after reviewing the Plaintiff's arguments and
evidentiary submission.
The Court granted the Plaintiff's request to file a motion for
class certification on April 25, 2023. The order set May 31, 2023,
as the deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
with the Defendant's opposition due by June 21, 2023, and the
Plaintiff's reply due by July 5, 2023.
Advance Publications is a privately-held American media company
owned by the families of Donald Newhouse and Samuel Irving Newhouse
Jr.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PBOQBQ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jaime A. Santos, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (202) 346-4034
E-mail: JSantos@goodwinlaw.com
AEROSMITH LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aerosmith, LLC. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Aerosmith, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05053-MKV
(S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aerosmith LLC, doing business as PetSpy -- https://petspy.com/ --
is a professional manufacturer of dog training collars and
lifestyle pet product solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ALEXANDRIA MOULDING: Faces Roman Wage-and-Hour Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARIEL ROMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALEXANDRIA MOULDING, INC. and U.S. LUMBER
GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 609667/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., June 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to timely pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Roman was employed by the Defendants as an hourly paid worker
at Alexandria Moulding from in or about March 22, 2021 through May
22, 2021.
Alexandria Moulding, Inc. is a moulding manufacturer doing business
in New York.
U.S. Lumber Group, LLC is a distributor of specialty building
materials, headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Hunter G. Benharris, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
ALPHASIGHTS INC: Black Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Black, Chidubem Anyanwu, Laura Barrera, Caroline Filan,
Caroline Harris, Michelle Sims, Nicole Tang, Samhaoir Ruland,
Samantha Ryan, and Leora Vainshelboim, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. ALPHASIGHTS INC., Case No.
613283/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., May 25, 2023), is brought
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees who have worked as
exempt-classified associates at AlphaSights during the relevant
period ("Associates"), in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL" or "N.Y. Lab. Law"), and
the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations
(collectively, the "New York Wage Laws"); and the California Labor
Code ("Cal. Lab. Code") and applicable Wage Orders and regulations,
and the California Unfair Business Practices Law (collectively, the
"California Wage Laws").
The Defendant has classified Associates, including Plaintiffs, as
exempt from federal and state overtime protections and not paid
Associates any overtime wages. The primary duties of Associates are
non-exempt. Those primary duties did not vary significantly from
one Associate to another. The primary duties of Associates do not
fall under any of the exemptions under applicable federal or state
overtime laws.
While employed by Defendant, Plaintiffs regularly worked more than
8 hours per day and more than 40 hours per workweek without
receiving overtime compensation for the hours they worked.
Throughout the relevant period, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs
their earned overtime wages in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, the
"New York Wage Laws"); and the California Labor Code and applicable
Wage Orders and regulations, and the California Unfair Business
Practices Law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant.
AlphaSights Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in
New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
Email: mstewart@outtengolden.com
- and -
Jennifer Davidson, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
1225 New York Ave NW, Suite 1200B
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 847-4400
Email: jdavidson@outtengolden.com
- and -
James F. Misiano, Esq.
JAMES F. MISIANO P.C.
130 Third Avenue
Brentwood, NY 11717
Phone: (631) 396-0255
Email: jmisiano@misianolaw.com
AMAZON LOGISTICS: Perry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rodneka Perry, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,
AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC f/k/a AMAZON.COM, LLC,
and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Case No. 23STCV10195 was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May
30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03383.
By filing this notice, Defendants do not concede any allegation,
assertion, claim, or demand for relief in the Complaint of Rodneka
Perry, or that any damages exist. Defendants expressly deny that
they have violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"). Defendants intend to defend this matter vigorously, and
reserve all defenses and objections to the allegations, assertions,
claims, demands for relief, and supposed damages set forth in the
Complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Catherine Mitchell, Esq.
Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
mrathur@stephanzouras.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
Ryan Spear, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
RSpear@perkinscoie.com
- and ¬-
Kathleen A. Stetsko, Esq.
J. Mylan Traylor, Esq.
110 N Upper Wacker Dr Suite 3400,
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.324.8400
Facsimile: 312.324.9400
Email: KStetsko@perkinscoie.com
mtraylor@perkinscoie.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Adams Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cynthia Adams, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00121-EKD was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June
14, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00913-RSM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud
computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER PA
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7165
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Pierce C. Murphy, Esq.
SILVERMAN | THOMPSON | SLUTKIN | WHITE LLC
400 East Pratt St., Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 385-2225
Email: pmurphy@silvermanthompson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D Buckley
FENWICK & WEST (WA)
401 Union St., 5th Fl.
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 389-4529
Fax: (206) 389-4511
Email: bbuckley@fenwick.com
- and -
Michael John Finney
GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE
PO BOX 40013
Roanoke, VA 24022-0013
Phone: (540) 983-9373
Fax: 983-9468
Email: finney@gentrylocke.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Butzke Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Butzke, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CVRI2302555 was removed from the Superior Court of the Riverside
County Superior Court, State of California, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on June 16,
2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01155.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against
Amazon: Failure to Pay All Wages for All Hours Worked; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to
Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages
Upon Termination of Employment; Failure to Reimburse for Necessary
Business Expenditures; Failure to Provide Employees with Warehouse
Quotas and Work Speed Data; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Megan Cooney, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
Natalie D. Dygert, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: 949.451.3800
Facsimile: 949.451.4220
Email: MCooney@gibsondunn.com
KMagallanes@gibsondunn.com
NDygert@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAN ADVISORS GROUP: Cabezas Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Johnny Cabezas, Mylinda Cherneski, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN
ADVISORS GROUP aka BLOOM RETIREMENT HOLDINGS INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2023-01324108-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California in and for the County of Orange, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on June 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01048.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges two purported causes of action
for: violation of California WARN Act and Violation of WARN
Act.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: 310.820.8800
Facsimile: 310.820.8859
Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com
abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Transamerica Pyramid
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
Phone: 415.659.2600
Facsimile: 415.659.2601
Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert Bid Filing Date Extended to Sept. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESSAMELDIN ISMAIL, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01111-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order continuing class certification
hearing and related deadlines as follows:
Matter Current Date New Date
Hearing on Class Cert Motion: July 21,2023 Nov. 17,
2023
Class Cert Motion Filing Deadline: June 2, 2023 Sept. 1,
2023
Opposition to Class Cert Motion: June 23, 2023 Oct. 13,2023
Reply ISO Class Cert Motion: July 7, 2023 Nov. 3, 23
American Airlines is a major US-based airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XnBbjO at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN TUNA: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to August 7
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CRAIG, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN TUNA, INC.,
et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00473-RSH-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Michael S. Berg entered an order granting joint motion to modify
scheduling order regarding class certification motion filing
deadline:
-- The Court continues the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file
their
motion for class certification from July 31, 2023, to August
7,
2023.
-- All other dates and requirements set forth in the Court's
Scheduling Order remain in place.
American Tuna supplies one-by-one wild caught tuna and other
sustainably sourced seafood products to grocery aisles, deli's,
restaurants and homes across the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NL3p4Z at no extra charge.[CC]
AMTEC HUMAN: Cooper Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Pricilla Cooper, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMTEC HUMAN CAPITAL, INC., a California
Corporation; THE CLOROX COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; THE CLOROX
INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 23CV036357 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June
16, 2023), is brought for recovery of unpaid minimum wages and
liquidated damages; recovery of unpaid overtime wages; failure to
provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to
provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to timely pay
all wages due upon separation of employment; failure to reimburse
business expenses and; unfair competition.
The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members
for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and
overtime wages. the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff
and Class Members for all hours worked by virtue of, the
Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and
failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during
unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or
improper meal periods, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse worker,
repacker, palleter and/or similar title(s) and/or position(s) in
the State of California as a non-exempt employee from September 30,
2021, through June 14, 2022.
The Defendants own, operate, manage and/or staff its employees to
work at the warehouse(s) and/or manufacturing/production/packaging
facility(ies) and/or other location(s) in California, including but
not limited to the warehouse(s) and/or
manufacturing/production/packaging facility(ies) in Fairfield,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (866) 276-7637
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
ANGELINA BRYANT PARK: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Angelina Bryant Park,
LLC. The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Angelina Bryant Park, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-04440-DLI-CLP (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Angelina Bryant Park is a french patisserie in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
APPLE INC: Court Refuses to Reconsider Dismissal of Barrett Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL BARRETT, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward
J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Amended Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint.
Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Reconsideration issued on June 13, 2022, requesting that the Court
reconsiders its holding that the Plaintiffs did not state a claim
for Apple's receipt of stolen funds in violation of California
Penal Code Section 496. The Court heard oral argument on the
Motion on June 8, 2023.
Apple Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in Cupertino, California. Apple Value Services, LLC (with
Apple Inc., "Apple"), is a Virginia corporation with its principal
place of business in Cupertino, California. The Plaintiffs are
residents of Oregon, Florida, California, and Missouri, all of whom
fell victim to scams involving the purchase of Apple's App Store &
iTunes gift cards.
According to the Plaintiffs, the scammer contacts an individual and
then induces panic or urgency in the individual or otherwise
induces the individual to give money to the scammer. The scammer
tells the individual to transfer money using iTunes gift cards by
giving the unique code(s) located on the back of the gift card(s).
Once the scammer is in possession of a gift card code, the scammer
does one of two things: sell the code to a third party in exchange
for money or input the code into an Apple ID account controlled by
the scammer and use the value of the gift card as if it were their
own and carry out transactions in either the iTunes Store or the
App Store.
In a typical version of the scam, however, the scammer will not
spend the gift card value in the iTunes Store or on or within
third-party apps. Instead, scammers spend the value on or within an
app that the scammer controls. The scam, or at least one cycle of
the scam, is complete when the Apple Developer-scammer receives
their payment from Apple. The scammer has at this point effectively
converted gift card codes into money.
The Plaintiffs allege that Apple has control of its iTunes and App
Stores such that it knew or should have known about specific iTunes
gift card scams as they were occurring or soon after they occurred.
They allege that Apple knew or should have known: which Apple IDs
had uploaded the codes of stolen gift cards; which iTunes Store or
App Store purchases had been made with the value uploaded from
stolen gift cards; and which Apple Developer accounts were
associated with purchases made with the value uploaded from stolen
gift cards.
More generally, the Plaintiffs allege that Apple knew or should
have known how the iTunes gift card scam works, and that it is a
widespread and impactful phenomenon. They allege that Apple could
have used its knowledge and control of its online stores to suspend
Apple ID accounts and Apple Developer accounts associated with
suspicious activity, to refuse to pay Apple Developer accounts that
seemed to be involved with scams, and to refund to scam victims
Apple's 30% commission on purchases associated with scams (if not
the full 100% loss of the stolen gift card value). The Plaintiffs
allege that Apple's actions or failures to act indicate that Apple
is aiding and abetting the scam or is otherwise violating
California fair competition statutes by knowingly paying scammers
and keeping funds received because of the scams.
The Plaintiffs bring the action individually and also on behalf of
a proposed nationwide class of persons in the United States who
were victims of the iTunes gift card scam and who did not receive a
refund from Apple. They propose one subclass that includes scam
victims who contacted Apple following the scam (the "Contact
Subclass").
The FAC described nine named Plaintiffs, all of whom fell victim to
a typical version of the scam as described. Five of those
Plaintiffs -- Plaintiffs Polston, Martin, Maria Rodriguez, Michael
Rodriguez, and Andrew Hagene -- remain in the action, as described
below. See infra, at Section I.B. Two of the remaining named
Plaintiffs contacted Apple after being scammed, one contacted the
police, and two contacted both the police and a district attorney.
According to the FAC, the individual Plaintiffs who did not contact
Apple were informed that once the scammers redeemed the iTunes gift
card there was nothing that Apple would do for them. Those who
contacted Apple were informed that after the cards had been
redeemed, there was nothing Apple could do.
Plaintiffs Michel Polston, Nancy Martin, Michael Rodriguez, Maria
Rodriguez, and Andrew Hagene ("Plaintiffs") bring a putative class
action againstApple. In their FAC, they asserted the following
claims: (1) unfair practices in violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750
et seq.; (2) unfair practices in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200; (3)
unlawful practices in violation of the CLRA; (4) unlawful practices
in violation of the UCL; (5) deceptive practices in violation of
the CLRA; (6) deceptive practices under the UCL; (7) violation of
the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17500; (8) receiving, retaining, withholding, or
concealing stolen property in violation of California Penal Code
Section 496; (9) conversion; (10) aiding and abetting intentional
torts; and (11) declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, which it granted
in part and denied in part. At issue is the Court's holding on the
Plaintiffs' claim for violations of California Penal Code Section
496, namely, that although those Plaintiffs who had contacted Apple
following their discovery of the scam had stated a Section 496
claim for withholding stolen property, no Plaintiff had stated a
claim that Apple violated Section 496 by receiving stolen
property.
The Prior Order was issued on June 13, 2022. About five weeks
later, on July 21, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued an
opinion in Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, 13 Cal. 5th 333
(2022). The Plaintiffs subsequently requested leave to file a
motion for partial reconsideration with respect to the Court's
decision on their claim for Apple's receipt of stolen property in
violation of Section 496, on the ground that Siry constituted a
clarification of the law on the meaning of "receipt" under Section
496. The Court granted leave and the instant Motion followed.
The Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court's holding that the
FAC did not state a claim for Defendants' receipt of stolen
property in violation of California Penal Code Section 496. They
argue that reconsideration is warranted because the Prior Order's
reasoning depended on one branch of a split in the California
appellate courts' authority, but Siry effectively resolved the
split in the other direction.
Judge Davila the Plaintiffs have not shown a material change in law
that changes the Court's analysis in the Prior Order that, based on
a plain reading of the statute's use of past tense, the property
must be stolen before receipt by a defendant such as Apple, who is
not alleged to have committed the theft. The allegations in the FAC
do not adequately plead that the property was stolen before Apple
received it.
Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for
receipt of stolen property under Section 496. He also declines
their invitation to permit them to amend their complaint at this
late stage of the action, a year after the issuance of the order
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the
FAC.
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Reconsideration is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/c7psmd5n from Leagle.com.
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Herrera Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT N. HERRERA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-CV-01031-RLY-KMB (S.D. Ind., June 13, 2023) alleges
claims against the Defendant for, among other things, negligence,
invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
Despite marketing itself as a safe repository for sensitive
information, Defendant failed to take basic precautions designed to
keep that information secure. According to Defendant, between April
5, 2019 and May 7, 2019 and again between August 27, 2021 and
October 10, 2021, hackers gained access to the Defendant's network
that it uses to store a wide range of sensitive personally
identifiable information and personal health information on its
customers. In May 2023, Defendant began sending letters to affected
individuals notifying them that their information was compromised.
In those Data Breach notification letters, Defendant admits that
information in its network was accessed by unauthorized
individuals, says the suit.
Apria is a provider of home medical equipment for sleep apnea and
also provides pharmaceutical services and equipment and supplied
for wound care and diabetes. The company is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana, serving medical providers and patients
across the United States in hundreds of locations. [BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
- and -
Jason Wucetic, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 31, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMAND WILLIAMS, ALAN
MICHAEL LARRECOU, v. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, YOSEMITE HOSPITALITY,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00291-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Erica P. Grosjean entered a scheduling conference order as
follows:
-- The Court opens discovery on the April 30, 2024
Plaintiffs' merits and conditional
class certification, with a Non-Expert
Discovery deadline set for:
-- Motion for Class Certification: May 31, 2024
-- A Mid-Discovery Status Conference will Nov. 13, 2023
be held on:
Aramark provides food and facilities management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jqpovd at no extra charge.[CC]
ARCADIA CONSUMER: Delphia Sues Over False and Misleading Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Delphia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ARCADIA CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, INC. d/b/a KRAMER
LABORATORIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Case No.
1:23-cv-00819-HBK (E.D. Cal., May 25, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant's false and misleading claims that violate the California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and California False Advertising Law
("FAL").
Kramer Labs is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of
business in Bridgewater, New Jersey, which markets its Fungi-Nail
products ("Product(s)") as foot fungus treatment. Kramer Labs
manufactures, distributes, and sells the Product. Defendant sells
the Product by deceiving the public about the Product's abilities
to cure nail fungus.
The Defendant claims on its advertising, packaging, and website
(http://funginail.com)that its Products have many purported
benefits such as: All Fungi-Nail Products are Clinically Proven to
Cure and Prevent Fungal Infections, Maximum Strength Medicine,
Clinically Proven Ingredient to Cure and Prevent Fungal Infections,
Triple Action Formula Kills Fungus, Stops Itching & Burning,
Restores Skin Health.
The Defendant misled Plaintiff and Class Members into believing
that the Product would kill nail fungus. These claims are false and
misleading. Plaintiff and members of the classes purchased the
Products for their ingredients, potency, and effects, and paid a
premium for Defendant's Products over comparable products that were
not promoted with the misrepresentations at issue here. The
Defendant's representations concerning the Products are unfair,
unlawful, and fraudulent, and have the tendency or capacity to
deceive or confuse reasonable consumers.
Prior to his purchase, the Plaintiff saw and reviewed the
Defendant's advertising claims on the Product packaging and
labeling itself, and he made his purchase of the Product in
reliance thereon. The Plaintiff specifically relied upon
representations made by the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not
receive the promised benefits or receive the full value of his
purchase, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Fungi-Nail Product from a local
retailer.
Kramer Labs manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells the
Product.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
MANFRED, APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 550-4005
Fax: (619) 550-4006
Email: mmuecke@manfredapc.com
ARDENT MILLS: Arceo Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
Jose Arceo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ARDENT MILLS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2305763 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on June 15, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-01146.
On March 3, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a civil Class Action
Complaint for Damages against Defendant which sets forth the
following causes of action: Failure to Pay All Wages; Failure to
Pay All Overtime Wages At The Legal Overtime Pay Rate; Failure to
Provide All Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit All Paid
Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Legally-Compliant Rest Periods;
Failure to Pay Premium Wages At The Legal Pay Rate; Failure to
Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Derivative
Violations of Labor Code; Independent Violations of Labor Code; and
Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter J. Woo, Esq.
Vincent L. Chen, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
Email: Peter.Woo@jacksonlewis.com
Vincent.Chen@jacksonlewis.com
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Crawford Seeks to Certify Purchasers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Crawford,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00220-DWD (S.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying an
Illinois purchasers Class of:
"the combination of iced tea and lemonade, known as an "Arnold
Palmer," represented as "Lite", sold by Arizona Beverages USA
LLC
under the Arizona brand."
The Plaintiff filed this action on February 6, 2022, alleging that
the representation "Lite" was
(1) "misleading with respect to the Product's sugar content,"
because "sugar is the second most predominant ingredient in
the
Product by weight, " and
(2) "misleading with respect to the Product's calorie content,"
because the Product "is not low in calories" and "it does
not
identify any other food" as a "reference food" to provide
"the
consumer [with] context for [this] claim."
Following the Defendant's motion seeking dismissal, filed on April
29, 2022, the Court permitted the Plaintiff's consumer fraud
claims, arising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act (ICFA), to proceed because "the Court cannot say that
as a matter of law that significant portion of reasonable consumers
are not deceived by the 'Lite' claim made by the Defendant in its
labeling."
Arizona Beverages is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice
cocktails, and energy drinks.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pi9zQF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ASIAN BEAUTY ESSENTIALS: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asian Beauty
Essentials, LLC. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Asian Beauty
Essentials, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05107 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Asian Beauty Essentials -- https://asianbeautyessentials.com/ --
brings the innovation of skin care from the East to the West.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Filing for Class Cert Extended to Nov. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IA BROWN. an individual,
on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, v. AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; CRAIG CAMERON, an individual; HEARX WEST, INC.,
A California corporation; STEVE MAHON, an individual; TINO
SCHWEIGHOEFER, an individual; HEARX WEST LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; WS AUDIOLOGY (CALIFORNIA), PC, A California
professional corporation; SIVANTOS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-04271-DMG-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order continuing
dates for class certification motion and associated dates by 90
days:
1. The deadline for the Plaintiff's motion Nov. 16, 2023
for class certification is continued
from August 18, 2023, to:
2. The Jury Trial in this matter is July 9, 2024
continued from April 9, 2024, to:
Audiology Distribution was founded in 2011. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of specialized lines of
merchandise.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NILOdU at no extra charge.[CC]
BAE SYSTEMS: Sept. 21 Filing Deadline for Class Cert Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BAE
SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California corporation; and,
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs Federico Cabrales, Tychichus Stanislas, and
Tony Fuga apply ex parte for an order:
(1) continuing the filing deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion
for
class certification from June 23, 2023, to September 21,
2023,
and
(2) reopening class discovery for the limited purpose of
allowing
the Plaintiffs to subpoena and obtain personnel and payroll
data for the putative class members supplied by staffing
companies to perform work for defendant BAE Systems San
Diego
Ship Repair, Inc., which are not in BAE Systems'
possession.
On October 26, 2021, the Plaintiff Cabrales filed a putative class
action complaint against BAE in the Superior Court for the County
of San Diego for violations of the California Labor Code's wage and
hour laws and unfair business practices.
After removal to federal court, Cabrales filed a First Amended
Complaint, adding claims for failure to pay straight and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and a representative claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA), as well as adding the Plaintiffs Steven
Whidbee, Tychicus Stanislas, and Tony Fuga.
BAE Systems provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization,
conversion, and overhaul services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pmri9A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Dalia Khalili, Esq.
Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: matern@maternlawgroup.com
dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
mgordon@maternlawgroup.com
BARCLAYS BANK: Class Action Settlement in Sonterra Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER
FUND, LTD., RICHARD DENNIS, and FRONTPOINT EUROPEAN FUND, L.P., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BARCLAYS
BANK PLC, COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISENBOERENLEENBANK B.A.,
DEUTSCHE BANK AG, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50, and BARCLAYS CAPITAL,
INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-03538-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon
S. Broderick entered an order preliminarily approving class action
settlement with Deutsche Bank AG, scheduling a hearing for final
approval, and approving the proposed form and program of notice to
the class.
The Settlement Class is defined as:
"All Persons or entities that transacted in a Sterling
LIBOR-Based
Derivative at any time from January 1, 2005, through at least
December 31, 2010, provided that, if Representative the
Plaintiffs
expand the Class in any subsequent amended complaint, class
motion,
or settlement, the defined Class in this Agreement shall be
expanded so as to be coterminous with such expansion.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and any
parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any the Defendant or
any
co-conspirator whether or not named as the Defendant, and the
United States Government.
The Court hereby appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel to such Settlement Class for
purposes of the Settlement, having determined that the requirements
of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are fully
satisfied by this appointment.
The Court appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as Settlement Administrator for
purposes of the Settlement.
Richard Dennis and Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC are hereby
appointed as representatives of the Settlement Class.
Barclays Bank offers personal, retail, and corporate banking, as
well as wealth management, investment banking, consumer finance,
treasury, and insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43UsqQB at no extra charge.[CC]
BETTER BOOCH: Dawson Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE DAWSON on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BETTER BOOCH, LLC Defendant, Case No.
23CV1091DMSDEB (S.D. Cal., June 12, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's alleged deceptive practices associated with the
advertising, labeling and sale of its kombucha beverages and
alleges claims against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, unjust enrichment, false advertising under the California
Business and Professions Code and for violations of the Unfair
Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant misleadingly labeled its kombucha
beverages by including "Golden Pear" at the front label of the
containers and by listing pear, tulsi, turmeric and black pepper as
their ingredients. Despite being characterized as a "pear"
beverage, however, the kombucha does not contain a scintilla of its
characterizing ingredient (i.e., pear), but rather derives its
flavor exclusively from an ingredient called "natural pear
flavor."
Better Booch, LLC manufactures, markets and sells a variety of
kombucha beverages. The Beverages are sold across a variety of
retail segments including supermarkets, convenience stores, drug
stores, nutritional stores, and mass merchants. Better Booch is a
Delaware corporation that maintains its principal place of business
at2538 E. 53rd Street, Huntington Park, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (213) 401-4100
Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
BROCK PIERCE: Seeks to Strike Late Served Third-Party Subpoenas
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN ROWAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROCK PIERCE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648-RAM (D.P.R.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order striking the
Plaintiff's late served third-party subpoenas and their responses
and preclude the Plaintiff from using any evidence or testimony
from witnesses or non-parties that were never listed in the
Plaintiff's initial disclosures.
Mr. Pierce requests that the Court strike the Plaintiff's evidence
and discovery obtained after March 3, 2023, the close of discovery
period, or in the alternative, compel the Plaintiff to
substantively respond to the interrogatories and requests for
production that Mr. Pierce served on the Plaintiff on February 21,
2023.
In sum, the Plaintiff improperly served third-party subpoenas with
unreasonably shortened response deadlines in an attempt to
circumvent this Court's Scheduling Order which unequivocally closed
discovery on March 3, 2023. Mr. Pierce will be severely prejudiced
if the Plaintiff is permitted to rely on evidence in his motions,
at hearings, and at trial that Mr. Pierce never had an opportunity
to evaluate during the discovery period.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 13, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46iZPGp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ramón Dapena, Esq.
Iván J. Llado, Esq.
MORELL CARTAGENA & DAPENA LLC
Ponce de Leon Ave. 273 Av. De la Constitucion, Suite 700
San Juan PR 00908
Telephone: (787) 723-1233
Facsimile: (787) 723-8763
E-mail: ramon.dapena@mbcdlaw.com
ivan.llado@mbcdlaw.com
- and -
Ashley L. Shively, Esq.
Kayla L. Pragid, Esq.
Lisa Kohring, Esq.
Paul Bond, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
560 Mission Street, 19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 743-6900
Facsimile: (415) 743-6910
E-mail: ashley.shively@hklaw.com
kayla.pragid@hklaw.com
lisa.kohring@hklaw.com
Paul.Bond@hklaw.com
CAPITAL ONE: Court Stays Marquez Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AILEEN MARQUEZ, MARIA
DIANA DE LA ROSA, and JORGE A. RODRIGUEZ, for themselves and all
those similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK, USA N.A.; CAPITAL
ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; and CAPITAL ONE, N.A.; Case No.
3:22-cv-01591-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel
entered an order:
(1) granting motion to stay; and
(2) denying motion to strike.
The parties are directed to file a joint status report every 120
days. Because the matter has been stayed, the Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Strike is denied without prejudice.
The hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, previously
scheduled for Friday, July 7, 2023 is hereby vacated.
Fiorarancio and Marquez et al. both seek to represent a class who
"within four years prior" to their respective litigation, received
calls on their "cellular telephone" from or on behalf of Capital
One, utilizing "an artificial or prerecorded" voice.
The class in the New Jersey Action is further limited to those "for
whom Capital One cannot demonstrate that it had written, prior
express consent for such calls and/or where the called person had
previously revoked consent."
The Plaintiffs define their California RFDCPA subclass to include
persons who provided the Defendants written notice withdrawing
consent for such calls.
In July 2021, Aileen Marquez filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, against the Defendants.
The Original Complaint was not a class action and was filed only on
behalf of Marquez. It alleged that the Defendants violated the
California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA")
when Marquez, represented by counsel, sent the Defendants a cease
and desist letter and yet the Defendants allegedly continued to
directly contact Marquez about collecting a debt.
Capital One is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of
financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and
commercial clients.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jzfzv9 at no extra charge.[CC]
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Zimmerman Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON ZIMMERMAN, individually and as a representative of a Putative
Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of all similarly
situated participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM 403(B) RETIREMENT PLAN, Plaintiff v.
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER; THE CEDARS-SINAI BOARD OF DIRECTORS'
PENSION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants,
Case No. 5:23-cv-01124 (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 for breaching their fiduciary duties in the management,
operation and administration of the 403b retirement plan.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the current and
former employees/participants/beneficiaries of Defendants' Plan to
recover losses due to mismanagement of the 403b retirement plan and
certain selected funds.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is the current sponsor of the Plan and
maintains its principal place of business at 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los
Angeles, California. It is a registered nonprofit corporation with
the State of California, and operates as an administrator and/or
fiduciary of the plan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
1117 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 618-2924
Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com
rob@chumphreylaw.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
CENTESSA PHARMA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS NAGLER and JAMIA
FERNANDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CENTESSA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC, SAURABH SAHA, GREGORY
WEINHOFF, MARELLA THORELL, FRANCESCO DE RUBERTIS, ARJUN GOYAL,
AARON KANTOFF, BRETT ZBAR, MARY LYNNE HEDLEY, SAMARTH KULKARNI,
CAROL STUCKLEY, ROBERT CALIFF, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, and
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08805-GHW-SLC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order regarding general
pretrial management, including scheduling discovery,
non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
relating
to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss
or
for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for
summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her
Individual Practices, available on the Court’s website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
Centessa Pharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company
with a Research & Development innovation engine that aims to
discover, develop and ultimately deliver impactful medicines to
patients.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42YUpO7 at no extra charge.[CC]
CGM LLC: White Suit Alleges Failure to Safeguard Customers' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIM WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CGM LLC, d/b/a CGM, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02726-SEG (N.D. Ga., June 19, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
following a data breach between December 15, 2022 and December 28,
2022. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party, says the suit.
CGM LLC, doing business as CGM, Inc., is a software development and
data processing company, with a principal place of business located
at 104 Sloan Street, Roswell, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 444-9325
Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
Franklin@WebbLLC.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Kevin W. Fay, Esq.
GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
E-mail: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com
kfay@golomblegal.com
CMG MEDIA: Dec. 9 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELECIA HAWKINS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CMG MEDIA
CORPORATION (d/b/a Cox Media Group), Case No. 1:22-cv-04462-JPB
(N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
extending her deadline to file her motion for class certification
from June 12, 2023, to December 9, 2023.
The Defendant has responded to the Complaint by filing a motion to
compel arbitration. As such, no discovery has yet occurred and no
factual record has been compiled to aid the court in the
certification determination. No prior extension of this deadline
has been sought or ordered, the lawsuit contends.
CMG Media is an American media conglomerate principally owned by
Apollo Global Management in conjunction with Cox Enterprise.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JpYQuo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kurt G. Kastorf, Esq.
KASTORF LAW LLC
1387 Iverson Street NE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30307
Telephone: (404) 900-0330
E-mail: kurt@kastorflaw.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tiana Demas, Esq.
David Mills, Esq.
Shane Rogers, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60606-1511
Telephone: (312) 881-6500
E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com
dmills@cooley.com
srogers@cooley.com
- and -
James A. Demetry, Esq.
DEMETRY, DECARLO & COFFMAN
3666 N. Peachtree Road, Suite 100
Chamblee, GA 30341
Telephone: (770) 274-4383
E-mail: jdemetry@demetrydecarlo.com
COLUMBINE LOGGING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Sadle Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON SADLE, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. COLUMBINE LOGGING, INC. d/b/a COLUMBINE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01495-RMR-SKC (D. Colo, June 13, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's shift differential and bonus pay scheme
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
As a geosteering geologist for Columbine from approximately
February 2016 until July 2022, Sadle regularly worked more than 40
hours in a workweek. However, Columbine did not pay these
non-exempt employees overtime wages at the proper premium rate when
they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Instead, Columbine
uniformly pays Sadle and the Putative Class Members different
hourly rates or shift differentials and/or bonuses when they
perform certain services, such as oil-based mud services,
irreducible hydrocarbon chromatography, and onsite geosteering.
However, Columbine failed to include these shift differentials and
bonuses in calculating Sadle’s and the Putative Class Members'
regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, says the suit.
Columbine is a Colorado corporation that maintains its headquarters
in Littleton, Colorado. The company claims to be one of the premier
geological well-site service companies in the country with
operations across the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CONSOLIDATED ANALYTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Stewart Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON HENDERSON STEWART, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED ANALYTICS, INC., c/o
Statutory Agent, Cogency Global, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00159-TMR-PBS (S.D. Ohio, June 12, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Plaintiff Stewart began her employment with Defendant as a due
diligence underwriter on or around July 12, 2021, where she worked
remotely from her home in Montgomery County, Ohio. She performed
all of her employment-related duties as both a due diligence
underwriter and, later, a quality control analyst, both non-exempt
positions. The work performed by Stewart and Putative Plaintiffs
off the clock often caused the affected employees to work over 40
hours each week. However, they were allegedly not compensated at
one and a half times their regular rate of pay for overtime hours
worked, says the Plaintiff.
Consolidated Analytics is a California corporation headquartered in
Santa Ana, California. It engages in a range of data and/or
property analysis, consulting, advisory, and/or other business
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madeline J. Rettig, Esq.
John S. Marshall, Esq.
Edward R. Forman, Esq.
Samuel M. Schlein, Esq.
Helen M. Robinson, Esq.
MARSHALL FORMAN & SCHLEIN LLC
250 Civic Center Dr., Suite 480
Columbus, OH 43215-5296
Telephone: (614) 463-9790
Facsimile: (614) 463-9780
E-mail: mrettig@marshallforman.com
jmarshall@marshallforman.com
eforman@marshallforman.com
sschlein@marshallforman.com
hrobinson@marshallforman.com
CORECIVIC INC: Court OK's Bid to Seal Exhibits in Bliss Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN BLISS, on behalf
of herself, the Proposed Nationwide Rule 23 Class, and the Proposed
Nevada Subclass, v. CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01280-JAD-EJY
(D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Elayna J. Youchah entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's motion to seal Exhibits PX3, PX6-PX42,
PX44-PX63, PX69-PX70, and PX72-PX87 to the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
The Court further ordered that Exhibits PX3, PX6-PX42, PX44-PX63,
PX69-PX70, and PX72-PX87 to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification are and shall remain sealed.
The Court finds the Plaintiff’s sealing request is supported by
compelling reasons. The Exhibits include excerpts of various
depositions, declarations of individuals, email chains, and scans
of company handbooks and other property containing proprietary
business information as well as descriptions and discussions of the
Defendant’s internal policies.
The Court further finds compelling reasons to seal several Exhibits
containing information relating to the activities of nonparty
business entities.
CoreCivic is a company that owns and manages private prisons and
detention centers and operates others on a concession basis
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46mQHAM at no extra charge.[CC]
CR ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Carter Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donial Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. England, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-03719 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
In an effort to meet its consistent demand for drivers, the
Defendant recruits individuals that do not yet have possess their
Commercial Driver's License and offers to hire, train and pay them.
It places these Driver Trainees, including Plaintiff, the
Collective Members and the Class Members in its extensive training
program which is designed to take approximately nine months to
complete. However, the Defendant subjected all of their Driver
Trainees, including Plaintiff and the Collective Members, to their
policy of failing to pay any wages for training, paying flat daily
rates and charging back training costs. As a result, the Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members all minimum
wages and overtime wages required by the federal and state labor
laws, says the suit.
C.R. England is one of the largest transporters of refrigerated
goods in the nation. As part of its nationwide shipping network,
C.R. England owns and operates regional warehouses and terminals
throughout the country, including at least one facility located in
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Suit Targets Former Executives Over Unfair Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Finews.com reports that a class action lawsuit filed by AT1
bondholders seeks to bring former Credit Suisse executives before a
New York court. Excessive risk-taking and bonus culture are
blamed.
A group of European bondholders of Credit Suisse affected by the
bank's $17 billion writedown on AT1 bonds as part of the takeover
deal with UBS is suing former executives of the bank.
Former CEOs
Bondholders from Paris, Luxembourg, and the channel island of
Guernsey argue that self-serving executives pursued excessively
risky trades for short-term returns and bonuses by resorting to
unethical and illegal practices to gain and retain sales.
The lawsuit cites a broken culture and a series of scandals,
according to a Bloomberg (behind paywall) story. Among the
defendants are ex-CEOs Brady Dougan and Tidjane Thiam and former
investment bank managers.
Incompetence and Racketeering?
A study commissioned by Credit Suisse itself from the law firm
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison states the bank was
fatally plagued by incompetence and crookedness. In addition, the
top management was incapable or unwilling to overhaul the corrupt
base.
Thiam also failed to «roll back the influence of the US-focused
investment banking embedded in the bank's culture, the complaint
says.
The complaint went on to say that «while Credit Suisse began as a
conservative Swiss private bank, the vast majority of the people
who were responsible for its demise were not staid Swiss bankers,
but, rather, sharp-elbowed New York, investment bankers. [GN]
CRUNCHBASE INC: Time Extension to Answer Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Casar, et al., v.
Crunchbase, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00950 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge James S. Gwin entered an order granting in part and denying
in part joint motion for extension of time until July 10, 2023, to
answer and to dispose of the Placeholder Motion for Class
Certification.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
CrunchBase operates as a software company.[CC]
DR. SQUATCH: Bilbao Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Axel Bilbao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DR. SQUATCH, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-014937 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 22, 2023), is brought for
injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of
the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA"), alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID
Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not configured for
two-way communication when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text
message ("Text Message Sales Calls").
Whenever a person either makes any type of Telephonic Sales Call or
causes one to be made, that person must ensure that a telephone
number is transmitted with that Telephonic Sales Call to the
consumer's Caller ID service that is capable of receiving telephone
calls and connects to either the telephone solicitor or the
Defendant. In direct contravention of the Caller II) Rules,
however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales
Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so,
intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID
services that do not connect to the call or seller, because the
transmitted telephone number is not configured for two-way
communication.
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls and does not connect
to either the telephone solicitor or the Defendant when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message. Specifically, Defendant
made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Dr. Squatch ("Dr.
Squatch Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules
when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification
services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving
telephone calls and that did not connect the recipient to either
the caller or the Defendant (collectively, the "Dr. Squatch
Callers"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant is a Foreign Limited Liability Company, which sells
various goods to persons throughout the country, including Florida,
through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Protect Patients' Private Info, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NINO KHAKHIASHVILI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, PLAINTIFF v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. and ENZO CLINICAL LABS,
INC., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:23-cv-04315 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2023)
arises from the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on the
Defendants' computer network that resulted in the unauthorized
access of highly sensitive patient data of approximately 2,470,000
people.
Plaintiff Khakhiashvili alleges claims against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary, and for violations of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act. He claims the Defendants failed to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals’ private information
from the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack.
Enzo Biochem, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business at 81 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3, Farmingdale,
New York. The life sciences and biotechnology company develops,
manufactures and sells proprietary diagnostic testing technology
and products to clinical laboratories, specialty clinics, and
researchers across the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Secure Private Info, McHugh Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANA MCHUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., ENZO CLINICAL LABS,
INC., and LAB CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-CV-04326 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2023) arises from the Defendants'
failure to properly secure and to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
members' personally identifiable information and asserts claims
for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of confidentiality, (iii) breach
of fiduciary duty; (iv) unjust enrichment; (v) bailment; (vi)
violations of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (vii)
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Law; (viii)
breach of implied contract; and (ix) declaratory judgment.
On or about April 6, 2023, Defendants identified a ransomware
incident on their computer network. A subsequent investigation
determined that there was a cybersecurity incident between April 4,
2023 and April 6, 2023 during which unauthorized third parties
accessed these information. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to remedy
harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals
whose private information was accessed during the data breach.
Enzo Biochem, Inc. is a for-profit corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business
is located at 81 Executive Blvd. Suite 3 in Farmingdale, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Elena A. Belov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
elena@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Andrew R. Tate, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 282-4806
E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Shah Sues Over 3rd Party Access of Patients' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
IZZA HAFEEZ SHAH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. and ENZO
CLINICAL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04511 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied
contract, and violations of the New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally
identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated patients stored within their network following a data
breach between April 4, 2023, and April 6, 2023. The Defendants
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of
the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged
through access by and disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized
third party, says the suit.
Enzo Biochem, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with its principal
place of business at 81 Executive Blvd. Suite 3, Farmingdale, New
York.
Enzo Clinical Labs, Inc. is a clinical reference laboratory
operator, with its principal place of business at 28 Liberty
Street, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
Francesca Kester Burne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: JeanMartin@forthepeople.com
MValladares@forthepeople.com
Ramen@forthepeople.com
FBurne@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6705
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 738-6839
E-mail: JSedgh@forthepeople.com
FINCH COMPANY: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Finch Company.
The case is styled as Jasmine Robertson, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Finch Company, Case No.
1:23-cv-05124 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FINCH -- https://finchcompany.com/ -- is a film production company
who make documentaries, live experiences, TV commercials, feature
films and digital content.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
FUTU HOLDINGS: Henry Sues Over Misleading Disclosure Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUTU HOLDINGS LIMITED, LEAF HUA LI, and
ARTHUR YU CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03222 (D.N.J., June
12, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Allegedly, the Defendants made risk disclosures in its 2019 Annual
Report that were materially false and misleading because, while the
Company disclosed that it was not properly licensed in China, it
materially misrepresented the level of risk of operating unlicensed
in China. Rather than plainly indicating that its activities in
China were illegal, and that its Hong Kong license did not carry
over to its activities in China, it falsely indicated that there
were "uncertainties" or other legal ambiguities to the applicable
Chinese laws, says the suit.
Futu purports to be an advanced technology company transforming the
investing experience by offering fully digitalized financial
services. Through its proprietary digital platforms, Futubull and
moomoo, the company provides a full range of investment services,
including trade execution and clearing, margin financing and
securities lending, and wealth management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
GARDNER PIE: Must Oppose Class Cert Supplement by July 5
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH KAUFMAN, v.
GARDNER PIE COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-02126-JRA (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge John R. Adams entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff shall have until June 21, 2023, to file a
supplement to her motion for conditional class certification.
-- The Defendant shall have until July 5, 2023, to oppose the
supplement, and the Plaintiff shall file any reply by no later
than July 12, 2023.
Gardner Pie is a manufacturing and marketing firm of pies.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NnpRQ3 at no extra charge.[CC]
GOLDEN GRAIN: Court Dismisses Claims in Abbott Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRENDAN ABBOTT, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-01240-SRC (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Clark of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, grants Golden Grain's Motion to Dismiss and
dismisses Abbott's claims with prejudice.
Abbott's Complaint turns on Golden Grain's product packaging, but
he includes in his Complaint only portions of that packaging. In
response, Golden Grain includes the entirety of the packaging.
Golden Grain manufactures, labels, and sells a food product branded
"Rice Pilaf Original Mix." It packages this product in a box
containing rice pilaf and a seasoning packet. But it only fills
about one-third of the box with rice, leaving its packages mostly
empty. The front of each box, however, prominently discloses that
it weighs 6.09 ounces. And the side of each box displays a fill
line with text stating, "grain mix filled to this line." The side
of the box also states, "this package is sold by weight not by
volume." The back of the box states that the rice pilaf mix amounts
to three cups of food, once prepared.
Abbott purchased one such box at a Walmart Supercenter believing it
held more rice pilaf than it actually did. Feeling "disappointed"
in the amount of food in the rice pilaf package, he filed the
putative class action just a week after his purchase. Specifically,
Abbott accuses Golden Grain of violating the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act ("MMPA"), breaching various warranties, making
negligent misrepresentations, committing fraud, and unjust
enrichment. Golden Grain moves to dismiss.
Abbott's chief claim against Golden Grain concerns the MMPA. In
2020, the Missouri Legislature amended the MMPA to place more
stringent requirements on plaintiffs raising MMPA claims. Section
407.025.1(2) adds three elements to the original four set by the
pre-amendment MMPA. The pre-amendment statute stated that
plaintiffs may bring a private civil action to recover actual
damages if they satisfied the four original elements listed in
Section 407.02 -- i.e., that the plaintiff (1) purchased
merchandise (2) for personal, family or household purposes, and (3)
suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property (4) because of
an act declared unlawful under Section 407.020.
On top of that, the 2020 amendments added three more elements that
a person seeking to recover damages will establish -- i.e., (1)
that the person acted as a reasonable consumer would in light of
all circumstances; (2) that the method, act, or practice declared
unlawful by section 407.020 would cause a reasonable person to
enter into the transaction that resulted in damages; (3) and that
individual damages with sufficiently definitive and objective
evidence to allow the loss to be calculated with a reasonable
degree of certainty.
Judge Clark holds that Abbott fails to adequately plead both the
pre-amendment ascertainable-loss element, Section 407.025.1(1), and
each of the three post-amendment elements, Section 407.025.1(2). He
says whether Abbott's disappointment was feigned for the purpose of
propagating litigation or real, Abbott got what he bargained for
and fails to plausibly allege an ascertainable loss.
Moreover, Abbott's various arguments that Golden Grain's packaging
would deceive a reasonable consumer each fail. Abbott either failed
to read or blithely ignored: (1) the plain language of the package
that disclosed its weight and fill line, and (2) that Golden Grain
sold the product by weight not volume. Applying both the statutory
text of the MMPA and its "judicial experience and common sense,"
Golden Grain's packaging would not deceive a reasonable consumer.
Turning to the final post-amendment element of an MMPA claim, Judge
Clark says Abbott fails to establish individual damages with
sufficiently definitive and objective evidence to allow the loss to
be calculated with a reasonable degree of certainty. Because Abbott
fails to plead that he suffered ascertainable loss, that he acted
reasonably, that the packaging would deceive a reasonable consumer,
and because he fails to allege well-pleaded facts supporting a
reasonably certain calculation of damages, his MMPA claim is
dismissed.
Abbott then argues that Golden Grain breached several different
kinds of warranties by selling underfilled boxes.
Judge Clark finds that Abbott's failure to notify the immediate
seller of his complaints bars him from any remedy, and his notice
to Golden Grain does not cure this mistake. His notice to Golden
Grain also does not satisfy the notice requirement. Ergo, the
pre-suit notice requirement applies to Abbott and remains
unsatisfied. Judge Clark denies Abbott's warranty claims for
failure to comply with Missouri's notice requirements.
With respect to Abbott's negligent-misrepresentation claim, Judge
Clark that economic-loss doctrine bars relief in negligence claims
for purely economic loss, with a few exceptions established by
Missouri law. Abbott agrees with Golden Grain about the
economic-loss doctrine's implications but says that he can bypass
the doctrine because the company held itself out as having special
knowledge and experience. The parties have not cited any case
supporting this assertion -- yet persuasive contrary authority
exists. Therefore, the economic-loss doctrine bars Abbott's
negligent-misrepresentation claim.
Because Abbott does not plausibly allege that Golden Grain falsely
represented its rice pilaf, his allegations cannot support a fraud
claim. Likewise, an adequately pleaded fraud claim would require an
injury but Abbott suffered no injury. Because Abbott cannot
plausibly allege a false representation, he cannot plausibly allege
that Golden Grain knew of its supposed false representation, that
Golden Grain intended consumers to act on the supposed false
representation, or that Abbott did not know of the supposed false
representation. Therefore, Abbott fails to plead any of these
elements, much less plead them with particularity. For these
reasons, Judge Clark dismisses Abbott's fraud claim.
Finally, Judge Clark holds that Abbott's claim for unjust
enrichment suffers from defects similar to those that plague his
other claims. Abbott cannot plausibly allege that Golden Grain
retained a benefit under inequitable or unjust circumstances when
Abbott received the 6.09 ounces of rice pilaf he bargained for.
Judge Clark accordingly dismisses Abbott's unjust-enrichment
claim.
Based on the foregoing, Golden Grain's Motion to Dismiss is granted
and Abbott's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2maxk4u6 from Leagle.com.
HUGO R. LANDSCAPING: Lemus Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD LEMUS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUGO R. LANDSCAPING INC, a domestic
corporation, and HUGO REYES, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-CV-03198 (D.N.J., June 12, 2023) alleges claims against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment
Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately April
2020 through April 2023 and performed activities as a landscaping
and construction worker. He worked seven days per week, from Monday
through Sunday, 7:00 AM through 8:30 PM, approximately 95 hours per
week. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff asserts
that he was paid in cash with no pay stubs provided and that
Defendants failed to pay him any overtime premium for hours worked
over 40 in each workweek.
Hugo R. Landscaping Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey which owns and
operates a landscaping company known Hugo R. Landscaping.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 279-1554
Facsimile: (516) 213-0339
E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com
- and -
Nolan Klein, ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
INDIANA: Atty. General Appeals State Abortion Ban Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Smith of Indiana Capital Chronicle reports that the state
attorney general's office filed to appeal a superior court judge's
decision to grant class action certification to a lawsuit that
seeks to strike down Indiana's near-total abortion ban on the basis
of the state's controversial religious freedom law.
The legal challenge in question was certified as class action on
June 6 by a Marion County Superior Court judge.
The underlying lawsuit was filed in August by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana on behalf of Hoosier Jews for
Choice, as well as four anonymous women who represent a variety of
faiths. The lawsuit argues that the new abortion law violates
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The class is defined as, "All persons in Indiana whose religious
beliefs direct them to obtain abortions in situations prohibited by
Senate Enrolled Act 1 (the abortion-restricting legislation) who
need, or will need, to obtain an abortion and who are not, or will
not be, able to obtain an abortion because of the Act."
But attorneys with Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita's office
maintained in a June 14 court filing that the trial court's order
granting class certification "introduces new uncertainty as to how
the preliminary injunction would apply to class members both now
and, should the injunction be affirmed, in the future."
The state further questioned whether "the religious sincerity" of
class members or "specifics of their religious practices" can be
determined in a judicial setting.
"The trial court's class certification order not only overlaps
significantly with the preliminary injunction ruling in several key
areas, but also relies on the preliminary injunction order to
arrive at several key conclusions," attorneys for the state said in
their appeal request. "That interdependence, plus the trial court's
multiple legal errors and manifest abuse of discretion in
certifying the class, justify immediate appeal and consideration
alongside review of the preliminary injunction."
Rokita's office appeals
The attorney general requested that the Indiana Court of Appeals
accept an interlocutory appeal of class certification order.
Rokita's office said, too, that the plaintiffs' claims are not
"ripe," or timely, because they're contingent on future
pregnancies.
The state additionally held that claims made in the underlying
lawsuit by the plaintiffs -- which include practitioners of
Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, Episcopalianism and paganism, all
belief systems that allow abortions under circumstances outside the
ban's narrow exceptions -- "fail on the merits" under RFRA.
An interlocutory appeal is requested when a final order has not
been issued, but one of the parties seeks an appeal anyway because
they stand to suffer damages if not resolved before the entire case
is over. Alternatively, an interlocutory appeals can be requested
because an order involves a substantial question of law -- that if
answered early on in the case -- will help bring the overall case
closer to a resolution.
The state must get permission from the trial court and the Indiana
Court of Appeals to proceed with the interlocutory appeal. The
Court of Appeals has not yet decided if it will grant the request,
however.
Already, Rokita's office filed an interlocutory appeal of a
preliminary injunction granted in the case in December. State
attorneys argued that plaintiffs "have not demonstrated that an
injunction will prevent any certain RFRA violation."
At issue in the preliminary injunction appeal is whether the trial
court can make a RFRA determination "months and years before a
woman decides to get an abortion, when sincerity cannot be tested
until the relevant circumstances come to pass and whether obtaining
an abortion is itself a religious exercise."
That separate appeal of the preliminary injunction is set for oral
argument in the Indiana Court of Appeals on Sept. 12.
In the meantime -- while the appeals plays out -- both parties in
the case have requested for the underlying lawsuit to be stayed, or
paused. The Marion County Superior Court granted that motion in a
brief ruling on June 21, 2023.
Indiana Supreme Court decision still to come
This is the second case involving the ban. In January, Indiana
Supreme Court justices heard a case against the ban based on
liberty and privacy rights. They have not issued a ruling.
The new abortion ban was in effect for just a week in September
before a Republican judge in Owen County issued a first temporary
injunction in a separate ACLU lawsuit, which challenges the
constitutionality of the law based on liberty and privacy
protections.
The decision put the ban on hold while Indiana Supreme Court
justices continue to weigh the case. Under that injunction, the
state's previous abortion law stands -- allowing abortions up to 20
weeks.
The Republican-dominated Indiana General Assembly advanced the
abortion-restricting measure during a heated, two-week special
session that concluded in August. That made Indiana the first state
in the nation to approve such legislation since the high court
ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.
The ban outlaws all abortions except in the case of a fatal fetal
anomaly and cases of serious health risk to the mother. One part of
the law says these exceptions are up to 20 weeks but another part
says they can be used anytime. Rape survivors can get an abortion
up to 10 weeks post-fertilization.
It also strips abortion clinics of their state medical licenses,
and provides that only hospitals and hospital-owned ambulatory
surgical centers can provide abortions. [GN]
JON & VINNY: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Service Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
L. A. Taco reports that Jon & Vinny's, the successful restaurant
mini-empire behind of one of L.A.'s most ordered fusilli a la vodka
dishes, is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by their servers. The
restaurant's waiters allege that the 18% service fee that is
automatically added to all their checks should be paid out to them.
However, owners and partners Jon Shook, Vinny Dotolo, and Helen
Johannesen say that they have always been transparent to guests
about the service fee and that it was never considered a gratuity.
Instead, this fee is distributed to all hourly employees, including
dishwashers, line cooks, servers, and even the "person who buys
produce at the farmers market."
A new report published on June 22, 2023 by the L.A. Times food
section goes into detail of the complex case.
Some employees have complained that the service fee is misleading,
as customers may assume that it is a gratuity for the service
staff. In addition, the service fee has resulted in lower tips for
servers, who typically rely on tips as part of their take-home
wages.
The lawsuit is still pending but has raised important questions
about using service fees in the restaurant industry. Do service
fees constitute gratuities? Should they be distributed to all
hourly employees, or should they be reserved for the service staff?
These are questions that will need to be answered by the courts.
In the meantime, the lawsuit against Jon & Vinny's has put a
spotlight on the issue of service fees and their impact on
restaurant workers. The service fee model is not unique to Jon &
Vinny's. Other restaurants in Los Angeles and across the country
have adopted similar models.
This could have implications for other restaurants that use service
fees and become a type of landmark case for the service industry.
Under their current model, the report shares that some servers at
certain Jon & Vinny locations make up to $42 an hour, which is
$26.50 more an hour than the current minimum wage in Los Angeles.
Service fees are complex, and there is no easy answer. The courts
will need to weigh restaurant owners, employees, and customers'
competing interests to reach a decision.
The text does not provide specific details about the lawsuit, such
as the amount of damages the plaintiffs seek. However, the lawsuit
is likely to impact the restaurant industry significantly, as it
could set a precedent for how service fees are treated in the
future. [GN]
JPM SUTTON: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Estrada Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ESTRADA, JEU DE FAVIAN, JOSE ANTONIO ALPELIMA, JUAN CARLOS
ORTIZ, RICARDO SERRANO JARA, and SIMITRIO BASURTO, on behalf of
themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs v. JPM SUTTON LLC d/b/a COCO
PAZZERIA, COCO SHACK LLC d/b/a COCO SHACK, CP SPRING ST LLC d/b/a
COCO PAZZO, f/d/b/a COCO PAZZERIA SOHO, 420 EAST 59TH REST LLC,
d/b/a MORSO ALESSANDRO BANDINI, and GIUSEPPE LUONGO, a/k/a PINO
LUONGO, Defendants, Case No. 155283/2023 (N.Y., June 12, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the New York Labor
Law.
In or around August 2022, Plaintiff Estrada was hired by Defendants
to work as a food runner and busboy at Defendants' Coco Shack
restaurant, located at 184 Prince Street, New York, NY. After
Defendants' COCO SHACK location closed in November 2022, Estrada
was transferred to Defendants' Coco Pazzo location at 309 Spring
Street. His employment ended in or around November 2022. During his
employment by Defendants, Estrada was frequently scheduled to work
over 40 hours per week but was not paid proper overtime for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek. Similarly, Class members were not
paid proper overtime compensation, says the suit.
The Defendants own and operate Italian/Tuscan restaurants. One of
the Defendants, Coco Shack LLC d/b/a Coco Shack is a domestic
limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
New York with an address for service of process and a principal
place of business at 184 Prince Street, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
KIA AMERICA: Sanders's Bid to Remand Suit to Superior Court Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Brittney Sanders, et al. v. Kia America Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:23-cv-00486-JVS (KESx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge James V. Selna
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denies the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter to the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange and for
an award of reasonable attorney's fees.
Plaintiffs Brittney Sanders, et al., move to remand this matter to
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange and
for an award of reasonable attorney's fees. Defendants Kia America,
Inc. and Hyundai Motor America opposed. The Plaintiffs replied. The
parties appeared for oral argument on June 12, 2023.
The Plaintiffs are 113 California residents who purchased vehicles
from Kia between 2011-2021 and from Hyundai between 2015-2021 that
were stolen because they lack engine immobilizer technology. Five
months before the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs'
counsel filed a nearly identical action in the Central District of
California: McQuarrie v. Kia America, Inc., No. 8:22-cv-01721 (C.D.
Cal. Sept. 21, 2022). The McQaurrie Action was a putative class
action seeking to represent California residents who sought to
represent a nationwide class of purchasers and lessees of Kia and
Hyundai vehicles.
A multidistrict litigation (the "MDL") was created to centralize
all litigation for suits by consumers who purchased or leased Kia
and Hyundai vehicles that lack engine immobilizer technology -- In
re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, & Prods.
Liab. Litig., No. 22-3052 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2022). An
overwhelming majority of the actions in the MDL are putative
consumer class actions. The McQuarrie Action was consolidated in
the MDL prior to the Plaintiffs' lawsuit.
After the cases were consolidated in the MDL, the Plaintiffs then
filed this "mass tort action" on Feb. 6, 2023, in Orange County
Superior Court. They assert five grounds for relief: (1) violations
of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) strict liability
based on design defect; (3) gross negligence; (4) gross negligence
- failure to recall; and (5) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability.
Then, a consolidated complaint in the MDL was filed on behalf of
purchasers or lessees of Kia and Hyundai in 30 states, including
California. The 85 named plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide
class as well as subclasses of consumers from all 50 states. The
Consolidated Complaint includes seven causes of actions brought
under California law: (1) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (2) violations of the California Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act; (3) false advertising; (4) violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (5) violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law; (6) fraud; and (7) unjust
enrichment.
On March 17, 2023, the Defendants removed this action under the
Class Action Fairness Act on the basis that it is a consumer class
action, arguing that the Plaintiffs and their claims are entirely
subsumed within the McQuarrie Action. The Plaintiffs now seek to
remand this action to state court on the grounds that this Court
does not have subject matter jurisdiction under the CAFA because
Defendants have failed to establish (1) diversity and (2) the
requisite amount in controversy.
The Plaintiffs argue they may avoid removal by pleading their
complaint as a "mass action" that is otherwise identical to an
existing putative class action in a multidistrict litigation. Not
so, Judge Selna says finding that the action is removable as a de
facto class action.
Under the CAFA, federal courts have original jurisdiction over any
class action with (1) at least 100 class members, (2) where the
parties are minimally diverse, and (3) an amount in controversy
that exceeds $5 million, aggregating individual class members
claims exclusive of interest and costs.
CAFA also extends federal jurisdiction over "mass actions." The
mass action provision authorizes removal if the civil action
involves: (1) "monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are
proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs'
claims involve common questions of law or fact"; (2) minimal
diversity; (3) an aggregate amount in controversy of $5 million or
more; and (4) individual claims that exceed $75,000. Neither party
disputes that numerosity requirement is met. Only the diversity and
amount-in-controversy requirements are at issue.
Judge Selna finds that (i) the Complaint states that each Plaintiff
is only a resident, not a citizen, of California; (ii) where there
is actually no difference between this action and the existing
claims that are being pursued in a MDL -- other than the label of
"mass action" -- this is exactly the type of case that CAFA
envisioned as removable; (iii) the claims likely exceed $5 million;
and (iv) the $75,000 individual amount in controversy requirement
does not apply. For the foregoing reasons, he denies the motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/at6w8xmw from Leagle.com.
LEDUC, AB: Settles Smith Class Suit Over Workplace Misconduct
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that the City of Leduc and
Plaintiffs Mindy Smith and Christa Steele, through their counsel,
Robert Martz, Richard Steele, Sydney Black, and Alanna Wiercinski
at Burnet, Duckworth and Palmer LLP (BD&P) have released a Joint
Statement announcing a historic settlement agreement in the class
action lawsuit filed against the City of Leduc for workplace
misconduct in February, 2022.
This is the first settlement of a class action involving sexual
misconduct and sexual assault in a fire department or municipality
in Canada. The individual compensation in this settlement exceeds
that provided by Canada's most notable workplace harassment class
action settlements to date, which involved systemic sexual abuse
and harassment within the RCMP and the Department of National
Defense.
The terms of this settlement include:
The highest per-person monetary compensation in a Canadian
class-action settlement for workplace misconduct. Each member of
the class is eligible for financial compensation between $10,000
and $285,000.
A lengthy claimant eligibility time period: any woman who worked at
the City of Leduc over the past 20 years is eligible to participate
in the class action.
A confidential, non-adversarial, and non-confrontational claims
process meant to facilitate claimant participation and provide a
safe way for women to come forward.
Significant non-monetary remedies including a public apology from
the Mayor of Leduc and a requirement that Leduc take whatever steps
are necessary to ensure that no retaliation occurs against women
who participate in the class action or who make a claim.
The per-person settlement amounts combined with the non-adversarial
claims process, non-monetary remedies, and the lengthy claimant
eligibility time period, arguably makes this settlement the most
progressive workplace class action settlement in Canadian history.
This settlement will have a significant impact on Canadian case law
moving forward and sets a precedent for victim advocacy in
workplace harassment settlements.
Former Leduc firefighter and plaintiff Christa Steele said "When we
set out to bring to light the discrimination, sexual harassment and
sexual assault happening at Leduc, it was so it would stop and
those who are responsible for the years of abuse we faced would be
held accountable. There remains a lot of work to do, but I am
relieved that Leduc has finally acknowledged the harm that women
suffered in a workplace where they were preyed upon and sexual
assault was acceptable and without consequence."
BD&P's lead lawyer in this case, Robert Martz, spoke to these
challenges, saying: "When this case came to us we knew that we had
a responsibility to do whatever we could to help these women. We
took on this case despite its legal challenges because what we saw
at Leduc cannot be tolerated and those who discriminate, sexually
harass, and sexually assault women need to be held accountable. We
also believe that the legal system needs to evolve to hold
employers accountable who tolerate this type of systemic sexual
misconduct, and to encourage women who suffer this type of
workplace abuse to come forward."
A hearing for the Court of King's Bench to approve the settlement
is scheduled for July 4, 2023 in Edmonton, AB.
The full settlement can be viewed at https://leducclassaction.com/
[GN]
MAXUM INDEMNITY: Bid to Enforce Settlement in Henry Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON HENRY, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. MAXUM INDEMNITY
COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION: "D" (1), Defendants. **APPLIES TO ALL
CASES**, Civil Action No. 20-2995, c/w No. 20-2997, No. 20-2998
(E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the
Motion to Enforce Settlement and to Dismiss all Claims with
Prejudice.
Prior to 2010, the Plaintiffs in this litigation caught and
harvested seafood from the Louisiana coastal areas to sustain their
basic personal and family dietary, economic, and security needs.
They claim that following the oil spill caused by the BP Deepwater
Horizon explosion on April 20, 2010 (the "BP Oil Spill"), they were
unable to continue catching and harvesting fish because of fishing
closures.
As a result of the BP Oil Spill, litigation proceeded in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with claimants
asserting many kinds of damages, from "subsistence damages"
described, to personal injuries suffered during the cleanup
efforts. The litigation settled, and the Economic and Property
Damages Settlement Class was established. The Plaintiffs claim they
were entitled to assert their rights to participate in the
settlement by filing a claim with the Deepwater Horizon Economic
Claims Center ("DHECC"). The deadline to file a claim for losses
sustained due to the BP Oil Spill fishing closures ("Subsistence
Claims") was June 8, 2015.
Law Firm Defendants Howard L. Nations, APC, Howard L. Nations,
Cindy L. Nations (the "Nations Defendants"), The Nicks Law Firm,
LLC, Shantrell Nicks (the "Nicks Defendants"), Rueb & Motta, APLC,
Joseph A. Motta, Attorney at Law, APLC, the Rueb Law Firm, APLC,
Gregory D. Rueb, and Joseph A. Motta allegedly formed a joint
venture to solicit and engage clients with Subsistence Claims. The
Law Firm Defendants held meetings at numerous locations across the
gulf south to recruit thousands of clients. The Plaintiffs allege
that they engaged the Law Firm Defendants pursuant to an
Attorney-Client Contract, by which the Law Firm Defendants assumed
the obligation to prepare, file, and prosecute each the Plaintiff's
Subsistence Claims.
The Plaintiffs in these consolidated lawsuits allege that the Law
Firm Defendants negligently and intentionally signed their
Subsistence Claims forms without requiring their signatures. They
further allege that when DHCC provided an opportunity to cure
inaccurate claim information for each plaintiff, the Law Firm
Defendants failed to notify the Plaintiffs and instead supplemented
the amounts they claimed with information unilaterally modified and
fabricated by the Law Firm Defendants.
The Plaintiffs allege that these manipulations resulted in
unreasonable increases in the amount and weights and species, which
resulted in the claims being denied by the BP Settlement Program's
Fraud, Waste and Abuse program or the Claims Review and Appeal
Process. The Plaintiffs allege that but for the Law Firm
Defendants' acts and omissions, they would have received an award
from the DHECC. They say that they did not learn until March or
April 2019 that their claims had been denied.
On July 6, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits in state court
against the Law Firm Defendants as well as the following insurers
of the Nations Defendants: Maxum Indemnity Co., QBE Insurance
Corp., Landmark American Insurance Co., and Allied World Insurance
Co. The actions were removed to this Court in November 2020. Allied
was voluntarily dismissed in December 2020 and Capital Specialty
Insurance Corp. was joined via an amended complaint filed in April
2021. Also in December 2020, the District Court consolidated three
nearly identical cases with Henry v. Maxum Indemnity Company, No.
20-cv-2995, as the lead case.
Prior to the filing of this consolidated action known as the Henry
case, a separate group of plaintiffs filed a similar lawsuit in
this Court on May 13, 2019. Like the Henry plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs in the Gaudet litigation alleged that they had retained
the Law Firm Defendants to pursue their Subsistence Claims (Gaudet
v. Howard L. Nations, APC, 19-cv-10356, ECF # 1, at 13 (E.D. La.
May 13, 2019)). But the Gaudet plaintiffs allege that the Law Firm
Defendants failed to timely file a complete Subsistence Claim with
the DHECC on their behalf. They, too, allege that they did not
learn that their claims had been denied until they received letters
from the Law Firm Defendants in March 2019. The Gaudet plaintiffs
named only the Law Firm Defendants -- not the Insurers -- as
defendants. And they purported to file on behalf of a class of
similarly situated plaintiffs. Their motion for class certification
was denied on July 21, 2021.
The present dispute arises out of settlement negotiations that took
place in December 2022 and early 2023. At the time the negotiations
began, trial in both Gaudet and Henry was scheduled to begin on
Jan. 9, 2023. However, the discussions sought a global settlement
of not only Gaudet and Henry, but also similar litigation pending
in Mississippi and prosecuted by the same attorneys as are handling
the Gaudet and Henry matters. The parties refer to the Mississippi
litigation as the Ackman case. Altogether, there are 148 named
plaintiffs.
Judge van Meerveld was deeply involved in the settlement
negotiations. A joint settlement conference in the Gaudet and Henry
cases was held on Dec. 16, 2022, but no settlement was reached.
Thereafter on Dec. 23, 2022, Judge van Meerveld issued a mediator's
proposal. The proposal included specific amounts for each of the
Law Firm Defendants and Insurers to pay. It provided that this
settlement pot be divided among all 148 plaintiffs in all three
cases but did not specify a split. It provided that the settlement
would result in "full dismissal of all three lawsuits,
pending/contemplated 5th Circuit appeal, everything. And it
required that the Plaintiffs obtain signed releases from all
clients.
As they now readily admit, QBE, Landmark, Cap Specialty, and the
Plaintiffs agreed to the proposal in writing. The Law Firm
Defendants and Maxum (Nations' lead insurer) did not accept the
proposal as written. Because of the shortfall in monies needed,
Judge van Meerveld reported to all counsel via email that unanimous
acceptance of the mediator's proposal had not been achieved on Dec.
29, 2022. She continued negotiations with the parties. Ultimately,
she obtained consent from all parties to this modified version of
the mediator's proposal on Jan. 2, 2023. On Jan. 4, 2023, the
counsel for the Plaintiffs confirmed that all his clients consented
to the deal and the Judge van Meerveld reported this development
via an email. Trial was called off and the lawsuits were dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to a conditional order of dismissal,
with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the compromise
agreed upon by the parties.
The term sheet was circulated by the Plaintiffs' counsel later that
day, listing out the payment terms. Maxum's counsel confirmed that
it had agreed to pay up to the amount listed in the term sheet
after it had the opportunity to perform an accounting of the amount
remaining on the policy to confirm that this amount was, indeed,
available.
On Jan. 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs' counsel emailed to check in on
the status of the audit. On Feb. 8, 2023, Maxum circulated its
first draft of the settlement agreement. Negotiations over the
terms of the release ensued. Unfortunately, the parties hit an
impasse. Despite continued negotiations, the issues could not be
resolved. The Gaudet and Henry plaintiffs then filed the present
Motion to Enforce Settlement. They ask the Court to find that the
settlement reached in early January 2023 is binding, that the
mandates are valid, and that the settlement encompasses only the
allegations of the complaint. They seek an order enforcing the
settlement agreement and dismissing plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice.
All Defendants oppose. Maxum and the Law Firm Defendants now take
the position that no settlement was ever reached: they say they
never agreed to the term sheet circulated by the Plaintiffs'
counsel on January 4 and they insist that there is no written offer
and written acceptance. The remaining insurers take a similar
position, but assert they remain willing to be bound by the
mediators' proposal.
All Defendants insist that obtaining releases signed by each
Plaintiff was a condition of any settlement and that the proposed
mandates do not satisfy this requirement. Some of the Defendants
also argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the
settlement because any settlement was required to include the
Ackman litigation -- but that lawsuit is pending in another court.
Some argue that there can be no settlement because the Plaintiffs
have not agreed to include defense and indemnity provisions, all
claims arising out of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and a no
admission of liability clause.
In reply, the Plaintiffs insist that there is a binding settlement
and argue that the writings indicate a meeting of the minds. They
argue that the mandates are legally sufficient and that, in any
event, any problems with their sufficiency will lie with their
counsel. They submit that they agreed to include "no admission of
liability" language in the release and that they are also willing
to include a defense and indemnity provision. They add that there
is no dispute that the settlement is global and that the separate
Ackman litigation does not preclude this Court from enforcing the
settlement agreement here. Upon enforcement, the Plaintiffs'
counsel submits they will file a motion to dismiss the Mississippi
litigation.
Judge van Meerveld states that clearly, the settlement remained
subject to a critical later formality -- signed release agreements.
But such a formality does not preclude the finding of an
enforceable settlement agreement. The signed release is one of the
deal terms.
But while the form of the release may still be at issue, one thing
is clear: the case has settled. There was a meeting of the minds on
the material terms of the settlement, so much so, that even were
the Plaintiffs or their counsel to try to renege on the deal now,
it would be enforceable.
Judge van Meerveld rules that the Plaintiffs' counsel Jerald Block
has stated in no uncertain terms that he was authorized to and did
bind the settlement on behalf of all 148 of his clients. He now
seeks to enforce it, not renege on it. This, too, makes it
enforceable as to his clients. Should they or Block later claim
that Block did not have authority to settle, the Plaintiff(s) will
nonetheless be bound by Block's representation that he settled the
matter.
Having found an enforceable settlement, Judge van Meerveld turns to
the disputed terms. The first issue is whether the Plaintiffs'
counsel's use of mandates to authorize him to sign the releases in
lieu of his clients personally signing the releases complies with
the parties' agreement. Judge van Meerveld finds that the
plaintiffs may use the mandate, including the form that has been
presented to the Court, to authorize their attorneys to sign the
release on their behalf, and in doing so for all Plaintiffs
(subject to any succession requirements particular to a specific
plaintiff), the Plaintiffs will follow their obligation to provide
148 executed releases.
Judge van Meerveld then turns to the second issue in dispute:
whether the settlement includes the Plaintiffs' release of all
claims related to Deepwater Horizon claims even though this lawsuit
only alleged malpractice about the Plaintiffs' Subsistence Claims.
She finds that the settlement never contemplated settlement of
anything other than the Gaudet, Henry, and Ackman lawsuits. Each of
these lawsuits is predicated on an agreement between each Plaintiff
and the Defendant Law Firms by which the Defendant Law Firms agreed
to handle the Plaintiff's Subsistence Claim. That is explicit in
each agreement.
Any alleged malpractice regarding such other BP claims is entirely
separate and unrelated to the alleged malpractice and breach of
contract with regard to the Subsistence Claims alleged in the
Gaudet, Henry, and Ackman lawsuits. The Plaintiffs agreed to settle
their claims of alleged malpractice and breach of contract arising
out of the Defendant Law Firm's handling of their Subsistence
Claims only.
Judge van Meerveld next considers the third issue: whether the
settlement includes a release of all employees of the Law Firm
Defendants, even though none of them were named in the lawsuit and
the claims were for legal malpractice and breach of contract. She
finds that the Defendant Law Firm's employees were never part of
this lawsuit. However, any claim against the employees arising out
of their actions in handling the Subsistence Claims arise out of
the same transaction or occurrence as the claims raised in Gaudet,
Henry, and Ackman.
As a result, Judge van Meerveld finds that releases of the
employees were always contemplated by the global settlement of all
claims in the three suits. Moreover, it is typical for a release of
a corporate defendant to include a release of all its employees and
agents who might be liable for the damages alleged in the lawsuit.
The actions of the employees and any other agents of the Defendants
-- to the extent related to the allegations in the three lawsuits
-- are contemplated by the parties' settlement and should be
included in the release.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge van Meerveld grants the Motion to
Enforce Settlement and to Dismiss all Claims with Prejudice.
She finds a valid and enforceable settlement agreement on the
following terms:
1. The confidential payment amounts and methods laid out in
the Jan. 4, 2023, term sheet.
2. All three lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice.
3. The Plaintiffs' counsel must obtain signed releases from
all 148 plaintiffs.
Judge van Meerveld finds that the Plaintiffs will meet their
obligation to provide signed releases even if the releases are
signed by their counsel, properly authorized via a signed mandate
on the form they presented in support of their motion, subject to
any particular succession requirements that may apply. She finds
that the scope of the settlement extends only to the Law Firm
Defendants' handling of the Plaintiffs' Subsistence Claims; however
the settlement does include release of the employees of the Law
Firm Defendants.
The parties will proceed to finalize and execute the release as
they promised to do. Upon delivery of the 148 signed releases
(including releases executed by an authorized mandatary), the
Defendants will comply with their payment obligations. Judge van
Meerveld finds it premature to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice
at this time.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yns3cv7y from Leagle.com.
MDL 2924: Hughley Suit Consolidated in Ranitidine Liability Row
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Zantac (Ranitidine)
Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2924, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers the case captioned as "Hughley v. University
of Louisville-Medical Center, et al.," (C.A. No. 3:22−00268, W.D.
Ky.) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge
Robin L. Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
The panel finds that the Hughley action involves common questions
of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2924, and that
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
The panel added that the Southern District of Florida is an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions arising from allegations that ranitidine, the active
molecule in Zantac and similar heartburn medications, can form the
carcinogen N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), either during storage or
when metabolized in the human body. Like the actions in the MDL,
plaintiff in Hughley alleges that he developed cancer caused by his
ingestion of Zantac, notes the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2023 Transfer Order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2924-Transfer_Order-5-23.pdf
MDL 2924: Panel Denies Remand of Martin Suit to S.D. Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Zantac (Ranitidine)
Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2924, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, denies the move by pro se plaintiff James Martin to
remand his action docketed as "Martin v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,) (C.A. No. 9:20−80480) to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
The panel concludes that remand is not appropriate at this time,
and hence, denies the plaintiff's motion.
The panel notes that without a suggestion of remand, a party
advocating Section 1407 remand "bears a strong burden of
persuasion." Plaintiff has not met that burden here, the panel
rules. Plaintiff's sole argument in support of remand is that he is
pursuing a claim for multiple myeloma, which is not one of the
"designated" cancers selected by plaintiffs' leadership counsel for
litigation as bellwethers. But, like most plaintiffs in the MDL,
plaintiff in Martin alleges that his cancer was caused by ingestion
of ranitidine, notes the panel.
Moreover, remand at this juncture, while pretrial proceedings are
still ongoing in the MDL, will not promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Instead, it would result in duplication
of efforts and, potentially, inconsistent pretrial rulings, adds
the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2924-Order_Denying_Remand-5-23.pdf
MDL 2936: Panel Remands Nationwide v. Smitty's to E.D. La.
----------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Smitty's/CAM2 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2936, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ordered
a remand of the case styled as "Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance
Company v. Smitty's Supply, Inc., et al.," (C.A. No. 4:21−00072,
W.D. Mo.) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.
This MDL involves consumer class actions concerning certain
Smitty's tractor hydraulic fluid ("THF") products and two related
insurance coverage actions. The coverage actions seek a judicial
declaration as to Nationwide's rights and obligations under
insurance policies issued to defendants Smitty's and CAM2 with
respect to coverage for costs incurred, or to be incurred, as a
result of the actions being litigated in MDL No. 2936 and in an
earlier settled action (Hornbeck) also involving these THF
products.
The coverage action involving Hornbeck is referred to as the
Hornbeck Coverage Action, and the coverage action involving the
actions in MDL No. 2936 is referred to as the MDL Coverage Action.
Nationwide argued that remand of the MDL Coverage Action is
required because of its previous consolidation under Rule 42 with
the Hornbeck Coverage Action and, further, even if not mandatory,
remand of the MDL Coverage Action is warranted because of the risk
of inconsistent rulings and inefficiencies from having closely
related insurance actions proceed in two different district courts.
In opposition to remand, defendants argued that the pre-transfer
consolidation of the two coverage actions does not control the
issue of remand, and pretrial proceedings in the MDL Coverage
Action have not concluded.
The panel held that based on its review of the record, it believes
that "the following circumstances unique to this docket warrant
remand of the MDL Coverage Action. First, the two insurance
coverage actions were consolidated for all purposes under Rule 42
by the transferor court in late 2020, before the actions were
transferred to the MDL. While the consolidation under Rule 42 is
not dispositive of remand, we find it highly relevant here. The
central issue in both actions is Nationwide's alleged duty to
provide coverage for consumer claims arising from Smitty’s
allegedly defective 303 tractor hydraulic fluid products.
Importantly, the ten insurance policies at issue in the Hornbeck
Coverage Action also are at issue in the MDL Coverage Action and
the complaints squarely raise the interpretation and application of
the same provisions - for example, "occurrence," "prior knowledge,"
and "expected or intended injury" - to claims concerning the same
allegedly defective product. Second, in the Hornbeck Coverage
Action, the record shows that there are ongoing disputes over how
to interpret these common provisions in the Eastern District of
Louisiana transferor court. Thus, we find that the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation would be served by remand of
the MDL Coverage Action to the Eastern District of Louisiana, thus
allowing the consolidated coverage actions to proceed together in
the same court."
A full-text copy of the panel's June 5, 2023 Remand Order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2936-Remand_Order-5-23.pdf
MILLER TUBULAR: Stacey Sues Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHASE STACEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. MILLER TUBULAR SERVICES, LLC, and MICHAEL
MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-00087 (W.D. Tex., June 13,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Stacey worked as an inspector and was an hourly-paid,
admittedly non-exempt and overtime eligible worker for Defendants.
Stacey and the Class members were paid on an hourly basis but were
frequently not properly compensated for hours worked in excess of
40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed
to accurately track and pay for all hours of work, especially for
time spent before and after assigned work shifts.
Miller Tubular Services, LLC is a limited liability company and is
authorized to do business and is doing business in the State of
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
MURPHY OIL: Overcharges Premium Customers, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that consumers who fill
up their vehicles with premium motor fuel at Murphy Oil gas
stations receive a "significant" amount of regular or mid-grade
motor fuel in their first gallon of gas pumped, a new class action
lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Jason Watson claims the gas pumps at Murphy Oil gas
stations use a single-nozzle fuel dispensing system that retains a
residual amount of motor fuel after a completed pump, causing the
next driver to get that gas as part of their first gallon.
Watson argues consumers who pay for premium gas at Murphy Oil
stations ultimately do not get what they believe they are paying
for.
"Premium Customers regularly paid the premium price for the first
gallon of motor fuel for which they did not receive a gallon of
premium motor fuel in return," the Murphy Oil class action states.
Watson wants to represent classes of consumers from a total of 27
states who have used a debit or credit card to purchase premium
motor fuel from a single-nozzle fuel dispensing system at a Murphy
Oil gas station after a customer who filled up with regular or
mid-grade fuel, from between June 16, 2017 and June 16, 2023.
Murphy Oil aware it allegedly overcharges premium customers, class
action says
Murphy Oil is aware it overcharges customers who purchase premium
grade motor fuel after a non-premium customer but, ultimately,
chooses not to refund them, despite nothing legally preventing them
from doing so, the class action alleges.
"Murphy could easily refund Premium Customers the difference
between what they paid for and what they received in return," the
class action states. "Murphy has made a business decision to retain
the overcharge as a profit as opposed to refunding the same to
Premium Customers."
Watson claims Murphy Oil is guilty of unjust enrichment, breach of
express or implied-in-fact contract and money had and received. He
is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive
relief along with an award of restitutionary damages for himself
and all class members.
Similar class action lawsuits have recently been filed against
Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores and Speedway over claims they
overcharged drivers who filled up with premium motor fuel at their
gas stations.
Have you filled up your vehicle with premium fuel at a Murphy Oil
gas station? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiff is represented by Gordon Ball and Jonathan Tanner
Ball of Gordon Ball PLLC, Thomas Bienert Jr. and Daniel Goldman of
Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP, Times Wang of North River
Law PLLC and Bryan E. Delius of Delius & McKenzie PLLC.
The Murphy Oil gas class action lawsuit is Watson, et al. v. Murphy
Oil USA Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00036, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee. [GN]
NATIONAL DEBT: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Messages, Schopp Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE KENNETH SCHOPP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00568 (E.D. Tex., June 19, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of making telephone calls/text messages to consumers who
registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry
(DNC) in an attempt to promote its services without obtaining prior
express written consent. The Plaintiff and Class members have been
harmed by the acts of the Defendant in the form of multiple
involuntary telephone and electrical charges, the aggravation,
nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the
receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, and
violations of their statutory rights, says the suit.
National Debt Relief, LLC is a provider of debt counseling services
based in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
NETJETS INC: Faces Suit Over Pilot Training's Systemic Deficiencies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NJASAP of Cision PR Newswire reports that NetJets pilots fly in one
of the world's most complex and dynamic operational environments,
which makes crewmember training vital to their preparation to
conduct such operations. This critical importance of pilot training
compelled the NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots
(NJASAP) to file a Class Action Grievance earlier on June 22, 2023
to address systemic deficiencies that have decimated the NetJets
training program. NJASAP represents the 3,000-plus pilots who fly
in the service of NetJets Aviation, Inc., a Berkshire Hathaway
subsidiary (NYSE: BRK.A).
In the grievance, NJASAP has alleged NetJets is failing to provide
adequate and standardized training across all segments of the pilot
group from its newly hired pilots who are completing initial
aircraft training to crewmembers who have been on property for
decades and are completing new aircraft transition training. "The
quality of the NetJets training product has significantly
diminished, which is very concerning to NJASAP given the number of
ongoing and scheduled training events required to accommodate the
dramatic expansion of our fleet," NJASAP President Capt. Pedro
Leroux said.
"One of NJASAP's most pressing concerns is specific to instructors:
In several instances, training is being conducted by new,
inexperienced staff who have little to no knowledge of NetJets'
standard operating procedures and aircraft," the Union president
continued. Moreover, the instructor-to-pilot ratio is too high to
facilitate a productive training environment and there is a
profound lack of standardization in the delivery of study materials
and instructor familiarity with the same.
Many pilots, Leroux continued, are seeking resources outside the
established training curriculum to offset inadequacies in their
instruction. "When pilots are so concerned about the level of
instruction that they have no choice but to supplement their
training resources outside the classroom, you have a very big
problem on your hands," Leroux said. The Union alleges these many
and varied deficiencies in the training program constitute an
egregious violation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement
(CBA), which NJASAP will endeavor to remediate through the minor
dispute resolution process codified in the CBA. The matter must be
heard within 10 business days unless the parties mutually agree to
an extension.
About NJASAP Founded in 2008 as an independent labor advocate, the
NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots (NJASAP) represents
the professional interests of the 3,000 pilots who fly in the
service of NetJets Aviation, Inc., a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary.
For more information, please visit our websites, www.njasap.com and
www.genuineqs.com, or find us on Facebook, www.facebook.com/njasap,
Instagram, www.instagram.com/njasap, and Twitter, @njasap. [GN]
NEW YORK: Affirmance of Dismissal of Drivers Assoc. v. DOT Modified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN THE MATTER OF OWNER OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Appellants v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., Respondents, Case No. 45 (N.Y. App.),
the Court of Appeals of New York modifies the order of the
Appellate Division affirming the Supreme Court's order granting the
Respondents' motion to dismiss.
Before the Court of Appeals is a facial challenge to the
constitutionality of New York regulations adopting a rule
promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
requiring the installation of electronic logging devices in
commercial motor vehicles.
For over 80 years, New York has enforced hours-of-service
limitations and record-keeping requirements for commercial vehicle
drivers. The aim of New York's 1937 hours-of-service statute was
essentially the same as the aim of our current federal and State
regulations: protecting operators of motor trucks and buses as well
as the public generally from the dangers incident to fatigue of
drivers.
In 1938, a federal law took effect empowering a predecessor agency
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to
establish and enforce federal safety standards for commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) and their drivers. FMCSA provides grants to states
such as New York that incorporate the federal rules into state law
and assist in enforcing those rules pursuant to the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program.
The New York Department of Transportation (DOT) is the agency
primarily responsible for New York's enforcement of the FMCSA
regulations. Its responsibilities include enforcing regulations
limiting a CMV operator's maximum number of hours of service. Under
the FMCSA regulations adopted by this State, CMV operators must
record their hours of service and duty status, in addition to other
relevant data, and produce those records for inspection when
requested by the police or other authorized official. In 2012,
Congress passed legislation requiring the federal DOT to prescribe
regulations requiring CMVs, involved in interstate commerce and
operated by drivers subject to the hours-of-service and
record-of-duty-status requirements, to be equipped with electronic
logging devices (ELDs).
The FMCSA promulgated the final ELD rules in 2015, requiring ELDs
to be installed and in use by Dec. 18, 2017, with some exceptions.
New York adopted the ELD rule as an emergency measure under the
State Administrative Procedure Act. The emergency rules were
permanently incorporated into New York law on April 9, 2019, and
made effective April 24, 2019. This made New York the 48th state to
adopt the rule.
Prior to commencing this proceeding, petitioner Owner Operator
Independent Drivers Association, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation
whose members own and operate CMVs, challenged the federal ELD rule
in federal court on various grounds, including that the warrantless
inspection of ELD data constituted an unreasonable search and
seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the
Association's challenge, holding that the commercial trucking
industry was a pervasively regulated industry and therefore, even
if the ELD rule constituted a search or seizure, it would be
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment's exception for such
industries.
The Association then commenced a class action in New York state
court, asserting that the federal ELD rule was being improperly
enforced prior to its incorporation into state law and that its
enforcement violated CMV drivers' rights to due process and to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures under New York's
Constitution. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing
the complaint, finding no evidence that the State was enforcing the
ELD rule at that time. It further held that the State's limited
roadside inspections of ELDs, for the sole purpose of ensuring
compliance with pre-existing hours-of-service requirements, did not
constitute unreasonable searches and seizures under New York's
Constitution.
The Association appealed. Because New York adopted the ELD rule
during the pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Division dismissed
the appeal as moot.
The Association and three current or former CMV operators
(petitioners) then commenced this combined CPLR article 78
proceeding and declaratory judgment action against
Defendants-Respondents DOT and other agencies, challenging New
York's adoption of the ELD rule. The Supreme Court granted the
Respondents' motion to dismiss the suit, holding in relevant part
that searches authorized by the ELD rule are valid under the
exception to the warrant requirement for administrative searches.
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that commercial trucking
is a pervasively regulated industry pursuant to which an
administrative search may be justified and that the ELD rule
furthers a vital and compelling interest.
The Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals as of right.
The Court of Appeals agrees with the lower courts that the ELD rule
satisfies the administrative search exception to the warrant
requirement. First, it finds that the ELD rule is a refinement of
the State's decades-long regulation of commercial vehicle drivers'
hours of service. It is designed to respond to widespread and
longstanding falsification of records and errors under the old
system of using paper records to document hours of service.
Consequently, the ELD rule is encompassed within the long tradition
of pervasive governmental regulation of the commercial trucking
industry whose purpose is to ensure the safety of motorists
traveling on our public highways.
Second, the Court of Appeals finds that constraints on the
frequency of roadside searches of ELD data are inherent in the
broader scheme of CMV regulation. The ELD rule makes no changes to
the longstanding and current system of commercial motor vehicle
enforcement, under which most truck and/or driver inspections are
performed roadside under the pervasively regulated industry
exception to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In
other words, there is a reasonable limitation on the frequency of
searches under the ELD rule because a proper roadside inspection
(i.e., search) of ELD data requires, like other CMV enforcement,
that the vehicle is stopped (i.e., seized) constitutionally.
Third, the ELD rule does not authorize unconstitutional GPS
tracking, the Court of Appeals says. Additionally, although
location data is recorded on an ELD whenever the vehicle is
activated, it is not nearly as precise or frequent. This is a
relatively limited intrusion upon those receiving governmental
approval to operate large, potentially dangerous, commercial
vehicles on public roads for economic benefit.
Finally, the Court of Appeals says there are numerous
administrative sanctions for a driver's violation of
hours-of-service requirements discovered by a search of their ELD.
Contrary to petitioners' contention, the fact that an inspection of
ELD data may also reveal violations of the regulatory scheme that
carry criminal penalties is insufficient, standing alone, to render
the search unlawful.
The Court of Appeals concludes that the courts below properly
determined that the ELD rule is constitutional. However, it says
the Supreme Court should have declared the rights of the parties
rather than dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the order of the
Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to the
Respondents, by granting judgment to respondents in accordance with
its Opinion and, as so modified, affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr3w5zaf from Leagle.com.
Charles R. Stinson -- charles@cullenlaw.com -- for the Appellants.
Kevin C. Hu -- Kevin.Hu@ag.ny.gov -- for the Respondents.
PHOENIX, AZ: Dismissal of Pope's Anti-diversion Claims Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DANIEL POPE, Plaintiff/Appellant v. CITY OF PHOENIX,
Defendant/Appellee. RACHEL ROBERTS, Plaintiff/Appellant v. CITY OF
PHOENIX, Defendant/Appellee, Consolidated Nos. 1 CA-TX 20-0006, 1
CA-TX 21-0004 (Ariz. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona,
Division One, affirms the superior court's dismissal of Daniel Pope
and Rachel Roberts' anti-diversion claims against the City of
Phoenix.
In the mid-2000s, the City built a rental car facility to serve Sky
Harbor Airport. To fund the project, the City implemented a
customer facility charge ("CFC") of $6 per transaction day for each
vehicle rented at the facility. Funds generated by the CFC are to
be used to pay debt service on the bonds used to construct the
facility as well as for ongoing costs associated with the facility
and transportation to the airport, including an extension of the
SkyTrain light-rail system.
Pope rented a car at the facility in 2017 and paid a CFC of $36.
Roberts rented a car at the facility in 2019 and paid a $30 CFC.
Each brought a putative class action alleging that the CFC violates
the Arizona Constitution's anti-diversion provision, which (broadly
speaking) requires that funds generated by taxes or fees imposed on
road users for their road use be expended only for road purposes.
The City moved to dismiss in each case, and the tax court granted
both motions on various grounds.
After the court entered judgment against Pope, Pope timely filed a
motion for new trial, which the court denied. Pope then appealed.
The court entered judgment against Roberts, and after the court
reopened the time to appeal under ARCAP 9(f), Roberts appealed. The
Court of Appeals consolidated the two appeals.
Preliminarily, the City argues that Pope did not timely appeal the
tax court's judgment, and that the Court of Appeals thus lacks
appellate jurisdiction over his case. The tax court entered
judgment against Pope on March 10, 2020, and Pope timely filed a
motion for new trial 14 days later on March 24. After full
briefing, the court denied the motion on May 6. Pope filed his
notice of appeal 16 days later on May 22.
The Court of Appeals finds that Pope's motion for new trial was
timely filed (15-day deadline to file motion for new trial), and
Pope filed his notice of appeal 16 days after the court ruled on
the motion, well within the 30-day deadline. It also says it would
be anomalous to permit post-judgment motions asserting errors in
the tax court's judgment but then require that an appeal be filed
before the tax court has an opportunity to correct any error (or
reaffirm its judgment). Section 12-170(C) simply confirms that the
procedures for appealing civil judgments apply in tax court. Thus,
ARCAP 9(e)(1)(D) extended the time for Pope to appeal, and his
appeal was timely filed. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction
under A.R.S. Section 12-2101(A)(1).
Pope and Roberts then argue that the CFC is a fee on road users
within the ambit of the anti-diversion provision and that the City
improperly uses those funds for non-road-related purposes. They
contend that the tax court thus erred by dismissing their
complaints for failure to state a claim.
The Court of Appeals reviews the dismissal de novo, assuming the
truth of the complaint's well-pleaded facts. It says the critical
fact remains that the CFC is neither a prerequisite to nor
triggered by legal use or operation of a vehicle on Arizona's
roadways. And because the CFC does not qualify as a tax or fee
"relating to operation or use of vehicles on the public highways or
streets" as defined in Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of
Revenue, 246 Ariz. 89, 99, ¶ 39 (2019), the superior court
properly dismissed Pope and Roberts's complaints. Because dismissal
was proper on this basis, the Court of Appeals need not address the
City's other proffered grounds for affirming the judgments.
Lastly, the requests an award of attorney's fees on appeal under
A.R.S. Sections 12-349 and -341.01. In an exercise of its
discretion, the Court of Appeals denies the request.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms.
Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge D. Steven
Williams joined.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/4b4vy4bt from Leagle.com.
Shawn Aiken PLLC, Phoenix, By Shawn Aiken -- shawn@shawnaiken.com
-- Co-Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Holden Willits PLC, Phoenix, By Robert G. Schaffer --
rschaffer@holdenwillits.com -- Co-Counsel for the
Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Kickham Hanley PC, Royal Oak, MI By Gregory D. Hanley --
ghanley@kickhamhanley.com -- Co-Counsel for the
Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, By Eric M. Fraser --
rschaffer@holdenwillits.com -- Counsel for Defendant/Appellee City
of Phoenix.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 3rd. Cir. Affirms in Part Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on June 13, 2023,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
in part and reversed in part the dismissal of a putative class
action against an insurance company (the "Company") and certain of
its executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. City of Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v.
Prudential Fin., Inc., No. 21-1147, 2023 WL 3961128 (3d Cir. June
13, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled investors by
misrepresenting the adequacy of their reserves, which are funds to
pay for anticipated benefit claims by their policy holders. The
district court had held that plaintiffs failed to plead falsity
with respect to all the alleged misstatements. The Third Circuit
affirmed the dismissal on all but one of the alleged misstatements,
holding that plaintiffs adequately alleged falsity with respect to
that statement including through allegations attributed to a
confidential informant, and remanded to the district court to
consider the elements of loss causation and scienter.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled investors in its
statements regarding the reserves set aside to pay death-benefit
claims as part of its life insurance business, which amounts were
treated as a liability for future policy benefits on the Company's
balance sheets. In January 2013, the Company acquired 700,000 life
insurance policies (the "Policies") from another insurance company
and assumed the obligation to pay the death benefits owed under the
Policies as they became due. The life expectancy of the holders of
these Policies proved to be shorter than expected, resulting in the
Company paying death benefits sooner than expected. In the second
quarter of 2018, the Company announced a $65 million reserve
increase and corresponding charge against the income on the
relevant business segment (the "Business Segment"), which the
Company attributed, in part, to updated mortality rate assumptions.
Over a year later, in a July 31, 2019 press release, the Company
announced that due to unfavorable updates to its mortality
assumptions, it would charge $208 million to the Business Segment's
income to supplement its reserves, which impact resulted in the
Business Segment reporting an adjusted operating loss of $135
million for 2019 Q2. Relying on confidential witness allegations
from the Company's former employees, plaintiffs challenged several
statements made between 2018 Q2 and 2019 Q2, including (i) the
Company's descriptions of its reserve methodology; (ii) statements
in the Company's 2018 Form 10-K annual report and 2019 Q1 Form 10-Q
quarterly report that disavowed any serious problems with the
Business Segment and stated that the amounts of its reserves were
adequate; (iii) statements by the Company's vice chairman in an
analyst meeting that there were no systemic issues with
underwriting practices or mortality assumptions in the Business
Segment; and (iv) a statement by the Company's CFO at its investor
day conference in June 2019 describing the Business Segment's
recent mortality experience as within the range of "normal
volatility" or, at worst, only "slightly negative."
The Court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to
all but the last challenged statement, and dismissed the claims
based on the first three statements described above. First, the
Court held that plaintiffs failed to allege that the Company's
description of its reserve methodology was false. Second, the Court
held that the statements in the Company's SEC filings that the
amounts of reserve were adequate were statements of opinion because
"the setting of reserves reflects an insurer's actuarial judgment,
based on a variety of complex assumptions and considerations, of
the amount it must set aside to pay claims by policyholders." The
Court held that this opinion statement did not fall under any of
the categories of a false or misleading opinion statement under the
Omnicare framework because (i) there were no plausible allegations
that the Company did not sincerely hold its opinion about the
adequacy of the reserves; (ii) the challenged statement did not
express any factual assertions that were untrue; and (iii) the
confidential informant allegation that the Policies had a
consistently negative mortality experience did not render the
opinion statement misleading because the alleged negative mortality
for the Policies was only one of the many factors considered in
setting reserves. Third, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to
allege falsity with respect to the statement that there were no
systemic issues with underwriting practices or mortality
assumptions in the Business Segment, because the statement was
about the Business Segment as a whole and not just for the
Policies.
On the other hand, the Court held that plaintiffs had alleged
falsity with respect to the last challenged statement made by the
Company in June 2019 that the Business Segment's recent mortality
experience was within the range of "normal volatility" or, at
worst, only "slightly negative." With respect to this statement,
plaintiffs relied on a confidential witness allegation that the
Company discussed the poor performance of the Business Segment and
the need to take a significant charge to its operating income as
early as May 2019, and that it attributed the cause to negative
mortality experience in the Policies. The Court found that the
confidential witness allegations were credible because the
complaint adequately alleged that (i) the witness was in a position
that would have had access to the information alleged during the
relevant period; (ii) regularly attended the Business Segment
forecast meetings with the actuarial, capital, and financial teams;
and (iii) learned as early as May 2019 that the Company was taking
a significant reserve charge, and also because the confidential
witness allegations could be corroborated by other confidential
witnesses with dependable bases for knowledge. The Court held that
it could be reasonably inferred from these allegations that, as of
June 2019 when the challenged statement was made, the Company knew
about the significant reserve charge it would have to take and that
the mortality experience was not in the "normal" range or just
"slightly negative." [GN]
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Warren Suit Partially Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Appellant v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC.; CHARLES F. LOWREY; KENNETH
Y. TANJI; ROBERT M. FALZON, Case No. 21-1147 (3d Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit partially vacates the
judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice and remands the
case to the District Court.
Insurance companies typically set aside funds, known as reserves,
to pay for anticipated benefit claims by their policyholders. As an
exercise of actuarial judgment, a wide range of considerations bear
on the determination of the amount to hold in reserves. And because
circumstances change, an insurer's reserves may vary over time. But
in the instant case, one of the country's largest publicly traded
life insurance companies, Prudential, suddenly announced that it
would need to increase its reserves by $208 million and that, in
addition to a one-time charge in that amount, its earnings would be
reduced by $25 million per quarter for the foreseeable future.
After that news, the company's stock price dropped by more than 12%
over two days.
After the drop in stock price, two of Prudential's shareholders --
the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System (the 'Warren
Retirement System') and Donald P. Crawford -- separately initiated
class actions against Prudential for making false or misleading
statements related to the company's life insurance reserves. They
sued under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which regulates the
trading of securities on the secondary market.
Exercising jurisdiction over those suits, the District Court
consolidated the actions and appointed the Warren Retirement System
as lead plaintiff. After that appointment, the Warren Retirement
System filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims against Prudential's Vice
Chairman, Robert M. Falzon.
The Warren Retirement System also sought to represent a class of
persons who, like it, bought Prudential's common stock between Feb.
15, 2019, the date of the first alleged misrepresentation, and Aug.
2, 2019, the second day that the company's stock price dropped
following Prudential's corrective disclosures.
In response, Prudential and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim for
relief. In that motion, they argued that the Warren Retirement
System failed to adequately allege three essential elements of its
securities-fraud claims: a misrepresentation or omission of
material fact, scienter, and loss causation.
The District Court granted the motion on the ground that the
complaint did not plausibly allege that any of Prudential's
class-period statements were false or misleading. Reasoning that
any attempt to further amend would be futile, the District Court
dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice without addressing
scienter or loss causation.
The Warren Retirement System timely appealed the resulting order of
dismissal, bringing the case within the Third Circuit's appellate
jurisdiction. On appeal, it argues that the District Court erred in
dismissing its securities-fraud claims for failing to plead
falsity. It identifies four sets of statements that it contends are
pleaded with particularity and are plausibly false or misleading:
(i) the statements in Prudential's 2018 Form 10-K regarding
company's methodology for updating its reserves, (ii) the
statements about the adequacy of Prudential's reserves, which
render false or misleading the financial disclosures in its 2018
Form 10-K and in its first-quarter 2019 Form 10-Q, (iii) the
statement by Prudential's Vice Chairman, Robert M. Falzon, to
Credit Suisse analysts in March 2019, which declared that there
were no "systemic issues" with the company's underwriting practices
or mortality assumptions, and (iv) the statements by Prudential's
CFO, Kenneth Y. Tanji, on June 5, 2019, during the company's
Investor Day conference regarding Prudential's recent mortality
experience being within a normal range or at worst, only slightly
negative.
As a fallback, the Warren Retirement System argues that the
District Court abused its discretion by not permitting it to amend
its complaint for a second time to augment its allegations of
falsity.
While most of the District Court's judgment holds up on de novo
review, the Third Circuit opines that the retirement system's
amended complaint does contain particularized and plausible
allegations of falsity with respect to one set of statements by the
insurance company. On a conference call with investors eight weeks
before the company adjusted its reserves, its Chief Financial
Officer stated that the recent mortality experience of the
company's life insurance business was within the "normal" range of
volatility or, at worst, only "slightly negative."
But based on information from a confidential former employee, who
qualifies as credible at the pleading stage, the complaint alleges
that the insurance company was already contemplating a significant
increase in reserves due to negative mortality experience at the
time of the CFO's statements. And the magnitude of the company's
reserve charge and its temporal proximity to the CFO's statements
further undercut the CFO's assertion that recent mortality
experience was within a normal range. Those particularized
allegations, according to the Third Circuit, satisfy the heightened
standard for pleading falsity, and they plausibly allege the
falsity of the CFO's statement.
Accordingly, the District Court's judgment is partially vacated and
the case is remanded to the District Court to consider in the first
instance the adequacy of the amended complaint's allegations of
loss causation and scienter with respect to the CFO's statement.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/a4wenbz4 from Leagle.com.
Joseph D. Daley -- joed@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101.
Peter S. Pearlman -- psp@njlawfirm.com -- COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
HERRMANN & KNOPF, Park 80 West, Plaza One, 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite
401, Saddle Brook, NJ 07663.
Daniel J. Pfefferbaum -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- [Argued],
Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104.
Douglas Wilens -- DWilens@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD, 225 North East Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720, Boca Raton, FL
33432, Counsel for City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System.
David D. Cramer -- dcramer@walsh.law -- Tricia B. O'Reilly --
toreilly@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY & FALANGA, Three Gateway
Center 100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor Newark, NJ 07102.
Maeve L. O'Connor -- mloconnor@debevoise.com -- [Argued], Susan R.
Gittes -- srgittes@debevoise.com -- Aasiya F.M. Glover --
afmglove@debevoise.com -- DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, 66 Hudson
Boulevard, New York, NY 10001, Counsel for Prudential Financial,
Inc.; Charles F. Lowrey; Kenneth Y. Tanji; and Robert M. Falzon.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Phlebotomists, Pope Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWNEEQUA POPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00080 (E.D. Va., June 19, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
Ms. Pope was employed by the Defendant as a phlebotomist since 2015
until early 2023.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a medical laboratories company,
with its principal place of business at 1901 Sulphur Spring Road,
Halethorpe, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James H. Shoemaker, Jr., Esq.
PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C.
12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
Newport News, VA 23602
Telephone: (757) 223-4580
Facsimile: (757) 249-3242
E-mail: jshoemaker@pwhd.com
QUIKRETE COMPANIES: Thomas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
David Thomas, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. THE QUIKRETE COMPANIES, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00638
(W.D. Tex., May 18, 2023), is brought seeking to recover the unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other damages owed to these
workers, together with attorneys' fees, interest, and the costs
associated with these legal proceedings.
Quikrete employs Local Drivers in its regular course of business,
who play a critical role in the transportation and distribution of
its products. Despite the fact that these employees regularly work
more than 40 hours per week, Defendant's policy fails to provide
them with overtime pay. The Defendant's failure to pay overtime to
these employees constitutes a violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a Local Driver.
Quikrete is a scalable, single source for commercial, residential
and industrial building, repair and rehabilitation products that
proudly contributes to the growth and health of our country's
structure and infrastructure every day.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
2537 S. Gessner Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Phone: (713) 223–8855
Email: trang@tranlf.com
service@tranlf.com
R&B CORPORATION: Blake Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R&B Corporation of
Virginia. The case is styled as Merrette Blake, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. R&B Corporation of
Virginia doing business as: Credit Control Corporation, Case No.
4:23-cv-00066-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va., May 23, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
R&B Corporation of Virginia doing business as Credit Control --
https://creditcontrol.net/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
Joseph Michael Langone, Esq.
Wise Law Firm, PLC
10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 934-6377
Fax: (703) 934-6379
Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
jlangone@wiselaw.pro
RCO REFORESTING: Quintero, Aguilar Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Candelario Paredes Quintero, Pedro Paredes Aguilar, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RCO
Reforesting, INC. and Roberto C Ochoa, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01127-DJC-DB (E.D. Cal., June 13, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the California Labor Code.
Plaintiff Paredes Quintero worked for Defendants as forestry worker
from September 15, 2019 and was terminated on June 15, 2022 while
Paredes Aguilar worked for Defendants as forestry saw operator from
2019 and was terminated on December 12, 2022. Throughout their
employment, Plaintiffs Quintero and Aguilar worked more than 40
hours every week. However, the Defendants allegedly did not pay
Plaintiffs, non-exempt employees, any additional pay for the
overtime hours that they worked, says the suit.
RCO is a corporation doing business and headquartered in Yreka,
California. It provides forestry services in California and other
States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC.
6232 N. Pulaski Rd. Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (773) 415-4898
E-mail: jdore@justicialaboral.com
REGINA CATERERS: Polanco Sues Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
MANFREDO BLADIMIR POLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGINA CATERERS, INC., and FOZAN
PIRZADA as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04329
(E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for
violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Polanco was employed by the Defendants from in or around
December 2010 until in or around December 2020 and performed
primary duties as food preparer, cook, and cleaner while performing
other miscellaneous duties. He was regularly required to work
approximately 90 hours or more hours per week during the relevant
statutory period. However, the did not pay Plaintiff time and a
half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. In addition, the
Defendants also did not pay Plaintiff an extra hour at the legally
prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours and
willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime
wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment, says the Plaintiff.
Regina Caterers, Inc. is a corporation authorized to do business
under the laws of New York. It is owned and operated by Fozan
Pirzada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
RELIANT HOSPICE: Henderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER HENDERSON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, PLAINTIFF v. RELIANT HOSPICE OF HOUSTON, LLC AND LOIAL
HOSPICE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00751 (W.D. Tex., June 13, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Henderson was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
filed licensed vocational nurse from approximately April 2022
through February 2023. She consistently worked more than 40 hours
per workweek. Additionally, as is custom in the industry, Henderson
would regularly work on her nurses' notes at home. The Defendants
were fully aware of the fact that Henderson and other LVNs would
work on their nurses' notes at home. However, the Defendants never
paid Henderson, or any other LVNs, overtime premiums for any hours
worked over 40 per workweek, says the suit.
.
Reliant Hospice of Houston, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company that operates out of a number of counties in Texas,
including Bexar County. It provides in home hospice care in and
around Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: (512) 799-2048
E-mail: doug@wemakerlaw.com
RELO LLC: Nebieridze, Janikashvili Sue Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHALVA NEBIERIDZE and LEVAN JANIKASHVILI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RELO, LLC
d/b/a RELO MOVING & STORAGE and ARIEL BORNSTEIN, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04956-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Federal Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Nebieridze was employed by Relo, LLC d/b/a Relo Moving &
Storage, as a mover and loader while performing related
miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from in or around March
2020 until in or around December 2020. Plaintiff was regularly
required to work approximately 65 to 78 hours or more hours each
week or an average of approximately 71.5 hours per week. However,
the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages or all
hours regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a wage
rate of one and a half times the regular wage. In addition, the
Defendants also failed to record, credit or compensate Plaintiff
the applicable minimum hourly wage, in violation of the NYLL, says
the suit.
Relo, LLC, is a New York domestic business corporation, organized
under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Mendoza Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renewal by Andersen
LLC. The case is styled as Manuel Mendoza, individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Renewal by
Andersen LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-01427-KMM-DLM (D. Minn., May 18,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Renewal by Andersen -- https://www.renewalbyandersen.com/ --
provides a wide selection of replacement windows and patio doors
across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Phone: (612) 389-0600
Fax: (612) 389-0610
Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com
RISKIFIED LTD: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on June 2, 2023,
Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a
proposed class action against a software company (the "Company"),
alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933. In re Riskified Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 1:22-cv-03545, 2023 WL
3791653 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2023). The Company's core product
offering was a credit card fraud detection service for online
merchants. As part of this offering, the Company agreed to
reimburse online merchants for any payment reversals or
"chargebacks" resulting from fraudulent transactions that were
disputed by cardholders. Plaintiffs alleged that, in connection
with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") in July 2021,
the Company made several misstatements and omissions concerning the
Company increasingly taking on clients with higher chargeback
rates, its ability to control chargeback rates, and COVID-19's
impact on its business. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' second
amended complaint in its entirety, finding that plaintiffs failed
to plead an actionable misstatement or omission.
The Company's fraud detection services are designed to help online
merchants minimize costs associated with fraudulent online
transactions. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to
disclose in its Registration Statement that it was taking on a
greater proportion of risky clients with higher chargeback rates.
Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the Company onboarded a
cryptocurrency exchange in the months leading up to its IPO and
that clients in the cryptocurrency industry pose a greater risk for
chargebacks. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Company made
misleading statements about possible fluctuations in its gross
profit margins and its ability to control exposure to chargeback
expenses. Finally, plaintiffs alleged that the Company's statement
that it was "well-positioned" to take advantage of the end of
pandemic-related travel restrictions was misleading because
increased travel transactions allegedly would result in more
chargeback expenses.
With respect to the omission claims, the Court first found that
plaintiffs did not plausibly plead that there was a trend toward
taking on riskier clients at the time of the IPO because the
complaint only identified a single "risky" client onboarded by the
Company in the months leading up to the IPO. The Court also
rejected plaintiffs claim that the Company did not adequately
disclose the risk to its gross profit margins allegedly resulting
from changes in the mix of the Company's merchant industry base. In
rejecting this claim, the Court noted that the Company "disclosed
that its gross profit margins could fluctuate based on its merchant
mix" and that "the fluctuations that are the predicates for the
plaintiffs' complaints were within the historical fluctuations of
gross profit margins that were disclosed in the financial section
of the Registration Statement."
The Court also found that none of the alleged misstatements were
misleading. With respect to statements concerning fluctuations in
gross profit margins, the Court held that the Registration
Statement "sufficiently explained to investors the risks associated
with fluctuations in gross profit margins" and disclosed specific
"reasons that the margins could fluctuate, including changes in the
merchant mix." The Court also found that the Company's statements
regarding its ability to control chargeback expenses were not
misleading when read in context, because the Registration Statement
was “replete with disclosures" that the Company's control of its
chargeback exposure was not 'a perfect science.'" Finally, the
Court found that the Registration Statement contained no misleading
statements concerning the impact of COVID-19 on the Company's
business because "the disclosures about COVID-19 indicate that
there 'continues to be significant uncertainty' regarding the
future economic impacts of the pandemic."
The Court, having already warned plaintiffs that they "would likely
not have a further opportunity to amend" their second amended
complaint, dismissed the action with prejudice. [GN]
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Tuso Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD TUSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01163-KJN (E.D. Cal., June 19, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of making telemarketing calls/text messages to consumers
who registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry (DNC) and to consumers who have expressly requested that
the calls and text messages stop. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers did not provide consent to the telemarketing
calls or text messages, says the suit.
Rocket Mortgage is a mortgage lending company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: Rachel@kaufmanpa.com
RUGS.COM LLC: Aldimassi Sues Over Misleading Sale Prices
--------------------------------------------------------
Roula Aldimassi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUGS.COM, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02418-JSC (N.D. Cal.,
May 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation of
California's False Advertising Law which prohibits businesses from
making statements they know or should know to be untrue or
misleading including statements falsely suggesting that a product
is on sale, when it actually is not.
Advertised "sale" prices are important to consumers. Consumers are
more likely to purchase an item if they know that they are getting
a good deal. Further, if consumers think that a sale will end soon,
they are likely to buy now, rather than wait, comparison shop, and
buy something else. While there is nothing wrong with a legitimate
sale, a fake one--that is, one with made-up regular prices, made-up
discounts, and made-up expirations--is deceptive and illegal.
The Defendant Rugs.com, LLC makes, sells, and markets rugs and home
accessory products, including but not limited to, area rugs, rug
pads, and pillows ("Rugs.com Products" or "Products"). The Products
are sold online through Defendant's website, www.rugs.com. The
Defendant's website prominently advertises purportedly time
limited, sitewide sales. In addition, Defendant advertises
purported discounts off regular prices. These advertisements
include a purported discount price, alongside a strike-out of a
purported regular price. But these advertisements are false.
Defendant always offers sitewide discounts, so it never sells any
of its Products at the purported regular price. The sales are not
limited in time, but instead continue to be available.
The Plaintiff bought an 8' x 10' Beige Rabia Rug from Defendant
online on www.rugs.com. Like Defendant's other customers, when
Plaintiff bought the Product, Defendant advertised that a purported
sale was going on, and that the Products were heavily discounted.
The Plaintiff believed that the Product that she purchased usually
retailed for the displayed regular price. She further believed that
she was getting a substantial discount from the regular price, and
that the sale would the Defendant. If she had known that the
Product she purchased was not on sale, she would not have bought
it.
But none of that was true. Defendant's published regular prices
were not the prevailing regular prices. The sale Defendant
advertised was not really a time-limited sale. Had Defendant been
truthful, Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased
the Products or would have paid less for them. Plaintiff brings
this case for herself and the other customers who purchased
Rugs.com Products, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased an 8' x 10' Beige Rabia Rug from the
Defendant.
Rugs.com, LLC is a South Carolina limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Fort Mill, South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
RYAN WIMMER: Ga. App. Affirms Judgment on Pleadings in NASB Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORTH AMERICAN SENIOR BENEFITS, LLC, v. WIMMER, et
al., Case No. A23A0162 (Ga. App.), the Court of Appeals of Georgia,
Fifth Division, affirms the state-wide business court's order
granting the Defendants' motion for declaratory relief in part,
permanently enjoining North American from attempting to enforce the
covenant as to post-termination conduct, and granting the Wimmers'
motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The case calls upon the Court of Appeals to construe Georgia's
Restrictive Covenants Act, OCGA Section 13-8-50 et seq. At issue is
the enforceability of a restrictive covenant that operates after
the end of the parties' business relationship, that undertakes to
prohibit solicitation of employees, but that lacks an explicit
geographic limitation.
Under the Act, enforcement of contracts that restrict competition
during the term of a restrictive covenant, so long as such
restrictions are reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of
prohibited activities, will be permitted. But any restrictive
covenant not in compliance with the provisions of this article is
unlawful and is void and unenforceable unless it can be cured under
the blue-pencil provisions.
The Act sets out two exceptions to the requirement that restrictive
covenants that operate after the end of the parties' business
relationship must contain a geographic limitation. Those exceptions
apply to restrictions on efforts to solicit a former "employer's
customers" and to trade secrets. Subsections (b) and (e) go on to
specify requirements the General Assembly deemed appropriate for
those types of restrictions. The General Assembly did not set out
an exception for restriction on solicitation of a former employer's
employees.
The restrictive covenant before the Court of Appeals prohibits
Alisha and Ryan Wimmer from soliciting employees of their former
employer, North American Senior Benefits ("NASB"). The Wimmers
argue that it is unenforceable because it does not contain an
express geographic limitation in scope.
NASB is an independent marketing organization that operates in the
insurance field. The Wimmers entered contracts with NASB to serve
as insurance agents. The contracts contained
non-solicitation-of-employees restrictive covenants that prevented
the Wimmers, during the terms of their contracts and for two years
after termination, from employing any employee of NASB. The Wimmers
terminated their contracts in June 2021, and at some point, formed
Freedom & Faith, Inc., which operates in the same industry as
NASB.
NASB filed suit against the Wimmers and Freedom & Faith, asserting
claims for tortious interference with contractual and business
relations; breach of contract; and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. The Defendants answered the complaint and
asserted class action counterclaims, alleging breach of contract,
fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeking a declaration
that the non-solicitation-of-employees restrictive covenant is
invalid and unenforceable. They filed a motion for declaratory
relief, or in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings.
After a hearing, the state-wide business court found that the
non-solicitation-of-employees restrictive covenant was void and
unenforceable as applied to the Wimmers' conduct after the
termination of their relationship with NASB because the covenant
contains no territorial restraint whatsoever. It then held that
modifying or "blue-penciling" the provision to repair the
deficiency would materially alter the provision. So the court
granted the Defendants' motion for declaratory relief in part, as
it related to the covenant's enforceability regarding the Wimmers'
conduct that occurred after the termination of their contracts. It
also permanently enjoined NASB from attempting to enforce the
covenant as to post-termination conduct.
The court then granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings on NASB's claims for tortious interference with
contractual and business relations, breach of contract, and breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the extent those
claims were based on alleged covenant violations that occurred
after the Wimmers had terminated their contracts with NASB. NASB
filed the instant appeal.
The parties agree that the restrictive covenant before the Court of
Appeals is governed by the Act. NASB argues that the statute should
be read to require only that any geographic restrictions be
reasonable under the circumstances, that the provision at issue is
reasonable, and so that it should be deemed enforceable.
The Court of Appeals agrees with the state-wide business court's
findings the restrictive covenant is unenforceable as to the
Wimmers' conduct after the termination of their contracts. It
opines that the restrictive covenant does not contain a geographic
limitation. Under its terms, the Wimmers would be prohibited from
hiring or soliciting any NASB employee anywhere in the world. Such
a result is clearly unreasonable under the statute, rendering the
covenant void and unenforceable. Thus, the Court of Appeals
concludes that the trial court correctly determined that the
covenant was void and unenforceable.
The Court of Appeals also holds that the court did not err in
declining to modify the restrictive covenant to make it
enforceable. It says the Act declares unenforceable restrictive
covenants that operate after the end of the parties' business
relationship and that lack a geographic limitation.
Finally, the Court of Appeals holds that the absence of the words
"adding" or "supplying" or something similar in the definition of
"modification" under the Act indicates that the General Assembly
meant to retain the limits on blue-penciling the Supreme Court had
imposed in the limited context in which blue-penciling was allowed
before the Act (contracts for the sale of a business). So the
state-wide business court did not err by declining to add a
geographic scope limitation to the non-solicitation-of-employees
restrictive covenant.
The Court of Appeals notes that the state-wide business court
emphasized that its ruling only applied to the non-solicitation
provision's validity and enforceability 'post association' and was
in no way to be construed as a ruling on the non-solicitation
provision's enforceability related to the Defendants' conduct prior
to the termination of the Wimmers' contracts. It says that fact
merits emphasis because the Act distinguishes contracts that
restrict competition after the term of employment" from those that
operate during the term of employment. Likewise, its Opinion
addresses the enforceability of the covenant only insofar as it
applies to post-association conduct.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3nx3vn6e from Leagle.com.
SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED: Pierce Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephen Pierce, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, Caroline
Ellison, Zixiao "Gary" Wang, Nishad Singh, Armanino, LLP, and
Prager Metis CPAs, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-07444 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
June 14, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22206-KMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried, also known by the initials SBF, is
an American entrepreneur, investor, and alleged fraudster.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 331-5254
Email: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
- and -
Marshal Hoda, Esq.
THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC
12333 Sowden Road, Suite B, PMB 51811
Houston, TX 77080
Phone: (832) 848-0036
Email: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com
- and -
Steven C. Vondran, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN C. VONDRAN, PC
One Sansome Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (877) 276-5084
Email: steve@vondranlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeremy D. Mishkin, Esq.
Richard M. Simins, Esq.
MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 772-1500
Email: jmishkin@mmwr.com
rsimins@mmwr.com
- and -
Marc R. Lewis, Esq.
Zachary Christian Flood, Esq.
LEWIS AND LLEWELLYN LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 800-0590
Email: MLewis@lewisllewellyn.com
zflood@lewisllewellyn.com
- and -
Christopher William Johnstone, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: (650) 858-6147
Email: chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Nicholas Werle, Esq.
Peter G. Neiman, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 230-8800
Email: nick.werle@wilmerhale.com
peter.neiman@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
Kirk Austin Hornbeck, Esq.
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
550 S Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 532-2103
Fax: (213) 532-2020
Email: amortimer@hunton.com
khornbeck@HuntonAK.com
- and -
Bruce R. Braun, Esq.
Joanna R. Travalini, Esq.
Tommy Hoyt, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 853-7000
Email: bbraun@sidley.com
jtravalini@sidley.com
thoyt@sidley.com
- and -
Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 772-7413
Email: shemmendinger@sidley.com
SASKATCHEWAN: Faces Class Suit Over Children Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brianne Foley of CTV News Regina reports that a class action
lawsuit is being filed against the Government of Saskatchewan and
the Attorney General of Canada.
On June 20, a statement of claim was filed at the Court of King's
Bench in Regina, alleging that the provincial government shows
discrimination against Indigenous children in the province's
welfare system.
The claim states that off-reserve Indigenous children in care are
not receiving the Children's Special Allowance Benefit (CSA).
"The child special allowance in our view is supposed to be put in
trust for that child," said Matthew Peigan, Chief of Pasqua First
Nation and one of the plaintiffs in the suit.
There are technically three parties in the class action that
represent three impacted groups.
The first is Chief Matthew Peigan, who is acting as the litigation
guardian to the children currently on provincial welfare.
The second is Jaylene-Rain Ann Agecouty, a former welfare child who
represents the children who have gone through the system, but never
received the CSA.
The third party is the Touchwood Child and Family Services. The
Punnichy, Sask. based organization represents agencies that the
lawsuit claims should be allowed to accept the CSA in trust for
children in their programs.
The claim states that the provincial policy allows the government
to apply for the benefit on behalf of the child, but then use the
benefit how they deem fit.
A document submitted to the court references that there were
concerns in regards to the CSA Act all the way back in 1973.
The concern at that time was that provincial governments would
claim the CSA benefits as revenue to offset funding.
"The province, through their own act, enhances that discrimination
by applying for the CSA and keeping it, basically I would call it,
into their general revenue fund," Peigan said.
"What that means is that they pay less, in terms of their funding
of child welfare, what it definitely means is that the child for
whom that benefit was paid, doesn't get the money, doesn't get the
benefit," added Kris Saxberg, one of the lawyers from Cochrane
Saxberg LLP representing the plaintiffs.
A similar lawsuit was filed by Cochrane Saxberg LLP in Manitoba in
2018, because the province had a similar policy to Saskatchewan.
In May of 2022, the courts in Manitoba ruled that the provincial
government did in fact discriminate against off-reserve Indigenous
children in care because of its policy.
The province did not appeal that decision.
"Off-reserve Indigenous children in care who are vastly
overrepresented in the child welfare system, were discriminated
against by virtue of that Manitoba policy, and Saskatchewan has the
same policy," Saxberg explained.
Because of this, the group is confident in a similar result in
Saskatchewan. Looking for both payment and back payment to
Indigenous children placed in welfare care off reserve.
"To give that child a start when they turn, when they're no longer
in care, maybe seeking residence, maybe seeking education services,
or whatever it is they need, it's that boost to get them going,"
Peigan explained.
CTV News reached out to the Government of Saskatchewan concerning
the statement of claim.
"A Statement of Claim has just been served on the Ministry, which
we are currently reviewing," the province's response read.
"As this matter is currently before the courts, we are unable to
comment further at this time." [GN]
SISTERS OF CHARITY: Mismanages Retirement Funds, Macias et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
IRIS F. MACIAS, LORINE GUMONE and BILLIE MILHAM, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SISTERS
OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, THE DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE SISTERS OF CHARITY OF
LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM and JOHN DOES 1- 30, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01496-SP (D. Colo., June 13, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' have breached their
fiduciary duty of prudence because they mismanaged the Sisters of
Charity of Leavenworth Health System's 401(k) retirement savings
plan, the SCL's defined contribution plan, and the SCL health
retirement savings plan (403(b) plan). Moreover, the Defendants
failed to objectively and adequately review the Plans' investment
portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was
prudent, in terms of cost and performance, assert the Plaintiffs.
SCL is a named fiduciary of the Plans with a principal place of
business being 500 Eldorado Boulevard, Building 4, Suite 4200,
Broomfield, Colorado. According to its website: "SCL Health is a
faith-based, nonprofit healthcare organization dedicated to
improving the health of the people and communities we serve,
especially those who are poor and vulnerable." [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
STREMICKS HERITAGE: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Raul Fernandez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. STREMICKS HERITAGE FOODS, LLC,
a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 30-2023-01316730-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Orange, Case No.
30-2023-01316730-CU-OE-CXC, entitled Raul Fernandez,, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
June 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01062.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges eight causes of action: failure
to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; meal period
violations; rest period violations; failure to reimburse necessary
business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at
termination; wage statement violations; and Unfair Business
Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Catherine L. Brackett, Esq.
OGLETREE. DEAKINS. NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: evan.mosesogletree.com
catherine.brackett@ogletree.com
SUPER BRIGHT LEDS: Valenzuela Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Bright LEDS
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sonya Valenzuela, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Super Bright LEDS
Inc. d/b/a superbrightlds.com, Case No. 5:23-cv-01148 (C.D. Cal.,
June 15, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Super Bright LEDs (SBL) -- https://www.superbrightleds.com/ -- is
an online retailer, wholesaler, and consultation company for LED
lighting solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
TASTES ON THE FLY: Bartenders Sue Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABUL CHOWDHURY, RASEL AHMED and JAHANGIR AHMED, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TASTES ON THE
FLY NEW YORK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 609227/2023 (N.Y., June 12,
2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the New York
Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.
One of the Plaintiffs, Abul Chowdhury, was employed from
approximately July 2021 until April 2022. Moreover, the Plaintiffs
were bartenders at the Defendant's Paris Cafe location. They
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, yet the Defendant
failed to compensate them at an overtime rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 in a given week. Among other things, the Defendant allegedly
withheld and retained portions of gratuities intended for food
services employees, say the Plaintiffs.
Tastes of the Fly New York, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York. Its headquarters and principal place of business are located
at JFK International Airport, Building 60 Mezzanine, Jamaica, New
York. The company is engaged in hospitality industry and operates a
restaurants doing business as Paris Cafe. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
TAYLOR COMPANY INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Taylor Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Taylor Company, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05129 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Taylor Company -- https://www.taylor-company.com/ -- designs,
manufactures and services commercial foodservice equipment to serve
frozen desserts, frozen beverages and grilled specialties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
TD BANK NA: Dou Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TD Bank N.A. The case
is styled as Lina Dou, Xiuqin Xing, Geli Shi, Lihong Zhan, Emmy Go,
Tingyang Shao, Shiyang Xiao, Yixuan Tao, Yanming Wang, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TD Bank N.A., Case
No. 1:23-cv-03619 (N.D. Ill., May 25, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Securities &
Exchange Commission Act.
TD Bank, N.A. -- https://onlinebanking.tdbank.com/ -- is an
American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the
multinational TD Bank Group.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Glen Joseph Dunn, Jr., Esq.
GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES
1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2510
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 546-5056
Email: gdunn@gjdlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Rachlis
Kevin Buckley Duff
RACHLIS DUFF & PEEL, LLC
542 South Dearborn, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60605
Phone: (312) 733-3950
Email: mrachlis@rdaplaw.net
kduff@rdaplaw.net
- and -
Edward N. Moss
Lauren Wagner
Nathaniel Asher
Pamela Miller
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 728-5671
Email: emoss@omm.com
lwagner@omm.com
nasher@omm.com
pmiller@omm.com
- and -
Nicole L Moore
KANKAKEE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
450 East Court Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
Phone: (815) 937-3421
TEK-COLLECT INC: Jackson Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tek-Collect, Inc. The
case is styled as Linda Jackson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tek-Collect, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02783-TWT-RGV (N.D. Ga., June 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Tek-Collect Inc. -- http://www.tekcollect.com/-- provides
comprehensive accounts receivable management, collections, and
customer retention solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Phone: (404) 500-7861
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
TLF APPAREL HOLDINGS: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TLF Apparel Holdings,
Inc.. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. TLF Apparel Holdings, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-05214-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TLF Apparel Holdings Inc. -- https://tlfapparel.com/ -- is a gym
apparel brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 584-5575
Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Hakeem Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transdev Services,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chauenga M. Hakeem, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Transdev Services, Inc.,
Transdev North America, Inc., Case No. 23CV036111 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., June 15, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Transdev -- https://transdevna.com/ -- is the largest private
sector operator of multiple modes of transit in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
TUBI INC: Campos Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Viewing History
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Campos, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. TUBI, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03843 (N.D.
Ill., June 16, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") which
prohibits the disclosure of consumers' video viewing history
without their informed, written consent.
Tubi's programming includes over 40,000 films and television series
from over 250 suppliers which it provides to its 64 million monthly
active users. Using sophisticated tracking technology, Defendant
collects its subscribers' personally identifiable information
("PII"), including information which identifies a person as having
viewed specific videos on Defendant's streaming service, and
knowingly discloses this information to third parties without their
consent for profit, including to allow third-parties to target
subscribers with advertising based on their viewing history. In
doing so, Defendant has violated the VPPA and Plaintiff's and the
other Class members' statutory rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff
brings this class action for legal and equitable remedies to
redress and put a stop to Defendant's practices of knowingly
disclosing its subscribers' PII to third parties in violation of
the VPPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff subscribed to Defendant's streaming service in the
past two years.
The Defendant is the operator of one of the most popular video
streaming services in the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
jfrysinger@mcgpc.com
TWITTER INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Annual Bonuses
--------------------------------------------------------
Jon Brodkin of Ars Technica reports that Twitter is facing a
class-action lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay bonuses
promised to current and former employees who stayed at the company
after Elon Musk's October 2022 acquisition of the firm.
Twitter executives "repeatedly promised Plaintiff and the company's
other employees that 2022 bonuses would be paid out at fifty
percent of target. This promise was repeated following Musk's
acquisition," alleged the complaint filed on June 21, 2023 in US
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Plaintiff Mark Schobinger was Twitter's senior director of
compensation from February 2019 until May 26, 2023. He is seeking
class-action status "on his own behalf and on behalf of other
current and former Twitter employees who were employed by the
Company as of January 1, 2023, and who have not been paid their
annual bonus for 2022."
Schobinger and others stayed at Twitter after Musk's acquisition
partly due to the promised bonuses, the lawsuit alleged.
"Plaintiff and other Twitter employees relied upon the promise that
they would receive their 2022 bonus when choosing to remain
employed by Twitter following Musk's acquisition of the company
and/or deciding to forgo other employment opportunities," the
complaint said. Despite the promises before and after the Musk
acquisition, Twitter allegedly "refused to pay" any bonus to
"employees who remained employed by the company in the first
quarter of 2023." The annual bonuses were typically paid in March
in previous years, the complaint said.
Alleged damages exceed $5 million
The lawsuit alleges that Twitter committed breach of contract and
promissory estoppel and says the damages exceed $5 million.
Schobinger is represented by lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who also
represents other former Twitter employees in separate cases against
the company.
"In the months following Musk's acquisition of Twitter, Plaintiff
regularly received calls from recruiters and companies regarding
other employment opportunities," the new lawsuit said. "However,
Plaintiff turned down these opportunities, secure in the knowledge
that Twitter would pay him his promised 2022 annual bonus during
the first quarter of 2023." Schobinger finally left the company
last month due to "Twitter's reneging on various promises it had
made to employees," the complaint said.
One day before completing his purchase of Twitter, Musk denied a
report that he planned to get rid of nearly 75 percent of Twitter's
7,500 workers. As it turns out, Musk has cut Twitter's staff by
roughly 75 percent through a combination of mass layoffs and an
ultimatum telling workers to commit to an "extremely hardcore"
approach or quit their jobs.
Musk's cost-cutting isn't limited to the massive staff cuts and
alleged nonpayment of bonuses. There are over 20 lawsuits from
vendors and landlords claiming that Twitter failed to pay bills for
services, products, or rent. A judge ordered Twitter to be evicted
from an office building in Boulder, Colorado, over unpaid rent, and
Twitter was sued for nonpayment of rent at its San Francisco
headquarters, at another San Francisco building, and at its UK
headquarters.
Twitter did not respond to a request for comment on June 22, 2023,
unless you count the customary poop emoji that the company's public
relations email sends as an auto-reply to press inquiries. [GN]
UHG I LLC: Pochan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UHG I LLC, et al. The
case is styled as Jeremy Pochan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. UHG I LLC, Weltman Weinberg & Reis Co
LPA, Case No. 2:23-cv-01138-MJH (W.D. Penn., June 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
UHG I, LLC -- https://uhgllc.com/ -- is a third-party debt
collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Travis Andrew Gordon, Esq.
J.P. Ward & Associates
201 S Highland Avenue, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Phone: (412) 545-3016
Fax: (412) 540-3399
Email: tgordon@jpward.com
UINTAH BASIN: Miller Files Suit in D. Utah
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uintah Basin
Healthcare. The case is styled as Christian Miller, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uintah Basin
Healthcare, Case No. 2:23-cv-00330-TC (D. Utah, May 23, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The Uintah Basin Medical Center -- https://ubh.org/ -- is a
non-profit community hospital located in Roosevelt, Utah, United
States of America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW Ste. 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: dperry@masonllp.com
- and -
Jennifer F. Parrish, Esq.
Yevgen Kovalov, Esq.
MAGLEBY CATAXINOS & GREENWOOD
141 W Pierpont Ave.
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 359-9000
Fax: (801) 359-9011
Email: parrish@mcgiplaw.com
kovalov@mcgiplaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Blaine J. Benard, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
222 S Main St Ste 2200
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 799-5800
Email: bjbenard@hollandhart.com
UINTAH BASIN: Rasmussen Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason and Mindy Rasmussen, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. UINTAH BASIN HEALTHCARE, Case No.
2:23-cv-00322-CMR (D. Utah, May 17, 2023), is brought to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and
for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other
Class Members that their information had been stolen by criminals
and listed for sale on the dark web.
On November 7, 2022, Defendant became aware of unusual activity on
its network. In response, Defendant immediately secured the
environment and engaged a leading cybersecurity firm to assist with
an investigation and determine whether sensitive, personal, or
protected health information may have been affected. On April 7,
2023, Defendant learned that the protected health information
belonging to certain patients, specifically, those that received
care with Defendant between March 2012 and November 2022, may have
been accessed or acquired without authorization during the course
of this incident (the "Data Breach"). Defendant then worked
diligently to evaluate potentially impacted information, confirm
identities of potentially impacted individuals, and set up
complimentary services being provided. That process was completed
on April 10, 2023.
The Data Breach involved the following types of information: name,
date of birth, address, Social Security number, health insurance
information, and certain clinical details including
diagnosis/conditions, medications, test results, and procedure
information (collectively, "Private Information"). In order to
provide their services, Defendant stored and utilized Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' Private Information. By obtaining, collecting,
using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of
Plaintiffs' and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. By voluntarily
undertaking the collection of this sensitive Private Information,
Defendant assumed a duty to use due care to protect that
information.
Despite its duties to Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant
stored their Private Information on a database that was negligently
and/or recklessly configured. This misconfiguration allowed files
on the database to be accessed without a password or any form of
multifactor authentication, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant dated April 28,
2023, informing him of the Data Breach.
The Defendant is a non-profit hospital network located in the
Uintah Basin Region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashton J. Hyde, Esq.
YOUNKER HYDE MACFARLANE, PLLC
257 East 200 South, Suite 1080
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 335-6467
Facsimile: (801) 335-6478
Email: ashton@yhmlaw.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbliechner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
UNIVERSAL CITY: Accornero Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
Brad Accornero, as an individual and on behalf of similarly
situated employees v. JET CUTTING SOLUTIONS, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
CIVSB2228027 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on June 16, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01151.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges five causes of action arising
from his employment with Defendant, which are: failure to pay
overtime compensation and other wages in violation of the
California Labor Code; waiting time penalties; failure to provide
meal periods in violation of Labor Code; violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); and violation of Business and
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Marie D. DiSante, Esq.
Leigh A. White, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 622-1661
Email: mdisante@cdflaborlaw.com
lwhite@cdflaborlaw.com
UNIVERSAL CITY: Clarke Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
Atiba Clarke, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV10449 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on June 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04708-DSF-AGR.
The Plaintiff asserts various wage and hour claims premised upon
alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant failed to pay him and other putative class members
all minimum wages owed for compensable work time going through
"security checks" and failed to provide him and other putative
class members with compliant meal periods. In turn, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant failed to provide them with accurate
itemized wage statements and failed to timely pay them all wages
owed upon termination of employment.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Remy Kessler, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-909-7775
Facsimile: 424-465-6630
Email: rkessler@constangy.com
- and -
Juliana Duran, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
500 La Terraza Blvd., Suite 150
Escondido, CA 92052
Phone: 310-909-77
Email: jduran@constangy.com
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Clemensen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of the
Pacific. The case is styled as Erik Clemensen, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. University of the Pacific,
Case No. STK-CV-UCR-2023-0006085 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., June 14, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil - Civil Rights."
University of the Pacific -- https://www.pacific.edu/ -- is a
private university devoted to experience-driven education that
gives students pathways to the fastest growing sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, PC
11780 W. Sample Rd., Ste. 103
Coral Springs, FL 33065-3141
Phone: 310-601-6766
Fax: 310-295-2385
Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
USI INSURANCE SERVICES: Powell Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Marcia Powell, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. USI Insurance Services, LLC, Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV08732 was removed from the
Superior Court County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on May 26, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04129-ODW-BFM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
USI -- https://www.usi.com/ -- is a leading distributor of property
and casualty insurance, employee benefits and specialty products
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Jessica Marie Abreu, Esq.
Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, Esq.
MOON AND YANG APC
1055 West 7th Street Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Fax: (213) 232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
jessica.abreu@moonyanglaw.com
lilit@moonyanglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James Allen Goodman, Esq.
Chelsea E. Hadaway, Esq.
Tryphena Y. Liu, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-8861
Fax: (310) 553-2165
Email: JGoodman@ebglaw.com
chadaway@ebglaw.com
tliu@ebglaw.com
VGW LUCKYLAND: Suit Filed in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VGW Luckyland, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as John Doe, all parties similarly
situated v. VGW Luckyland, Inc., VGW Malta LTD., Case No.
2023CV381348 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Civil Cause of Action."
VGW Group -- https://www.vgw.co/ -- operates the widely popular
online social games platforms – Chumba Casino, Global Poker,
LuckyLand Slots and VGW Play.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barry Williams, Esq.
5011 Crownpoint Ct NW
Albuquerque, NM 87120-1113
Email: abqbarrynm@gmail.com
VJ & H: Underpays Nail Salon Workers, Weidong Li Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WEIDONG LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VJ & H, LTD d/b/a Nails Obsession, HUE THI
BACH NGUYEN a/k/a Hue Nguyen a/k/a Lili Nguyen, Defendants, Case
No. 8:23-cv-01633-TJS (D. Md., June 19, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Maryland Wage and Hour
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed as a nail salon worker at the
Defendants' nail salon located in Waldorf, Maryland from January 1,
2021 to January 31, 2021 and then from June 1, 2021 to August 7,
2022.
VJ & H, Ltd, doing business as Nails Obsession, is an owner and
operator of a nail salon in Waldorf, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
VXN GROUP LLC: Thoma Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mackenzie Anne Thoma, a.k.a. Kenzie Anne, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VXN
GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GENERAL MEDIA SYSTEMS,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MIKE MILLER, an
individual; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV08761 was
removed from the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, to
the United States District Court, Central District of California on
June 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04901-WLH-AGR.
The Plaintiff asserts ten causes of action in her Complaint against
Defendants: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; failure to pay all wages due upon termination; failure to
provide accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay wages
during employment; violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 2802;
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 227.3; and violation of the
Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brad S. Kane, Esq.
KANE LAW FIRM
1154 S. Crescent Heights. Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Phone: (323) 697-9840
Fax: (323) 571-3579
Email: bkane@kanelaw.la
WALGREEN CO: Skutley Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brandy Skutley, on behalf of herself
individually and all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., an
Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CV2023-0740 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Yolo, to the United States District
Court Eastern District of California on June 21, 2023, and assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01193-KJN.
The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against
Defendant on behalf of herself and the putative class: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Owed; Failure to Provide
Lawful Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods;
Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Timely
Pay Wages Owed Upon Separation of Employment; Knowing and
Intentional Failure Comply with Itemized Wage Statement Provisions;
and Violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
Christopher J. Archibald, California Bar No. 253075
Gabriel C. Hemphill, California Bar No. 338222
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614-7276
Phone: (949) 223-7000
Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
Email: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
gabriel.hemphill@bclplaw.com
WASHINGTON: Settles Garcia Data Breach Class Suit for $3.6-M
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that the Washington Department of
Licensing agreed to pay $3.6 million to resolve claims that it
failed to prevent a 2022 data breach.
The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was
compromised in the 2022 data breach disclosed by the Washington
State Department of Licensing in February 2022.
Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim that the
Washington Department of Licensing could have prevented the
security incident through reasonable cybersecurity measures but
failed to do so out of negligence. The 2022 data breach compromised
sensitive information such as licensing information, Social
Security numbers, birth dates and ID numbers.
The Washington Department of Licensing is responsible for issuing
driver's licenses, vehicle registrations and more.
The Department of Licensing hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but
agreed to a $3.6 million settlement to resolve the data breach
class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to
$7,500 for documented data breach-related expenses such as bank
costs, credit fees, fraudulent charges, identity theft costs and up
to four hours of lost time at a rate of $35 per hour.
If additional funds remain in the settlement after reimbursement,
class members may receive an additional pro rata payment of up to
$300 from the residual funds.
Class members can also receive two years of free identity theft
protection and credit monitoring. This service includes dark web
monitoring, identity recovery services and $1 million in identity
theft insurance.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 9, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Washington Department of
Licensing data breach settlement is scheduled for Sept. 15, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 9, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal information was compromised in the 2022
data breach disclosed by the Washington State Department of
Licensing in February 2022.
Potential Award
$7,500
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of data breach-related expenses
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
10/09/2023
Case Name
Garcia, et al. v. Washington Department of Licensing, Case No.
22-2-05635-5 SEA, in the Washington Superior Court for King County
Final Hearing
09/15/2023
Settlement Website
WADOLDataBreachSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Garcia v. Washington State DOL
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
833-747-6403
Class Counsel
Kim D Stephens
Kaleigh N Boyd
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
Timothy Emery
EMERY REDDY PLLC
Anderson Berry
CLAYCO C ARNOLD PLC
Defense Counsel
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP [GN]
WHATNOT INC: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whatnot Inc. The case
is styled as Denette J. Ligon, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Whatnot
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05093 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Whatnot -- https://www.whatnot.com/ -- is a marketplace to buy and
sell authentic collectible items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
WOW RESTAURANT: Workers Class Conditionally Certified in Chen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YANHONG CHEN and LUTONG YANG, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WOW RESTAURANT TH, LLC
and TRINH HUYNH, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-2774-VMC-MRM (M.D.
Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification Pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act filed on April 19, 2023.
The Plaintiffs initiated this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA"), and breach of contract action
against their former employers, Wow Restaurant and Huynh, on Dec.
6, 2022. They filed the amended complaint, asserting -- among other
things == FLSA claims for failure to pay minimum wages and failure
to pay overtime wages on behalf of themselves and a collective of
other employees of the Defendants, on Jan. 16, 2023.
Wow Restaurant owns and operates a restaurant called Yaki Sushi
Grill BBQ in Bradenton, Florida. Huynh is a member of the LLC and
the day-to-day, on-site, hands-on manager of Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ.
During her employment between August 2020 and April 2022, Chen
worked a variety of positions at Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ. She was
hired by Huynh as a waitress in August 2020. Over the years, Chen's
positions varied, with her also working to purchase ingredients for
the restaurant, and as a kitchen helper, hostess, and cashier. Chen
regularly worked 97.25 hours per week but was never paid the
minimum wage or paid the overtime rate. Worse yet, the Plaintiffs
allege that, beginning in January 2021, Chen was frequently not
paid her promised base salaries and, in fact, the Defendants only
paid her between $6,000 to $10,000 total from January 2021 through
the end of her employment on April 30, 2022.
Yang began working at Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ in July 2019 and
continued working there until April 30, 2022. He was hired to work
as a sushi chef (a non-tipped position where he did not earn tips),
and to help with renovation until the restaurant opened. Between
July 2019 and January 2020, Yang regularly worked 77 hours per
week. From February 2020 through April 2022, he regularly worked
97.25 hours per week. Although Yang was promised a base salary of
$5,000 per month, Yang was never paid his promised base salary.
Both Chen and Yang lived in lodging provided by the Defendants.
Throughout her employment, the cost to the Defendants of lodging
Chen amounted to $250 per month. Throughout her employment, Chen
shared a room with Yang, and that room cost the Defendants $500 per
month to rent. The Defendants allegedly did not keep any records of
Chen's or Yang's working time and did not post a notice of
employees' rights under the federal and state wage-and-hour laws on
the premises of Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ.
The amended complaint defines the FLSA collective as follows:
"Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all
other current and former non-exempt workers employed by Defendants
at Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ over the three years preceding the filing
of this Complaint, through entry of judgment in this case."
During the relevant time, the Defendants allegedly employed about
eleven 11 employees, including the Plaintiffs, at any one time:
about four kitchen workers -- including but not limited to 'oil
woks,' hibachi chefs, and miscellaneous helpers -- as well as about
three sushi chefs, about three servers, and about one
hostess/cashier. In the context of the class allegations related to
the FMWA claim, the amended complaint alleges that all the Class
members were subject to the same policy and practice of denying
minimum wages, and overtime. Thus far, only one other Yaki Sushi
employee -- Xin Qiang -- has signed a notice of consent to join the
collective action.
Now, the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of the FLSA
collective and permission to send notice to potential opt-ins to
the collective. In support of their Motion, the Plaintiffs attach
the affidavits of Chen and Yang. Therein, they list multiple other
employees, though they only know the names of some, who served
various roles including server, hibachi chef, hibachi/tempura chef,
sushi chef, and dishwasher. Chen and Yang aver that they knew the
pay rate or salary of these employees because all the employees at
the restaurant would often address the pay rates of each other and
would disclose their pay rates or salaries. These employees all
regularly worked over 70 hours per week. Yet, according to Chen and
Yang, neither they nor any of their coworkers were ever paid
overtime pay for any overtime work performed. The Plaintiffs aver
that the Defendants exploited them and their coworkers by paying
below legal wages using their immigrant status to prevent them from
speaking up.
The Defendants have responded to the Motion.
To maintain a collective action under the FLSA, plaintiffs must
demonstrate that they are similarly situated. Similarly situated
employees must affirmatively opt-in to the litigation by giving
their consent in writing and filing their consent in the court in
which such action is brought.
First, Judge Covington states that the Court must satisfy itself
that there are other employees who desire to 'opt-in.' She finds
that considering the circumstances present in the case, the
Plaintiffs have established a reasonable basis that there are other
workers from the restaurant who would desire to opt-in.
Next, Judge Covington states that for purposes of defining the
"similarly situated class" under Section 216(b), plaintiffs must
show that the employees are similarly situated with respect to
their job requirements and pay provisions. In the case, she finds
that the Plaintiffs' affidavits and allegations in the amended
complaint suffice to show that all non-exempt non-managerial
employees at Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ were similarly situated. Thus,
she determines that these employees, although they held various job
titles, were similarly situated.
Judge Covington conditionally certifies a collective of "all
non-exempt, non-managerial employees who worked for Defendants at
Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ and who were not paid minimum wage or overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of forty per week." Because
the Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the FLSA violations were
willful, the collective will cover a three-year period. However,
for the sake of simplicity, the Plaintiffs will amend their Notice
and Consent Form to limit the statute-of-limitations period to the
date three years prior to the date of the instant Order.
The Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed notice to potential
opt-ins, which covers the three years before this case was filed.
Among other things, they also ask that the Defendants be required
to turn over the last-known contact information of all current and
former potential collective members within 14 days. In their
response, the Defendants do not raise any objections or arguments
concerning the proposed notice or request for contact information.
Upon review of the proposed notice, Judge Covington considers the
notice generally appropriate in substance, except the use of
"December 7, 2019" as the beginning of the opt-in period and the
other issues her Order. However, all the Plaintiffs' other requests
regarding the notice and its dissemination are denied, which may
necessitate their making certain revisions to their proposed notice
to comply with the Order.
Specifically, Judge Covington only authorizes the dissemination of
notice by U.S. mail and email. She does not authorize the
Plaintiffs to utilize the Defendants' logo on the notice, unless
the Defendants consent to such usage in writing. Nor she allows the
creation of a webpage on the Plaintiffs' counsel's website to
publish the notice or for electronic submission of consents.
In addition, Judge Covington denies the Plaintiffs' "reservation of
the right" to require the Defendants to publish the notice in
Chinese and English language newspapers if the Plaintiffs consider
the Defendants' provision of contact information insufficient or if
many notices are returned undeliverable. She says the Plaintiffs
provide no authority in support of this request, and this measure
is unnecessary.
Judge Covington also does not order that notice be posted at Yaki
Sushi Grill BBQ at this time, nor included in employees' pay
envelopes. But she says the Plaintiffs may move for permission to
post the notice in the restaurant if the Defendants fail to
properly turn over the names and contact information of potential
collective members. Furthermore, she does not equitably toll the
statute of limitations until the end of the opt-in period because
the Plaintiffs have failed to show that any extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant such tolling.
Judge Covington directs the Defendants to turn over within 14 days
from the date of her Order the names, dates of employment, and
positions of all non-exempt, non-managerial employees who worked
for the Defendants at Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ from three years before
the date of her Order to the present day. By that same date, the
Defendants will also turn over the last-known contact information
for these potential collective members, including their mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and WhatsApp or
WeChat usernames. As to the Plaintiffs' other requests regarding
discovery, the Court has already entered a Case Management and
Scheduling Order permitting discovery and setting a discovery
deadline. No further order from this Court permitting discovery is
necessary.
Finally, the Plaintiffs' discussion of a potential future amendment
of the amended complaint to assert individual FMWA claims by former
employees who may opt-in to the FLSA collective is both muddled and
premature, according to Judge Covington. She notes that only one
person has opted-in thus far and nothing in the Plaintiffs' Motion
shows that that person has a FMWA claim or wishes to assert such
claim individually in this case. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have
already pled a FMWA claim on behalf of a putative class of former
employees and thus the Plaintiffs may seek certification of such
class. If they still wish to amend, they should file a proper
motion to amend and attach a copy of the proposed second amended
complaint.
Accordingly, Judge Covington grants the Motion for Conditional
Certification. The Defendants will produce to the Plaintiffs within
14 days from the date of the Order a complete list of all
non-exempt, non-managerial employees who worked for Defendants at
Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ from three years before the date of this Order
to the present. The list will include the last-known contact
information for these individuals, as specified in the Order.
Judge Covington approves dissemination of class notice, to be
amended by the Plaintiffs to be consistent with the terms of the
Order, via U.S. mail and via email. The Plaintiffs will allow each
individual up to 90 days from the date of mailing in which to
return an opt-in consent form to the Plaintiffs' counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2yxwk7d4 from Leagle.com.
XFL PROPERTIES: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against XFL Properties LLC.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. XFL
Properties LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04476 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The XFL -- https://www.xfl.com/ -- is a fan-first, fast-paced
global professional football league with innovative rules and an
enhanced 360-degree game experience
.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
*********
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 ***