/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230706.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 6, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 135
Headlines
12FIFTEEN DIAMONDS: Simms Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
3M COMPANY: Cicio Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Clinch Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cranford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Dancy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Dixon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ADVANCE AUTO: Class Certified in 401(k) Plan Breach Lawsuit
AEGEAN MARINE: $11.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 19
ALBANY EMPIRE: Players, Coaches Mull Wage Class Action
ALL FLORIDA: Fails to Pay Roofers' OT Wages, Schrader Claims
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Wiley Suit Seeks Class Certification
ANDREW WOLD: Faces Six Lawsuits Over Davenport Building Collapse
AUTOZONERS LLC: Wage Class Action Pending in California
AVIS RENT A CAR: Bid to Dismiss Parkin Class Suit Granted in Part
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: $6.6MM Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 6
BCTG ACQUISITION: Edelson Lechtzin Investigates Securities Claims
BYTEDANCE INC: Fails to Pay Same Wages as Employees of Opposite Sex
CALVARY PUBLIC: Files Suit v. Junior Doctor After Labor Class Suit
CASEY'S RETAIL: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
CASSIDY BROTHERS: Sued Over Defective Building Products
CGM LLC: Guerra Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
COINBASE INC: Duane Morris Attorneys Discuss Arbitration Ruling
COMERICA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
CONTRACT LAND: Faces Sexton Suit Over Agents' Unpaid OT Wages
COOLAH TOURIST: Park Residents Sued Over Unpaid Site Fees
CREDIT SUISSE: Breaches Duties of Due Care, Colbert Class Suit Says
DICK'S SPORTING: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Slaten Suit Alleges
DISCOUNT MOTORS: Embry Sues Over Vehicles' Tampered Odometers
ELON MUSK: Denies Claims in Amended Dogecoin Class Action Suit
ENZO BIOCHEM: Abraham Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Bourne Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reporting
FCIC CONSULTING: Govea Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
FEDEX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Odometer Rollback Fraud
FERRARA CANDY: Lozano Files False Ad Suit Over Gummy Products
FIFTH THIRD: $5.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 14
GEO GROUP: Olmos Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit
GOOGLE INC: Susman Godfrey Obtains Class Action Settlement Approval
GOOGLE LLC: July 31 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
GREEN MESSENGERS: Ibarra Suit Transferred to N.D. California
HAVENLY INC: Shoffner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Commissions
HEALTH BENEFIT: Suhr Bid for More Time to File Class Cert OK'd
INDIANA: Partial Prelim. Injunction Entered in KC v. Medical LB
INDONESIA: BPOM Faces Probe Over Tainted Cough Syrups
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: KSF Commences Securities Suit Investigation
INTERFACE INC: $7.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 18
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Demeter Sues Over Fragrance Price-fixing
JOHN WILEY: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
JPMORGAN CHASE: Epstein Victims Seek Approval of Settlement
KRAFT HEINZ: $450MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 12
LFC AGRICULTURAL: Fails to Pay Migrant Workers' OT, Louis Claims
LUXURY PERFUMES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAMBA LOGISTICS: Faces Newton Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
MANAGED CARE: Buechler Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Branson Says
MARYLAND: Bid to Dismiss Albert v. Comptroller Franchot Denied
MASON'S PROFESSIONAL: Watts Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in East Bay v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Maragos v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MEIJER INC: Howard County Receives $562,000 from Opioid Settlement
META PLATFORMS: Spring Cove School District to Join Class Action
MIKE FITZHUGH: Patton Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
NES GLOBAL: Molleur's Bid to Compel Discovery Reponses Partly OK'd
NINETEEN BAR: Windheim Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
NOVOCURE LIMITED: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 18
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Court Extends Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
PARAMOUNT EXCLUSIVE: Order Denying Cabir's Arbitration Bid Vacated
PRANA LIVING LLC: Alexandria Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QC TERME NY LLC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: Dunne Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
RABOBANK NA: Court Remands Villanueva Class Suit to Superior Court
RAHMAN FOOD: Sherpa Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
REDEEMER HEALTH: Suit Removed to C.D. California
RESORTPASS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RICOLA USA INC: Jordan Files Suit in E.D. New York
ROBINS JEAN RETAIL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RON NEAL: Court Tosses Mayberry Bid for Class Certification
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Seeks to Hold Class Cert Response Briefing
SAKS FIFTH: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Henderson
SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED: Hawkins Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED: Imbert Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SAN DIEGO, CA: Dismissal of Buckelew Prisoner Complaint Recommended
SAVIAN PIZZA CORP: Joseph FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL: Edelman Sues Over Unlawful Misconduct
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Cabo Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Girshovich Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Rabbitte Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SGYS ST. IVES: Fails to Furnish Lead Certification, Cooper Claims
SHATTUCK LABS: $1.4MM Class Deal in Securities Suit Has Prelim. Nod
SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Caballero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SKINN COSMETICS LLC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SMG FOOD AND BEVERAGE: Ordono Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SNEAKER JUNKIES LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOCALI MANUFACTURING: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOS MAINTENANCE: Jimenez Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
SOUTHERN PIPE & SUPPLY: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPRING FERTILITY: De Alba Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
T-MOBILE US: Bailey Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
T-MOBILE US: Lopez Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
T-MOBILE US: Polhill Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
T-MOBILE US: Shoemaker Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
T-MOBILE US: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
TESLA INC: Doyle Has Until July 17 to Consolidate and Amend Suit
TESLA INC: Filing of Consolidated Amended Complaint Due July 17
TESLA INC: Nana-Anyangwe Has Until July 17 to Consolidate Suit
TWITTER INC: Fails to Pay 2022 Annual Bonus, Schobinger Alleges
UNITED STATES: Four Elderly Sisters Sentenced in BFDL Fraud Scheme
UP FINTECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 21
VENTURE MARKETING: Blade Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
VOLKSWAGEN AG: N.J. Court Narrows Claims in McMahon Consumer Suit
WASHINGTON: Fowler Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
*********
12FIFTEEN DIAMONDS: Simms Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 12Fifteen Diamonds,
LLC. The case is styled as Timothy Simms, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. 12Fifteen Diamonds, LLC,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00813 (E.D. Mo., June 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
12Fifteen Diamonds -- https://www.1215diamonds.com/ -- offers an
extensive collection of ethical lab diamond jewelry and engagement
rings in a variety of styles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
3M COMPANY: Cicio Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Joseph Cicio, 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 PRODUCTSLP, 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-02794-RMG (D.S.C., June 19,
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 hypothyroidism
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: Clinch Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aislinn Lee Clinch, 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 PRODUCTSLP, 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-02804-RMG (D.S.C., June 19,
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 hypothyroidism
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: Cranford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Todd Cranford, 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 PRODUCTSLP, 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-02766-RMG (D.S.C., June 15,
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 hyperthyroidism
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: Dancy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Dancy, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No.
2:23-cv-02767-RMG (D.S.C., June 16, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to 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.
The Defendant collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise inappropriately disposed of PFAS chemicals with knowledge
that it was highly toxic and bio persistent, which would expose
plaintiff to the risks associated with PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendant knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous PFAS in his drinking
water and unaware of the toxic nature of the Defendant's PFAS in
general. Plaintiff's consumption of PFAS from Defendant's
contamination and inappropriate disposal caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendant's
PFAS at various locations. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through drinking water
both at home and at her place of work, due to contamination on
behalf of the 3M plant in Decatur, Alabama and potential AFFF
sources and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of
exposure to Defendant's PFAS contamination.
The Defendant is a designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer,
distributor, releaser, promotors and seller of PFAS chemicals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
Hunter Garnett, Esq.
GARNETT PATTERSON INJURY LAWYERS
100 Jefferson St S #300
Huntsville, AL 35801
Phone: 256-539-8686
3M COMPANY: Dixon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Dixon, 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-02282-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
ADVANCE AUTO: Class Certified in 401(k) Plan Breach Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Lawyers Weekly reports that where persons suing the
fiduciaries of a 401(k) plan for breach of fiduciary duty satisfied
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, their motion for class
certification was granted.
Background
Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the
fiduciaries of the Advance Auto Parts Inc. 401(k) Plan. Plaintiffs
allege that during the class period -- which stretches from Oct.
20, 2015, through the date of judgment -- defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty.
Following a May 12, 2023, hearing on the question of class
certification, the parties submitted a revised joint stipulation
proposing a single class: "[a]ll persons, except individual
Defendants and their immediate family members, who were
participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between
October 20, 2015 through the date of judgment (the "Class Period"),
excluding any class member who executed an applicable release." The
named plaintiffs further seek appointment of their counsel as class
counsel.
Rule 23(a) requirements
Rule 23(a) imposes four requirements, each of which much be met for
class certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality and
adequacy of representation. The second stipulated class plainly
meets the numerosity requirement, as there were over 22,000
participants during the class period.
The parties claim that there are several common issues related to
the class claims, specifically, (1) whether defendants breached
their duty of prudence owed to the plan; (2) whether the plan and
its participants and beneficiaries were injured by the breaches in
fiduciary duty and (3) whether the plan and its participants are
entitled to any recovery and the measure thereof. Courts often find
similar common issues in ERISA cases alleging breach of fiduciary
duty.
The court finds that, despite variation in individual investments
within the plan, the named plaintiffs claims are typical of that of
the class, as plaintiffs likely have standing to allege "breach of
fiduciary duty . . . from the overall decision-making process" and
management of the plan.
Finally the parties have stipulated that the named plaintiffs are
adequate to represent the class and have no known conflicts with
other members of the class, and the court perceives no issue with
the adequacy of the named plaintiffs. Furthermore, it is clear that
the proposed class counsel have investigated this case, have
experience with similar ERISA class actions and are competent to
represent the class in this matter. Further, the court perceives no
conflict between the proposed counsel and the proposed class.
Rule 23(b) requirements
In addition to meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a), a class must
also qualify under one of the three "types" of classes set forth in
Rule 23(b). The court finds that certification under Rule 23(b)(1)
is appropriate, as "breach of fiduciary duty claims brought under
Section 502(a)(2) of paradigmatic examples of claims appropriate
for certification as a Rule 23(b)(1) class."
Joint motion for class certification granted.
Sweet v. Advance Auto Stores Company Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-549,
June 12, 2023. WDVA at Roanoke (Urbanski). VLW 023-3-325. 11 pp.
VLW 023-3-325
Virginia Lawyers Weekly
023-3-325 - Sweet v. Advance Auto Stores Company Inc. [GN]
AEGEAN MARINE: $11.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE AEGEAN MARINE
PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 1:18-cv-04993 (NRB)
Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
SUMMARY Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Individual Defendants Settlements; and (II) Final Approval Hearing
For The Individual Defendants Settlements, The Individual
Defendants Plan of Allocation and Motion For Approval of Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
TO: All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Aegean Marine
Petroleum Network, Inc. ("Aegean") securities or sold Aegean put
options between February 27, 2014 through November 5, 2018,
inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were allegedly
damaged thereby.
The securities subject to these proposed settlements consist of:
(a) the common stock of Aegean (Tickers: ANWWQ; CINS: Y0017S102)
(pre-bankruptcy Aegean traded under the ticker "ANW"); (b) Aegean
4.00% Convertible Unsecured Senior Notes due 11/1/2018, issued
10/23/2013 (CUSIP: Y0020QAA9; ISIN: USY0020QAA95); (c) Aegean 4.25%
Convertible Unsecured Senior Notes due 12/15/2021, issued
12/19/2016 (CUSIP: 00773VAA4 (CUSIP changed to 00773VAB2 on
2/12/2018); ISIN: US00773VAB27); (d) Aegean call options; and (e)
Aegean put options (collectively, "Aegean Securities").
Please read this notice carefully. Your rights may be affected by
two proposed partial settlements, which are the third and fourth
proposed partial settlements of a class action lawsuit pending in
this court. Please do not contact the court, any defendant, or
their counsel, regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, these proposed settlements, or your eligibility to
participate in these proposed settlements should be directed to
lead counsel or the claims administrator, whose contact information
is provided below. Additional information about the proposed
settlements is available on the Settlement Website:
www.aegeansecuritieslitigation.com.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that Utah Retirement Systems ("Lead
Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the proposed Settlement Class,
has reached two additional proposed settlements (one with Spyros
Gianniotis ("Gianniotis") for $11 million in cash and one with
Dimitris Melissanidis ("Melissanidis") for $949,999 in cash) that
will, among other things, resolve all claims against the two
remaining Defendants in this Action, Gianniotis and Melissanidis
(the "Individual Defendants") (the "Individual Defendants
Settlements") if approved. The Court previously approved
settlements with the outside auditors (the "Auditor Settlements").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED, that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, a Settlement
Class in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been
preliminarily certified for the purposes of these proposed
Individual Defendants Settlements only.
A hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing") will be held before the
Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States District Judge for
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, either telephonically, via video conference, or at 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 21-A, New York, New York, 10007 on Thursday,
October 19, 2023 at 11:00 AM to, among other things, determine
whether: (i) the proposed Individual Defendants Settlements should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Gianniotis, final
judgment should be entered as to the claims against Gianniotis and
the Gianniotis Released Claims should be released as against the
Gianniotis Released Parties, as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with Spyros Gianniotis ("Gianniotis
Stipulation"); (iii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice
against Melissanidis, final judgment should be entered as to the
claims against Melissanidis and the Melissanidis Released Claims
should be released as against the Melissanidis Released Parties, as
set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
Dimitris Melissanidis ("Melissanidis Stipulation"); (iv) the
proposed Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation for distribution
of the Individual Defendants Settlement Funds and any interest
earned thereon, less Taxes, Notice and Administration Costs,
Litigation Expenses awarded by the Court, attorneys' fees awarded
by the Court, and any other costs, expenses, or amounts as may be
approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund") should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses should be approved by the Court. The Court may change the
date of the Final Approval Hearing without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to attend the Final Approval Hearing in
order to receive a distribution from the Gianniotis Net Settlement
Fund and/or the Melissanidis Net Settlement Fund.
You may be a member of the Settlement Class if you purchased or
acquired Aegean Securities between February 27, 2014 And November
5, 2018. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may seek to
participate to share in the Individual Defendants Settlements by
submitting a Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") to the
Claims Administrator at the address below. If you are a Settlement
Class Member but do not file a Claim Form, you will still be bound
by the releases set forth in the Gianniotis Stipulation if the
Court enters an order approving the Gianniotis Settlement and/or
the releases set forth in the Melissanidis Stipulation if the Court
enters an order approving the Melissanidis Settlement.
ANY CLAIM FORMS ALREADY SUBMITTED IN THE AUDITOR SETTLEMENTS WILL
BE AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED FOR RECOVERY IN THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENTS AND DO NOT NEED TO BE RE-SUBMITTED. The full
notice, entitled the Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Individual Defendants Settlements; and (II) Final Approval
Hearing For The Individual Defendants Settlements, The Individual
Defendants Plan of Allocation and Motion For Approval of Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses ("Detailed Notice"),
and the Claim Form, are each available on the Settlement Website
www.aegeansecuritieslitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator:
In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173088
Milwaukee, WI 53217
1-877-888-9760 (Toll-Free)
Please refer to the Settlement Website for more detailed
information and to review the documents pertaining to the proposed
Individual Defendants Settlements. Inquiries may also be made to
Lead Counsel:
Nicole Lavallee
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Ste. 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
law@bermantabacco.com
If you are a potential Settlement Class Member, but wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth
in the Detailed Notice, which can also be found on the Settlement
Website, postmarked no later than September 28, 2023. If you are a
potential Settlement Class Member and do not timely exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Note: The
deadline to submit a request for exclusion to the Auditor
Settlements has passed. Any new requests for exclusion will only
apply to the Individual Defendants Settlements.
Any objections to the proposed Individual Defendants Settlements,
the Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses must be submitted to the Court in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Detailed Notice, received no later
than September 28, 2023 and filed with the Court no later than
September 28, 2023. Note: The deadline to object to the Auditor
Settlements has passed. Any new objections will only apply to
Gianniotis's or Melissanidis's Settlements.
DATED: June 1, 2023
THE HONORABLE NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
District Judge, United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
ALBANY EMPIRE: Players, Coaches Mull Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Christian Arnold, writing for New York Post, reports that Antonio
Brown giveth, Antonio Brown taketh away.
And now the former NFL star turned owner of the Albany Empire of
the National Arena League is facing a possible class-action lawsuit
from some Empire players and coaches, according to the Times Union
of Albany.
Empire coach Moe Leggett alleged that the staff and players were
paid following the Empire's final game against the Orlando
Predators on June 9 as normal.
However, a short while later, Leggett said players and coaches
noticed the checks had been reversed and taken out of their bank
accounts, the Times Union reported.
The players are owed $500 or more from that game, according to the
report.
Leggett told the newspaper that he had tried to believe in Brown,
but that the trust had deteriorated.
"I'm frustrated," Leggett said to the Times Union. "I tried to give
[Brown] the benefit of the doubt. I tried to work with him. I was
trying to be the peacemaker, the mediator to make sure things ran
smoothly and just under the radar. But I can no longer do that."
He expanded on that in a separate interview with News10, an Albany
ABC affiliate.
"It's a very unfortunate situation that we're being put in,"
Leggett said. "We just want to put it behind us. Just pay what the
guys are owed and we'll just move on. No hard feelings. But you're
playing with people's livelihoods."
He expanded on that in a separate interview with News10, an Albany
ABC affiliate.
"It's a very unfortunate situation that we're being put in,"
Leggett said. "We just want to put it behind us. Just pay what the
guys are owed and we'll just move on. No hard feelings. But you're
playing with people's livelihoods."
"I feel like this was his plan all along," Guerra told the Times
Union. "I feel like he does stuff for social media and to sell his
songs. I think it's just what he does. That's the type of guy he
is. No one trusts him anymore. I see it hard for him to get any
future deals going because of how he is as a person."
Leggett is still looking for a lawyer to take the case.
"My feelings are everywhere because I feel like he's basically
doing us so wrong to the point of no return," lineman Brandon
Thorpe wrote in a text to the Times Union.
Brown played 12 seasons in the NFL, earning four All-Pro nods and
seven trips to the Pro Bowl.
He twice was the NFL's receptions leader (2014, 2015) and was also
twice its receiving yardage leader (2014, 2017).
He's also remembered for a litany of on-field incidents, including
stripping off part of his uniform mid-game when his Buccaneers were
playing the Jets at MetLife Stadium on Jan. 2, 2022. [GN]
ALL FLORIDA: Fails to Pay Roofers' OT Wages, Schrader Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDIN SCHRADER, BRANDON ELEY, BRANDON HARTWICK, ZACHARY HERLACHE,
TYLER PAPALE, GEOFFREY STARNES And ANTHONY WENNER, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. ALL FLORIDA
WEATHERPROOFING INCORPORATED, ALL FLORIDA WEATHERPROOFING &
CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, RICHARD A. FULFORD, individually, and
JOSHUA B. FULFORD, individually, Case No. 8:23-cv-01371 (M.D. Fla.,
June 20, 2023) sues the Defendants for failing to pay the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former
employees of the Defendants overtime wages, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
As roofers/installers, the primary job duties of the Plaintiffs and
the putative class members included reporting to the Defendants'
shop early each morning to collect job supplies and tools, and
receive daily assignments, driving to the customers' homes;
completing roofing projects for the day; and returning to the
Defendants' shop to take back work vehicles, clean up, and complete
any other end-of-day duties required by the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs and the putative class members routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiffs and the putative class members their earned overtime
wages was partly attributed to Defendants' deliberate refusal to
recognize the return travel time from the last job site to
Defendants' shop at the end of the workday as compensable work
time, the lawsuit claims.
Plaintiffs Schrader and Eley were employed by the Defendants as
roofers during all or part of the three year period immediately
preceding the filing of this action.
All Florida is a roofing systems contractor.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Michael Pierro, Jr., Esq.
Brian Calciano, Esq.
CALCIANO PIERRO, PLLC
146 Second Street North - Suite 304
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (727) 217-5400
E-mail: mike@flemploymentlaw.com
brian@flemploymentlaw.com
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Wiley Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONA WILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00244-CJC-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion for class certification on behalf of:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
the
filing of this action through class certification (1) the
Defendant called on their NDNCR registered telephone number,
(2)
two or more times in a twelve month period more than thirty
days
after their number was registered on the NDNCR, and (3) whose
telephone numbers either (a) do not appear in the Giant leads
files or the iLeads leads files, (b) appear in the Giant leads
files but do not appear in the iLeads leads files, or (c)
appear
in the iLeads leads files but have no corresponding "UniqueID"
in
the iLeads leads files."
The Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint her as class
representative and Kaufman P.A. as class counsel; and establish a
deadline for submitting a proposed notice plan.
American Financial provides finance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ptttmf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
ANDREW WOLD: Faces Six Lawsuits Over Davenport Building Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Watson, writing for Quad-City Times, reports that at least
six lawsuits have been filed in Scott County court aiming to hold
the building owner and others liable for the building collapse at
324 Main St. in Davenport.
After the collapse May 28, three men were found dead and an
estimated 100 households were displaced.
And one lawyer who has not yet filed in Scott County has met with
tenants of 324 Main St. and surrounding buildings about joining a
class-action lawsuit.
George Jones, an attorney from southern Iowa, advertised on
Facebook meetings with attorneys from his office on June 23, who
also were surveying the damage.
A class-action suit allows a single person or a small number of
people to represent the interest of a larger, similar group,
according to the Iowa Judicial Branch. A judge must authorize
class-action status.
In the days after the building fell, filings in one suit brought by
tenant Mildred Harrington indicated it would seek that status.
Represented by West Des Moines attorney John Goplerud, they are
suing Andrew Wold, Andrew Wold Investments, LLC, Bi-State Masonry,
Select Structural Engineering and the city of Davenport.
City releases contracts with firms investigating the collapse
The city announced June 14 it had hired two firms to investigate
the partial collapse at 324 Main St., SOCOTEC and White Birch
Group.
Communications with those groups started before that. In a signed
"work authorization agreement" dated June 5, the SOCOTEC CEO Robert
Vecchio writes "Client has engaged (SOCOTEC Engineering, Inc.) to
perform a forensic investigation to attempt to determine the cause
and origin of the partial building collapse."
The SOCOTEC agreement doesn't go into detail about work to be
performed but lists hourly rates of 14 titles that range from $120
an hour to $490 an hour.
The White Birch Group submitted an agreement for "investigative
support services" at 324 Main St. collapse incident in an emailed
memo dated June 2.
The scope of services listed include reviewing documents and
evidence pertinent to the building collapse, reports issued,
perform site evaluations and technical analysis, prepare exhibits,
issue findings and conclusions "in oral and/or report format,
whichever may be requested," and provide expert witness testimony
in deposition.
The agreement stated the project manager, Scott Nacheman, would
bill at a rate at $370 per hour.
Neither agreement gave a total cost estimate. An amendment to the
city budget being voted on June 21 includes $3 million for the 324
Main St. response and contracts signed. The bulk of the $3 million
is for a demolition contract with D.W. Zinser. $500,000 of it is
for the public safety response. [GN]
AUTOZONERS LLC: Wage Class Action Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Autozoners, LLC violated the California Labor Code. The Autozoners,
LLC class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2023-00021114-CU-OE-CTL, is
currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the
State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here.
According to the lawsuit filed, Autozoners, LLC allegedly (a)
failed to pay minimum wages, (b) failed to pay overtime wages, (c)
failed to provide legally required meal and rest periods, (d)
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (e) failed to
reimburse employees for required expenses, (f) failed to provide
wages when due, and (g) failed to pay sick wages, all in violation
of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor
Code Sections §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194,
1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s), and thereby
gives rise to civil penalties as a result of such alleged conduct.
The Complaint alleges Defendant failed to fully relieve Plaintiff
for his legally required thirty (30) minute meals breaks. Employees
were also allegedly required, from time to time, to work in excess
of four (4) hours without being provided the legally required ten
(10) minute rest periods. The California Supreme Court defines
off-duty rest periods as the time during which an employee is
relieved from all work-related duties and free from employer
control.
For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Autozoners, LLC call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced
California employment attorney today.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys today.[GN]
AVIS RENT A CAR: Bid to Dismiss Parkin Class Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE PARKIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. AVIS RENT A CAR
SYSTEM LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-05481 (D.N.J.), Judge
Christopher P. O'Hearn of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey:
(1) grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint; and
(2) denies the Defendants' Motion to Strike.
The matter comes before the Court on two motions from Defendants
Avis Rent a Car System, LLC, Budget Rent a Car System, Inc., and
Avis Budget Group, Inc. ("ABG")): (1) a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Jane Parkin and David Hughes, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6); and (2) a
Motion to Strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
The Court did not hear argument pursuant to Local Rule 78.1.
Parkin is a citizen of the United Kingdom who rented a vehicle from
Budget Rent a Car System, Inc. from Sept. 16, 2016, until Sept. 23,
2016, in Boston, Massachusetts. Hughes is a citizen of the United
Kingdom who rented a vehicle from Budget on three occasions: in
Boston, Massachusetts from Sept. 28, 2017, until Oct. 1, 2017; in
Sarasota, Florida from April 3, 2018, until May 5, 2018; and in
Tampa, Florida from Oct. 13, 2019, until Nov. 11, 2019. When
renting the cars from Budget, both Parkin and Hughes purchased
Additional Liability Insurance ("ALI") or Supplemental Liability
Insurance ("SLI") from a third-party insurer.
Budget and Avis are wholly owned subsidiaries of ABG. The
Plaintiffs allege that Budget, Avis, and ABG have combined
operations, and ABG actively directed and controlled the daily
activities of both Budget and Avis.
The Defendants claim that Avis and Budget are separate legal
entities with separate corporate leadership. Yet, both Avis and
Budget have two identical corporate directors who serve both
companies at the exact same address. The Defendants also claim that
ABG is a parent holding company.
The Plaintiffs allege that when they rented cars from Budget, the
customary method was to purchase a package which included a rental
car, a collision damage waiver, and ALI/SLI insurance for a single
price. The form agreement for the package stated that the rental
company would obtain ALI/SLI insurance from a third-party
provider.
However, Budget did not obtain insurance from a third party.
Rather, if a Budget customer were in an accident and liable to a
third party for damages, Budget would instead indemnify the
customer for that liability. This practice departs from the actual
contracted agreement where Budget agrees to provide the ALI/SLI
insurance in a rental package.
The Plaintiffs have separated their claims into three classes of
people: the national class, the Massachusetts class, and the
Florida class. They allege three claims against Defendants: (1)
breach of contract (Count I), (2) fraudulent misrepresentation
(Count II), and (3) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") (Count III).
On Sept. 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit. On Nov. 14,
2022, the Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss. They also filed
the Motion to Strike if any claims survived their Motion to
Dismiss. On Dec. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a brief in
opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Strike. On Jan. 10, 2023, the Defendants filed a reply brief.
The Defendants move to dismiss all three of the Plaintiffs' claims:
breach of contract (Count I), fraudulent misrepresentation (Count
II), and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (Count III), and further move to strike the
Plaintiffs' class allegations.
First, the Defendants contend that Avis and ABG should be dismissed
because the Plaintiffs have not alleged any wrongful conduct on
their part and have alleged only "boilerplate and vague allegations
of relatedness between the three defendants. The Plaintiffs respond
that they are not pursuing an alter ego liability theory, but
rather seek to hold Defendants Avis and ABG liable based on direct
corporate liability and, alternatively, agency liability.
Judge O'Hearn declines to dismiss the claims against Avis and ABG.
He opines that the allegations are sufficient at this stage,
without the benefit of discovery, to allege a claim based upon Avis
and ABG's participation in the alleged conduct. Moreover, in light
of the Third Circuit's direction to allow discovery where an agency
relationship is alleged, the Plaintiffs' allegations against Avis
and ABG sufficient at this stage.
Second, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim should be dismissed because the latter have not
alleged the existence of a contract nor identified the essential
terms -- i.e., price -- of any such contract.
Judge O'Hearn disagrees and denies the Defendants' Motion as to
Count I. He opines that the allegations are sufficient in that they
establish there was a contract in existence and place the
Defendants on notice of the terms of the contract and amount of
damages that flow from its breach. The Plaintiffs have also alleged
the existence of a valid and enforceable contract which is enough
for the claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Any challenge to the
enforceability of the contract is better suited for summary
judgment with the added benefit of the actual language of the
alleged agreements and any related evidence adduced during
discovery.
Third, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' fraudulent
misrepresentation claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine.
Because the Plaintiffs' tort claims are founded in the contractual
relationship with the Defendants -- and they have not provided an
independent duty owed beyond that of the contract terms -- Judge
O'Hearn agrees and dismisses Count II. He holds that the
Plaintiffs' fraudulent inducement claims are not extrinsic to the
contract claims and are therefore barred by the economic loss
doctrine.
Fourth, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' FDUTPA claims are
not sufficiently pled under Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading
standard and are duplicative of their breach of contract claims.
Judge O'Hearn agrees and dismisses Count III without prejudice. He
says the allegations as to FDUTPA appear to be a straightforward
intentional breach of contract -- the misrepresentation and injury
to the Plaintiffs remain the same: they were promised ALI/SLI
insurance, but not actually provided with ALI/SLI insurance.
Lastly, the Defendants move to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations, alleging that the classes do not meet the Rule 23(a)
requirement of ascertainability because the Plaintiffs failed to
plead time limitations for the proposed classes.
Judge O'Hearn finds these issues better suited for the summary
judgment stage and denies the Defendants' Motion. He says the
Defendants have not provided any case law from in this District or
otherwise that stands for the proposition that the failure to
include a temporal limitation on a class definition is inherently
insufficient, particularly at this stage of the litigation. Their
argument is more appropriate at the class certification stage.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge O'Hearn grants in part and denies
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Counts II and III are
dismissed without prejudice. The Defendants' Motion to Strike is
denied. An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4367fwys from Leagle.com.
Lindsey H. Taylor -- ltaylor@carellabyrne.com -- James E. Checchi
-- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, Roseland, NJ, On behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Jessica Greer Griffith -- ggriffith@mwe.com -- McDERMOTT WILL &
EMERY LLP, New York, NY, On behalf of the Defendants.
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: $6.6MM Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 6
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IN RE: BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
SPOOFING LITIGATION
Action No. 3:20-cv-11059 (MAS) (RLS)
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
If you purchased or sold any COMEX Gold Futures contract, COMEX
Silver Futures contract, NYMEX Platinum Futures contract, or NYMEX
Palladium Futures contract, or any option on those futures
contracts, during the period of at least January 1, 2008 through at
least July 31, 2016, your rights may be affected by a pending class
action settlement, and you may be entitled to a portion of the
settlement fund.
This Summary Notice is to alert you to a proposed Settlement
totaling $6,600,000 (the "Settlement Amount") reached with The Bank
of Nova Scotia (together with affiliated entities, "BNS") in a
pending class action (the "Action").
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(the "Court") authorized this Summary Notice and has appointed the
lawyers listed below to represent the Settlement Class in this
Action:
Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
1211 Ave. of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
(917) 438-9189
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP
655 West Broadway
Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 231-1058
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue
17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
(212) 223-6444
Korein Tillery LLC
205 North Michigan Ave.
Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 641-9750
Who is a member of the Settlement Class?
The proposed Settlement Class consists of all Persons and entities
that purchased or sold any COMEX Gold Futures contract, COMEX
Silver Futures contract, NYMEX Platinum Futures contract, NYMEX
Palladium Futures contract (together "Precious Metals Futures"), or
any option on those futures contracts ("Options on Precious Metals
Futures"), during the period of at least January 1, 2008 through at
least July 31, 2016 (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the Class
are Defendants, their officers and directors, management,
employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates. Also excluded from the
Class is the Judge presiding over this action, his or her law
clerks, spouse, any other person within the third degree of
relationship living in the Judge's household, the spouse of such
person, and the U.S. government.
"Precious Metals Futures" means Gold Futures contract(s), Silver
Futures Contract(s), Platinum Futures contract(s), or Palladium
Futures contract(s), and "Options on Precious Metals Futures" means
any option on Precious Metals Futures.
The other capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice are defined
in the detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and in
the Settlement Agreement, both of which are available at
www.bankofnovascotiaspoofingsettlement.com.
If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including the detailed Notice, at
www.bankofnovascotiaspoofingsettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-388-1727 (if calling from outside the United States or
Canada, call 414-921-2305).
What is this Action about and what does the Settlement provide?
Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Bank of Nova Scotia and four
of the Bank's former precious metals traders (including defendant
Corey Flaum) unlawfully and intentionally manipulated the prices of
Gold Futures contracts and Silver Futures contracts traded on the
COMEX and Platinum Futures contracts and Palladium Futures
contracts traded on the NYMEX during the Class Period in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. (the "CEA")
and the common law.
Defendants maintain that they have good and meritorious defenses to
Class Plaintiffs' claims and would prevail if the case were to
proceed. Nevertheless, to settle the claims in this lawsuit, and
thereby avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation,
Defendants have agreed to pay a total of $6.6 million (the
"Settlement Amount") in cash for the benefit of the proposed
Settlement Class. If the Settlement is approved, the Settlement
Amount plus interest earned from the date it was established (the
"Settlement Fund"), minus any Taxes, the reasonable costs of Class
Notice and administration, any Court awarded attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs, Service Awards for Class Plaintiffs,
and any other costs or fees approved by the Court (the "Net
Settlement Fund"), will be divided among all Class Members who file
timely and valid Claim Forms.
If the Settlement is approved, the Action will be resolved against
all Defendants. If the Settlement is not approved, Bank of Nova
Scotia and the other defendants will remain as defendants in the
Action, and Class Plaintiffs will continue to pursue their claims
against them.
Will I get a payment?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will be eligible for a payment under the Settlement if you file a
Claim Form. You may obtain more information at
www.bankofnovascotiaspoofingsettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-388-1727 (if calling from outside the United States or
Canada, call 414-921-2305).
Claim Forms must be postmarked by December 6, 2023, or submitted
online at www.bankofnovascotiaspoofingsettlement.com on or before
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on December 6, 2023.
What are my rights?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against Bank of Nova Scotia, the
other defendants, and Released Parties as explained in the detailed
Notice and Settlement Agreement, which are both available at
www.bankofnovascotiaspoofingsettlement.com. If you do not want to
take part in the proposed Settlement, you must opt out by September
22, 2023. You may object to the proposed Settlement, the
Distribution Plan, and/or Lead Counsel's request for attorneys'
fees, payment of litigation costs and expenses, and any Service
Awards to Class Plaintiffs. If you want to object, you must do so
by September 22, 2023. Information on how to opt out or object is
contained in the detailed Notice, which is available at
www.bankofnovascotiaspoofingsettlement.com.
When is the Fairness Hearing?
The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing on November 6, 2023, at
11:00 a.m. Eastern Time, from the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, at the Clarkson S. Fisher Building &
U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Room 2020, Trenton, NJ
08608. Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, the Fairness Hearing
may be conducted remotely. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will
consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Court will also consider whether to approve the Distribution
Plan and requests for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and
costs, and any Service Awards for Class Plaintiffs. The Fairness
Hearing may be moved to a different date or time without notice to
you; any changes to the date, time, or telephone number of the
Fairness Hearing will be posted to the Settlement Website.
Although you do not need to participate, if you plan to do so, you
should check the Settlement Website for any changes concerning the
Fairness Hearing. We do not know how long the Fairness Hearing
will take or when the Court will make its decision. The Court's
decision may be appealed.
For more information, call toll-free 1-877-388-1727 (if calling
from outside the United States or Canada, call 414-921-2305) or
visit www.bankofnovascotiaspoofingsettlement.com.
**** Please do not contact the Court or the Clerk's Office
regarding this Notice or for additional information. ****
Source(s):
Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Korein Tillery LLC
BCTG ACQUISITION: Edelson Lechtzin Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Edelson Lechtzin LLP is investigating securities
fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims on behalf of shareholders
of BCTG Acquisition Corp. ("BCTG") (Nasdaq: BCTG), a special
purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), who acquired BCTG shares
before the closing of its business combination with Tango
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Tango Therapeutics") (Nasdaq: TNGX ), on or
before August 9, 2021.
Tango Therapeutics is a biotechnology company dedicated to
discovering novel drug targets and delivering the next generation
of precision medicine for the treatment of cancer. Tango
Therapeutics is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal
executive offices in Boston, Massachusetts. The business
combination of BCTG and Tango Therapeutics was approved by
shareholders of BCTG on August 9, 2021. Tango Therapeutics common
stock began trading on the NASDAQ under its new ticker symbol,
"TNGX," on or about August 10, 2021.
BCTG investors may have claims based on alleged false and
misleading statements and/or material omissions contained in the
documents used to solicit shareholder approval for the business
combination between BCTG and Tango Therapeutics. Please contact
Edelson Lechtzin LLP at 1-844-696-7492 to discuss your investment
losses, or by e-mail at elechtzin@edelson-law.com or
medelson@edelson-law.com, or you can submit your information online
HERE.
For more information, please contact:
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: 844-696-7492 or 215-867-2399 ext. 1
Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com or medelson@edelson-law.com
Web: www.edelson-law.com
About Edelson Lechtzin LLP
Edelson Lechtzin LLP is a national class action law firm with
offices in Pennsylvania and California. In addition to cases
involving securities and investment fraud, our lawyers focus on
class and collective litigation in cases alleging violations of the
federal antitrust laws, employee benefit plans under ERISA, wage
theft and unpaid overtime, consumer fraud, and dangerous and
defective drugs and medical devices.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions. No class has been certified in this case, so you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. Your ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. [GN]
BYTEDANCE INC: Fails to Pay Same Wages as Employees of Opposite Sex
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Irina Weisfeiler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ByteDance, Inc. doing business as TikTok and
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23036433 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., June 20, 2023) alleges that the Defendants have
increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by
failing to pay employees of each gender/sex the same wages for
substantially similar work; promoting women more slowly and at
lower rates than the Defendants promote men; paying women less than
the Defendants pay men performing similar work; and failing to pay
women all wages when discharged or quitting.
Throughout the class period, the Defendants have continued to
maintain a centrally determined and uniformly applied policy and/or
practice of not adjusting employees' wage rates to ensure that it
does not pay its female employees less than its employees of the
opposite sex and gender for substantially equal or similar work.
The Defendants have paid and continue to pay its female employees
systematically lower compensation than the Defendants have paid and
continue to pay male employees performing substantially similar or
equal work under similar working conditions, in violation of the
California Equal Pay Act, California Labor Code, the Unfair and
Unlawful Business Practices Act, Business & Professions Code,
through its violations of the Equal Pay Act, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary relief against
the Defendants on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated to recover unpaid wages, interest, civil penalties,
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and any other
appropriate relief pursuant to the Labor Code sections 201-203,
1194.5, and 1197.5. The Plaintiff also brings this putative class
action against the Defendants on behalf of herself and all other
class members in the state of California for violations of
California Labor Code section 1197.5 for Failure to Provide Equal
Pay on the Basis of Gender/Sex.
As a result of Defendants' alleged ongoing conduct, violation of
California Labor Code Section 1197 .5, and/or willful
discrimination, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered and
will continue to suffer harm, including lost earnings, lost
benefits, and other financial loss, as well as non-economic
damages.
The Plaintiff's proposed classes consists of and is defined as
follows:
All current or former female California employees of
the Defendants from four years and 179 days preceding the
filing of this lawsuit until judgment.
Ms. Weisfeiler is a citizen of California. She was employed by the
Defendant during the Relevant Time Period in California.
ByteDance is a technology company that operates a variety of
content platforms that inform, educate, entertain, and inspire
people from all over the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Shigufa Saleheen, Esq.
Brielle D. Edborg, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
511 Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
Facsimile: (213) 457-3092
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Shigufa@lebelaw.com
Brielle@lebelaw.com
CALVARY PUBLIC: Files Suit v. Junior Doctor After Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carmel Sparke, writing for Aus.Doc, reports that doctors are urging
Canberra's Calvary Public Hospital to withdraw its legal action
against a junior doctor who is leading a class action over unpaid
wages, branding it a "nasty legal tactic".
A series of class actions against health services in Victoria, NSW
and the ACT have been launched on behalf of tens of thousands of
junior doctors who claim they have not been paid for unrostered
overtime.
The claims as a whole are expected to run into millions of dollars
and cover those junior doctors who worked in the public system
broadly between 2015 and 2022.
But Dr Ying Tham is now facing a counterclaim from Calvary Public
Hospital, which is seeking damages and interest from her on the
basis that she allegedly failed to keep time records of her own
hours.
"The only thing these junior doctors want is what's fair and proper
and what the law provides, so the hospital's saying, 'let's sue
them', that is just outrageous to me," Dr Antony Sara, president of
the Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation, said. "It's a
nasty legal tactic."
Arguing it would impact the hospital's reputation among doctors for
years to come, Dr Sara said other health services involved in
similar class actions in NSW and Victoria had not employed the
"tawdry lawyer's trick".
"What it means is they don't want to engage with young doctors,
they are just thinking about themselves, and they're not thinking
about patient care," Dr Sara said.
"What does Martin Bowles [the national CEO of Calvary] think about
this?"
The hospital is currently involved in a dispute with the ACT
Government, which plans to take over management of the 250-bed
facility from the Catholic group Little Company of Mary.
"If this is how the management there are going to treat their young
doctors, then it's probably a good thing that they are going to be
taken over by the ACT Government," Dr Sara said.
A spokeswoman for Calvary Health Care said the organisation had no
comment to make on the legal dispute.
Hayden Stephens and Associates is the legal firm representing the
ACT junior doctors along with Maurice Blackburn and Gordon Legal.
"Not in my 20 years of employment or industrial history have I seen
a hospital lodge a claim for damages and interest against a junior
doctor in circumstances where that employee has worked those hours
for free," its director Hayden Stephens said.
"I think it's a legal manoeuvre intended to signal to other junior
[doctors] that if you come after us to repay this time that you
worked, we'll come after you."
Back in March, Dr Lucy Crook said the class actions being launched
by junior doctors were not solely about the money but about
recognition of work demands made on them by the public hospital
system.
She told the ABC that many juniors doctors had feared for their
careers if they made a fuss over the unpaid work they were doing.
Chair of AMA Victoria's doctors in training subdivision, Dr Crook
said while some senior doctors did speak out, such support was
"rare".
"We've tried over many, many years to change the system so that
we're not working these hours and working them unpaid, but that
hasn't worked so this is sort of the final step to try and force
that change," she said.
Health services targeted by the legal action which began back in
2020 have argued that doctors are required to obtain formal
approval for overtime or claim overtime afterwards in order to be
paid and that was not done.
Andrew Grech, a lawyer from Gordon Legal representing junior
doctors, told the ABC: "What the hospitals say is, 'We never
authorised this overtime.' That is where the dispute lies." [GN]
CASEY'S RETAIL: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Casey's Retail
Company. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Casey's Retail Company
doing business as: Casey's General Store doing business as: Casey's
General Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-01911-PJS-DTS (D. Minn.,
June 22, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Casey's Retail Company -- http://www.caseys.com/-- is a chain of
convenience stores in the Midwestern and Southern United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad Throndset, Esq.
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
CASSIDY BROTHERS: Sued Over Defective Building Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Colm Keena, writing for Irish Times, reports that a class
action-type set of proceedings on behalf of people in Donegal
seeking compensation for the use of defective building products
involves 2,260 plaintiffs and that number is likely to grow to more
than 2,500 in the coming weeks, the solicitor handling the
unprecedented case has said.
The "multiparty action" is being funded by a company that is being
funded by a Donegal businessmen, Adrian Sheridan, who has
contributed more than EUR2 million, according to David Coleman of
Coleman Legal, which is acting for the plaintiffs and being funded
by the third-party company.
Mr Coleman said he expects a number of lead cases to be heard next
year and that the outcomes of these cases will guide the advice
then given to the other plaintiffs.
Given the huge size of the collective claims, it is likely that any
High Court judgment will be appealed to the Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court, resulting in legal costs substantially greater than
those already accumulated.
Mr Sheridan, based in Dubai, is funding the actions on a
not-for-profit basis, which means that if the case is successful he
will get his money back but no reward. The plaintiffs involved are
not being asked to pay anything towards the costs of the actions,
though this offer is due to close on July 7th. Plaintiffs who join
the process after that date will have to pay modest fees.
Irish law involves restrictions on champerty - the third-party
funding of litigation in return for a share of any gain that might
result - but Mr Coleman said he is confident that the structure
involved in the Donegal cases is in compliance with the law. His
work on the case is being funded on a cost-only basis.
He has been involved in the proceedings since August 2021 and no
one has sought to query the funding arrangement, he said. The firm
will receive what he says is a modest fee for the net gain from any
successful plaintiff's action.
A company called Micaredress100 CLG, trading under the name
Defective Blocks Ireland, has been established by Mr Sheridan and
another Donegal businessman, Shaun Hegarty. The company's latest
accounts, for the period to the end of December 2022, show it had a
loan from Mr Sheridan then totalling EUR1.64 million.
The defendants to date in the actions are Cassidy Brothers Concrete
Products Ltd, Cassidy Brothers Topmix Ltd, the National Standards
Authority of Ireland (NSAI), and Donegal County Council.
The State has put in place a scheme to provide financial assistance
to homeowners with damaged dwellings due to defective concrete
blocks, but the multiparty case will argue that the scheme is
insufficient to address the scale of the problem and is too limited
in the type of building that can qualify.
A complaint to be made to the European Commission alleging a
failure to apply EU law correctly in this jurisdiction has been
signed by 650 people and may have 1,000 signatures by the end of
this week, Mr Coleman said.
The Cassidy Brothers businesses are based in Buncrana, Co Donegal.
A request for comment met with no response. There was also no
response from Donegal County Council. A spokesperson for the NSAI
said it would not be appropriate to comment on ongoing legal
proceedings. [GN]
CGM LLC: Guerra Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CGM, LLC. The case is
styled as Brandon Guerra, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CGM, LLC doing business as: CGM, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-02795-SEG (N.D. Ga., June 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
CGM -- https://www.cgmllc.net/ -- is a software development firm
that develops and produces software solutions for CLECs and other
telecom service providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
Building 14, Suite 230
3535 Piedmont Road
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 320-9979 ext 202
Fax: (404) 320-9978
Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Michael Anderson Berry
ARNOLD LAW FIRM
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 777-7777
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
- and -
N. Nickolas Jackson
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
Piedmont Center
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 320-9979
Email: njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
COINBASE INC: Duane Morris Attorneys Discuss Arbitration Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eden E. Anderson, Esq., Rebecca S. Bjork, Esq., and Gerald L.
Maatman, Jr., Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that on June 23,
2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that is welcome
news to parties seeking to enforce arbitration agreements. In
Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, No. 22-105 (U.S. June 23, 2023), the
Supreme Court decided that district courts must stay all
proceedings after denying a motion to compel arbitration once the
moving party appeals the denial. Such appeals are allowed on an
interlocutory basis under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but
the FAA is silent as to a stay pending appeal. This ruling is
significant because parties seeking to resolve claims in
arbitration will no longer be required to litigate whether the
district court should stay its consideration of the case until
their appeal is decided. They also will be spared proceeding with
discovery and motion practice in the district court while their
appeal of the denial of arbitration is pending. As the majority
explained in its opinion, this will further the purposes of
arbitration (efficiency, less expense, and less intrusive
discovery), save scarce judicial resources, and reduce pressure on
defendants to settle.
Case Background
Abraham Bielski brought a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against Coinbase,
Inc., a company that operates an online platform where users buy
and sell cryptocurrencies as well as government-issued currencies.
Slip Op. at 1. Coinbase's User Agreement contained a provision
requiring binding arbitration of any disputes arising from use of
the platform. Id. As a result, Coinbase moved to compel
arbitration, but the district court denied its motion. Id. at 1-2.
Coinbase filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit under 9 U.S.C.
Section 16(a), the FAA's provision that allows interlocutory
appeals of denials of such motions. Id. at 2. At the same time –
as is customary – Coinbase moved the district court to stay
proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the
arbitrability of the dispute between itself and Bielski. Id. The
district court denied the motion, so Coinbase had to expend even
more resources asking the Ninth Circuit to order a stay of the
district court's proceedings. That motion, too, was denied, based
on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that a denial of a motion to
compel arbitration does not automatically stay proceedings. Id.
(citing Britton v. Co-op Banking Group., 916 F.2d 1045, 1412 (9th
Cir. 1990). The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a
split between the circuit courts on the issue, citing
Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128
F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 1997), among other circuit court decisions
contrary to the Ninth Circuit's rule.
The Supreme Court's Decision
Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, which was joined
by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett.
The question presented was "whether the district court must stay
its pre-trial and trial proceedings while the interlocutory appeal
is ongoing." Slip Op. at 1. In explaining its answer, which is
"yes," the majority first pointed to the section of the FAA that
allows interlocutory appeals where motions to compel arbitration
are denied by federal district courts, noting that it is "a rare
statutory exception to the usual rule" precluding appeals before
final judgment. Id. at 1, 3. The Congress did not include any
language in Sec. 16(a) of the FAA relating to stays during the
interlocutory appeal process. However, the majority placed the
enactment of that section within "a clear background principle
prescribed by this Court's precedents" – namely, that an appeal
"divests the district court of its control over those aspects of
the case involved in the appeal." Id. (citing Griggs v. Provident
Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Indeed, Justice
Kavanaugh traced that principle all the way back to a Supreme Court
decision issued in 1883 entitled Hovey v. McDonald, 109 U.S. 150,
157 (1883).
The majority bluntly stated that "[t]he Griggs principle resolves
this case." Id. at 3. Relying on "common practice" and common
sense, they note that leading treatises on litigation in federal
courts consider issuing stays pending interlocutory appeals of
denials of arbitration to be "the sounder approach" and desirable.
Id. at 4-5. The Supreme Court reasoned that it makes sense that
"absent an automatic stay of district court proceedings, Congress's
decision in Section 16(a) to afford a right to an interlocutory
appeal would be largely nullified." Id. at 5.
Beyond this reasoning, the majority also noted the purposes of
arbitration and explained that automatic stays will preserve those
objectives of efficiency, reduced litigation cost, and reduced
discovery burdens on the parties. Id. at 6. Defendants in class
actions in particular are subject to immense pressure to settle
cases where arbitration motions are denied, presenting a "potential
for coercion . . . where the possibility of colossal liability can
lead to what [are] called 'blackmail settlements.'" Id. at 6.
The majority also noted that allowing a case to proceed
simultaneously in district court and the court of appeals leads to
a distinct possibility that scarce judicial resources will be
wasted if, for example, the parties litigate a dispute in the
district court, only for the court of appeals to reverse and order
that very same dispute to binding arbitration. Id.
Implications for Employers
As any employer knows who has been sued by a named plaintiff in a
class action despite that plaintiff having signed an arbitration
agreement with a class action waiver, the Supreme Court's decision
in Coinbase is a very welcome development. With potentially
thousands of absent class members' claims at issue, a district
court's denial of an employer's motion to enforce its arbitration
agreement can be an earth-shattering development. In addition,
employers with nationwide operations now have a single, uniform
rule that applies to this situation, bringing certainty to the law
and one common rule in each and every circuit court. The Supreme
Court's decision is, therefore, a highly significant development in
the law regarding arbitration. [GN]
COMERICA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 25
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) resulting from
allegations that Comerica may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Comerica securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16714 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 29, 2023, citing a review of "internal
documents," American Banker reported that "Comerica Bank officials
privately acknowledged significant compliance failures in their
operation of a Treasury Department program that provides federal
benefits on prepaid cards to millions of unbanked Americans[.]"
American Banker stated that "[a] Comerica executive said the Dallas
bank faced a 'serious contract violation' for allowing fraud
disputes and data on Direct Express and cardholders to be handled
out of a vendor's office in Lahore, Pakistan[.]"
On this news, Comerica's stock fell $1.40 per share, or 3.59% to
close at $37.59 per share on May 30, 2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CONTRACT LAND: Faces Sexton Suit Over Agents' Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS SEXTON, individually and for others similarly situated v.
CONTRACT LAND STAFF, LLC (CLS), Case No. 2:23-cv-01968-JLG-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, June 20, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from Defendant individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated under the under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Mr. Sexton worked for CLS under a variety of job titles, including
Right of Way Agent. Mr. Sexton and the Putative Class Members
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But Mr. Sexton and the
Putative Class Members never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of receiving
overtime as required by the FLSA, these workers received a flat
amount for each day worked without overtime compensation, the
lawsuit contends.
Accordingly, Mr. Sexton and the Putative Class Members were owed
time and a half overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Mr. Sexton was employed by the Defendant from 2017 until September
2022.
CLS is an independent right of way and land management consulting
company that provides Right of Way project management, title,
permitting & acquisition, employee training, staffing, and
regulatory consultation regarding FERC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
COOLAH TOURIST: Park Residents Sued Over Unpaid Site Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenji Sato, writing for ABC News, reports that that Richard Squire
says a five-year legal battle with the operators of a caravan park
has ruined his finances, his mental health, and any certainty for
his retirement.
The 79-year-old is one of the residents locked in a costly legal
battle with the directors of Coolah Tourist Park, owners of Coolah
Caravan Park.
"There was friendship and that's where it all went pear shaped --
thinking they were friends," Mr Squire said.
"If this all goes pear shaped in the end then we could all lose our
homes and be out on the street."
Mr Squire is part of a class action lawsuit that took the caravan
park at Coolah, 135 kilometres north-east of Dubbo, to the Supreme
Court and lost.
The group had alleged the directors' "misleading and deceptive"
statements led them to believe they would be entitled to certain
land rights if they bought shares in the park.
Disputes arose in 2016 over the management of the park, leading to
a legal battle in 2018.
The Supreme Court rejected all charges, and the group is launching
an appeal in an attempt to overturn the decision.
The cost of the legal battle has eclipsed the value of the land
they are fighting over, with both sides claiming to have spent well
over a million dollars so far.
Dream turns into nightmare
The original proposal was known as "Janet's Dream", a caravan park
jointly owned by retirees to use as a home base when not travelling
around Australia.
In a statement, a Coolah Caravan Park spokesperson said the dream
had turned into a "nightmare".
"The hopes and dreams of the owners of Coolah Caravan Park, Graeme
Booker and Janet Kelly, have been dashed by a small group of park
residents," the spokesperson said.
"The sad irony of the whole situation is that Graeme and Janet have
had to sell their own home to pay their legal costs to defend the
case brought against them."
Park director Janet Kelly said they would be taking counter legal
action against six of the residents for unpaid site fees.
David Darch said he was one of the residents who had boycotted site
fees while the legal battle continued.
The company had increased site fees from $65 to $185 per week
before the Supreme Court ordered the fees be set to $125.
A park spokesperson said those fees were currently $81.89 per week
for permanent residents.
The $185 fee increase happened after the original company Coolah
Home Base went into administration, and the Park was sold back to
another company belonging to Mr Booker and Ms Kelly, Coolah Caravan
Park.
The plaintiffs had asked the court to reverse the transfer to
Coolah Tourist Park, but it was not upheld.
A cautionary tale
Marnie Robertson said everyone felt backed into a corner.
"I'm on [anti-anxiety] medication like most people here. We've
found it extremely difficult coping over the years because it's
taken so long and it's worn us down," Ms Robertson said.
"I can't afford to buy anywhere else. I just don't have the money
to do that, so there's no option."
Housing for the Aged Action Group senior retirement housing worker
Shane McGrath said this case was a "cautionary tale" for other
seniors who were planning their retirement.
"It's very important that they understand the rights they have
there, the obligations they'll have there, and what their options
will be if something goes wrong," Mr McGrath said.
"Retirement housing residents can be a particularly vulnerable
group and it's important that the laws protect them properly, but
also that there's a proper form of dispute resolution."
He said the action group wanted stronger protections for retired
residents, including more regulations to ensure "fairer" fees and
an ombudsman to handle these kinds of disputes.
A park spokesperson said they do not believe the appeal case has
any merit.
"It is apparent they do not have the funds to pay the legal costs
if they lost the appeal," the spokesperson said.
"Therefore an application has been made seeking that they lodge
with the court a surety of $100,000 to pay for our legal costs if
they lose.
"The law is 'everyone must pay for the debts they incur'." [GN]
CREDIT SUISSE: Breaches Duties of Due Care, Colbert Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STAR COLBERT, ASSENAGON CREDIT SUBDEBT AND COCO, AXIOM LUX SICAV,
and AXIOM EUROPEAN FINANCIAL DEBT FUND LIMITED, individually and on
behalf of all other Credit Suisse Group AG AT1 Bondholders v. BRADY
W. DOUGAN, ERIC VARVEL, JAMES L. AMINE, TIMOTHY P. O'HARA, DAVID
MILLER, BRIAN CHIN, CHRISTIAN MEISSNER, GAEL DE BOISSARD, URS
ROHNER, TIDJANE THIAM, THOMAS GOTTSTEIN, SIR ANTONIO HORTA-OSORIO,
ROBERT S. SHAFIR, LARA J. WARNER, RICHARD E. THORNBURGH, ANDREAS
GOTTSCHLING, MICHAEL KLEIN, and NOREEN DOYLE, Case No.
1:23-cv-04582 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023) alleges that the Defendants
breached their duties of due care, diligence, prudence and loyalty
to Credit Suisse's AT1 bondholders, including Plaintiffs and each
of the other Class members, pursuant to the Swiss Code of
Obligations Articles 716a, 716b, 717, 754, and 759.
According to the complaint, Credit Suisse AT1 bondholders,
including Plaintiffs and each of the other Class members, as
creditors, have been damaged and suffered losses due to Defendants'
negligent breach of their duties to perform their duties with all
due diligence and safeguard the interests of the company in good
faith. The Defendants' actions and failures to act were a
substantial factor in causing the damages and losses to Plaintiffs
and each of the other Class members, the Plaintiffs allege.
Plaintiff Star Colbert is a fonds commun de placement, organized
under the laws of France, and its address is c/o Axiom Alternative
Investments at 39 Avenue Pierre 1er de Serbie, Paris, France 75008.
The Plaintiff is the beneficial owner of its AT1 bonds but acts
under the direction of Axiom Alternative Investments.
Brady W. Dougan was CEO of Credit Suisse Group AG from May 2007
until June 2015. Dougan joined First Boston in 1990. He was the
Head of the Equities Division at CSFB for five years before he was
appointed Global Head of the Securities division in 2001. From 2002
to July 2004, he was Co-President, Institutional Services at CSFB,
and from 2004 until the merger with Credit Suisse in May 2005, he
was CEO of CSFB. From May 2005 to year-end 2005, he was CEO of the
Credit Suisse First Boston division at Credit Suisse. In 2006 and
2007, prior to becoming CEO of Credit Suisse Group AG, he was CEO
of the Investment Banking Division.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
Patrick W. Daniels, Esq.
James D. Baskin, Esq.
Henry R. Rosen, Esq.
Roxana Pierce, Esq.
Caroline Robert, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Mark S. Hamill, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
pwdaniels@dicellolevitt.com
jbaskin@dicellolevitt.com
hrosen@dicellolevitt.com
rpierce@dicellolevitt.com
cmrobert@dicellolevitt.com
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
DICK'S SPORTING: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Slaten Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TREDOMNIQUE SLATEN, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-04861 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2023) is an action for
damages arising from Defendant's unlawful wiretapping of the
Plaintiff's communications without consent or notice, in violation
of the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.
Over the past year, the Plaintiff has made a number of visits and
purchases on the Defendant's website. While utilizing the website,
the Defendant has been monitoring Plaintiff's mouse movements, key
strokes, and searches. The Defendant has also been monitoring what
the Plaintiff has been viewing and forwarding this information to
third parties, through programming code such as the Facebook Pixel,
the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff reasonably believed that she was interacting
privately with Defendant's website, and not that he was being
recorded and that those recordings could later be watched by
Defendant's employees, or worse yet, live while Plaintiff was on
the website. The information wiretapped revealed personal and
sensitive information concerning Plaintiff's purchasing preferences
and internet activity. The Defendant did not provide any notice to
the Plaintiff that it was wiretapping the Plaintiff. The wiretap's
only purpose was to learn from the Plaintiff's customer information
to increase profitability. It was not necessary for the products
offered by Defendant, the Plaintiff claims.
The Defendant owns the website Dicksportinggoods.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Sibilia, Esq.
OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER
Oceanside, CA 92049
Telephone: (760) 666-1151
Facsimile: (818) 698-0300
E-mail: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com
DISCOUNT MOTORS: Embry Sues Over Vehicles' Tampered Odometers
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHYANN EMBRY and LEAH EARLY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DISCOUNT MOTORS, LLC,
DONALD ADAMS, and EDDIE HOWARD, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00078-BJB (W.D. Ken., June 14, 2023) is a class action for
damages under 49 U.S.C. Section 32701 et. seq. and KRS 190.260 et.
seq. alleging that Discount Motors, LLC through its owner Eddie
Howard and salesperson Donald Adams tampered with the odometer and
falsely represented the actual mileage of vehicles which were sold
to a large number of customers.
According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to alter the
odometer readings, and thus the reported mileage, of vehicles sold
at their car lot located in Owensboro, Kentucky. The Defendants,
individually and in conspiracy with one another, used a peripheral
device to digitally "roll back" the odometers of vehicles prior to
placing them on the Lot for sale. Upon information and belief,
Defendants used the rolled back odometers and willfully
misrepresented mileage of cars sold at the lot to Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers throughout the Class Period. The sales
contracts for all vehicles that Defendants sold at the lot were
federally mandated to be accompanied by odometer disclosure
statements, says the suit.
Discount Motors, LLC provides pre-owned cars, trucks, and
SUVs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rob Astorino Jr., Esq.
STEIN WHATLEY ATTORNEYS, PLLC
2525 Bardstown Road, Suite 101
Louisville, KY 40205
Telephone: (502) 553-4750
Facsimile: (502) 459-2787
E-mail: rastorino@steinwhatley.com
- and -
Joseph D. Satterley, Esq.
Paul J. Kelley, Esq.
Paul J. Ivie, Esq.
Sean A. McCarty, Esq.
SATTERLEY & KELLEY, PLLC
8700 Westport Road, Suite 202
Louisville, KY 40242
Telephone: (502) 589-5600
Facsimile: (502) 814-5500
E-mail: jsatterley@satterleylaw.com
pkelley@satterleylaw.com
pivie@satterleylaw.com
smccarty@satterleylaw.com
ELON MUSK: Denies Claims in Amended Dogecoin Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parvin Mohmad, writing for Analytics Insight, reports that Dogecoin
has been making headlines alongside its No.1 supporter, Elon Musk,
as the ongoing class-action lawsuit against the billionaire leaves
investors wondering whether he has a secret Dogecoin (DOGE) stash.
Meanwhile, Tradecurve (TCRV) holders are watching their returns
grow each day as the TCRV token continues to rise, set to deliver
50x gains before its presale ends.
Elon Musk Denies Having a Dogecoin (DOGE) Stash
In recent Dogecoin news, the ongoing class-action lawsuit against
Elon Musk has been amended, with the plaintiffs now alleging that
the billionaire has engaged in market manipulation and securities
fraud related to the Dogecoin (DOGE) token.
Namely, they accuse him of using his large Twitter following and
public appearances to boost the Dogecoin (DOGE) price and cashing
in over $95 million worth of Dogecoin (DOGE) as a result by using
two large Dogecoin wallets.
However, Musk's lawyer has recently denied all claims, stating that
there is no real link nor basis that proves that the relevant
Dogecoin wallets belong to Elon Musk. [GN]
ENZO BIOCHEM: Abraham Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY ABRAHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. and ENZO CLINICAL LABS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04408-NRM-JMW (E.D.N.Y., June
14, 2023) arises from the recent targeted cyberattack and data
breach on the computer network of the Defendants that resulted in
the unauthorized access of highly sensitive patient data of
approximately 2,470,000 people including the Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, Enzo failed to secure and safeguard the
personally identifiable information and personal health information
entrusted to it. As a result of Enzo's failure to do so, Plaintiff
and a class of similarly situated consumers have suffered
ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of
their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future harm
caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information.
The data breach was a direct result of Enzo's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals' PII and PHI from the foreseeable
threat of a cyberattack, says the suit.
Enzo Biochem, Inc. is a life sciences and biotechnology company
based in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
16 Squadron Blvd., Suite 106
New City, NY 10956
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
ggraifman@kgglaw.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Bourne Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Bourne, III, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Case No. 8:23-cv-01679-TJS (D. Md., June 22, 2023), is brought for
damages arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") as a result of inaccurate credit reporting.
On a date better known to Experian, it prepared and issued consumer
reports concerning the Plaintiff that included the Account. The
Account was also listing Plaintiff as "Deceased." The Plaintiff is
not deceased. The Plaintiff is very much alive. The reporting of
him being deceased is inaccurate.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides the Department of
Commerce's National Technical Information Service (NTIS) a public
file of death information. NTIS distributes the public file of
death information, also known as the public Death Master File
(DMF), to other agencies and private organizations, including
consumer reporting agencies. The Bureau has a data exchange
agreement with the SSA and/or NTIS to receive updated death
information.
The Defendant failed to cross-check the DMF to verify whether
Plaintiff was a part of the catalog of social security numbers that
belong to deceased individuals. Had the Bureau maintained
reasonable procedures it would have realized that Plaintiff is not
deceased. Had the Bureau attempted to timely verify if Plaintiff
was deceased, it would have realized he was in fact alive. Not only
was Plaintiff very much alive, but he even communicated with
Experian during the time they were reporting him as deceased.
Despite his communications demonstrating that he is quite alive,
Experian continued to report Plaintiff as deceased. Experian has
been reporting Plaintiff as deceased for many months. However,
Plaintiff's credit reports also show that he has been making
regular payments on one or more of his accounts. A deceased
individual cannot make payments.
Experian was therefore on notice that Plaintiff was not deceased as
evidenced by his recent payments. Yet Experian failed to correct
Plaintiff's credit report. Experian has been reporting this
inaccurate information through the issuance of false and inaccurate
credit information and consumer reports that it has disseminated to
various persons and credit grantors, both known and unknown. As a
result of Defendant's failure to comply with the FCRA, Plaintiff
has been damaged, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a "consumer."
Experian is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains
files on consumers on a nationwide basis and is regularly engaged
in the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing
information concerning consumers to third parties for the purpose
of furnishing consumer reports.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
1212 Reisterstown Road
Baltimore, MD 21208
Phone: 443-326-6011
Fax: 410-782-3199
Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com
- and -
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 x121
Email: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com
FCIC CONSULTING: Govea Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Silfa Karina Govea and Yudilein D. Serrano De La Rosa, both
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. FCIC Consulting & Financial Services, LLC and Moses Mays II,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-02182 (S.D. Tex., June 14, 2023) is a
collective action brought by the Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to them and all
other similarly situated workers employed by Defendants.
The Plaintiffs' class action and FLSA collective action claims are
based upon Defendants' alleged class-wide failure to pay employees
wages based upon overtime and minimum wage requirements. The
Plaintiffs seek damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs performed customer service at FCIC, and they were
employed there, respectively, from June 2022 until October 2023.
FCIC Consulting & Financial Services, LLC operates a credit repair
business in the state of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (773) 415-4898
E-mail: jdore@justicialaboral.com
FEDEX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Odometer Rollback Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nico DeMattia, writing for The Drive, reports that once FedEx vans
reach the end of their package-delivering lives, they're resold and
repurposed for various purposes. Many of them are turned into food
trucks, as their size and boxy shape are perfect for mobile
kitchens. However, FedEx is facing a lawsuit for selling such vans,
as it's being accused of the largest odometer rollback fraud in
history.
The lawsuit accuses FedEx of replacing the odometers in many of its
vans with new ones that read zero miles, using the vans for a bit
longer after that, and then selling them at auction with 100,000
miles or less on the new odometers. With such low indicated
mileage, business owners were buying the vans for top dollar,
thinking that there were still pretty fresh. However, their real
mileage was sometimes as much as four times the odometer readout,
thus leading to countless mechanical issues that would cost the
customers far more money. In some cases, the issues would be so
severe, the vans were useless and businesses went bust.
According to KTNV Las Vegas, Tom Layton of Henderson, Nevada first
noticed FedEx's odometer rollbacks in 2017. Layton, who's been
buying and selling trucks and vans for 36 years, bought a FedEx
Freightliner truck with around 180,000 indicated miles. When he
sold the truck, his buyer hooked it up to a computer that told them
the real mileage was around 400,000 miles. Layton filed his own
lawsuit back then, which is separate from the class-action lawsuit
FedEx is currently facing.
Since then, customers from California, Tennessee, New Jersey,
Florida, and Virginia have all noticed odometer rollbacks on former
FedEx vehicles.
FedEx didn't always sell its retired vans. Once they hit about
350,000 miles, they would usually scrap the vans. It wasn't until
2011 that FedEx started auctioning old vans off through its fleet
company, Holman Fleet Leasing (also a defendant in the lawsuit).
The lawsuit alleges that both FedEx and Holman intentionally
replaced the odometers to artificially inflate the values of the
vans, so they'd sell for higher prices at various auctions
throughout the United States. Then, according to the accusations,
both companies would split the profits.
"FedEx, with the knowledge and assistance of Holman, replaced
thousands of odometers on FedEx/Holman Vehicles," the lawsuit
states. "Though odometers, as automotive components, do
occasionally wear out or malfunction and need to be replaced, there
was no valid reason for this large-scale replacement of the
odometers on FedEx/Holman Vehicles, other than to perpetuate their
agreement to commit odometer fraud."
It isn't illegal to replace odometers and it isn't even illegal to
sell vehicles with odometers that have inaccurate mileage readouts.
However, to do so, a disclaimer needs to be made by the seller,
indicating to the buyer that its mileage readout is inaccurate and
that the odometer was replaced. According to the lawsuit, neither
FedEx nor Holman did that.
"Defendants purposely failed or refused to attach such a warning
because they intended to mislead potential buyers of the
vehicles."
However, FedEx denies the allegations. "We are aware of the
allegations made in the complaint and will vigorously defend the
lawsuit," a FedEx representative told Spectrum News. [GN]
FERRARA CANDY: Lozano Files False Ad Suit Over Gummy Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEANA LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FERRARA CANDY COMPANY HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-04670-RGK-JPR
(C.D. Cal., June 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the California Business & Professions Code and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that Black Forest Juicy Burst Fruit Flavored
Berry Medley Snacks, which are gummies manufactured, packaged,
labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are
misbranded and falsely advertised. The Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant uses the petrochemical-derived DL malic acid in its
products to create a sweet and tart flavor but pretends that it
uses only natural flavorings, misbranding the products and
deceiving consumers.
Ferrara Candy Company Holdings, Inc. is an American candy
manufacturer, based in Chicago, Illinois, and owned by the Ferrero
Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
FIFTH THIRD: $5.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 14
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP issued a statement regarding the Fifth Third
Bancorp Securities Litigation:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
STEVEN FOX, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, GREG D.
CARMICHAEL, TAYFUN TUZUN, MARK D.
HAZEL, NICHOLAS K. AKINS, B. EVAN
BAYH III, JORGE L. BENITEZ, KATHERINE
B. BLACKBURN, EMERSON L. BRUMBACK,
JERRY W. BURRIS, GARY R. HEMINGER,
JEWELL D. HOOVER, EILEEN A. MALLESCH,
MICHAEL B. MCCALLISTER, and MARSHA
C. WILLIAMS,
Defendants.
Case No. 2020CH05219
Judge: Hon. Celia G. Gamrath
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All who acquired Fifth Third Bancorp ("Fifth Third")
publicly traded common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with Fifth Third's
March 22, 2019 acquisition of MB Financial Inc.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, that plaintiff Steven Fox ("Plaintiff"),
on behalf of himself and the proposed Settlement Class, and Fifth
Third and the other Defendants in the Action, have reached a
proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action (the
"Action") in the amount of $5,500,000 that, if approved, will
resolve the Action in its entirety (the "Settlement"). (All terms
not defined herein have the definitions assigned to them in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated May 9, 2023
("Stipulation").)
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Celia G. Gamrath,
remotely via Zoom, at the Court's discretion, at 9:15 a.m. CDT on
September 14, 2023 (the "Settlement Hearing") using Zoom Meeting
ID: 928 4730 2982 and Passcode: 411367 to, among other things,
determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed
Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the
Action with prejudice, as provided in the Stipulation; (iii)
approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense
Application. The Court may change the date or location of the
Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. Please check
the Settlement website for information about the hearing:
www.FifthThirdBancorpSecuritiesSettlement.com. You do NOT need to
attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the
Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the
Settlement, www.FifthThirdBancorpSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:
Fifth Third Bancorp Securities Litigation
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O. Box 301170
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
(888) 219-6877
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than
September 9, 2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will
nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than August 24, 2023. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must
be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
filed and received no later than August 24, 2023.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: June 15, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
GEO GROUP: Olmos Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY OLMOS is taking an appeal from a court order denying his
motion for relief from a court ruling dated Sept. 16, 2022, in his
lawsuit entitled Timothy Paul Olmos, named as Timothy Olmos, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Charles L Ryan, Richard Pratt, Mark Shipman, Jeffery Wrigley,
Correct Care Solutions, Unknown Foster Dr., Crystal Bitz, GEO Group
Incorporated named as The Geo Group
Incorporated and Lori A Linn, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-03665-GMS-JFM, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona.
The GEO Group Inc. is a Florida-based company specializing in
corrections, detention and mental health treatment.
The nature of the suit is stated as Prison Condition.
On Sept. 16, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment through an Order entered by Judge G. Murray Snow.
The judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant and against the
Plaintiff as to Count Seven. The complaint and action were
dismissed.
On April 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the
Sept. 16, 2022 Order, which the Court denied on May 31, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Timothy Olmos v. Charles Ryan, et
al., Case No. 23-15892, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 15, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Timothy Paul Olmos opening brief is due on August
11, 2023;
-- Appellees Crystal Bitz, Correct Care Solutions, Foster, GEO
Group Incorporated, Lori A Linn, Richard Pratt, Charles L Ryan,
David Shinn, Director, Mark Shipman and Jeffery Wrigley answering
brief is due on September 11, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant TIMOTHY OLMOS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees CHARLES RYAN, et al., are represented by:
Ken Sanders, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL
416 W. Congress
Tucson, AZ 85701
GOOGLE INC: Susman Godfrey Obtains Class Action Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey, along with co-counsel Wolf Popper LLP, obtained
preliminary approval of a proposed $20 million class action
settlement agreement in a case brought by AdWords advertisers
against Google, Inc. "The settlement is a great outcome for the
class," stated Steve Susman.
The class action alleges claims against Google for breach of
contract, unfair competition, and false advertising, based on
Google's practice of charging AdWords advertisers more than their
per day daily budget and its related disclosures. The case is
pending in the Federal District Court of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division. Final approval of the settlement
will be considered on September 14, 2009. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: July 31 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Nathenael Gemechu, writing for Doha News, reports that Google has
lost in a lawsuit and will 23 million to customers who have used
its services from 2006 to 2013. Individuals are expected to get
around $7.70.
Users who operated any Google services from October 2006 to
September 2013 with a proof accompaniment could be entitled to a
small piece of a class action lawsuit against the tech giant.
The claims can be made online. While the amount for each individual
is supposed to fluctuate, estimates put it at less than $8.
This settlement comes after Google lost a case filed in 2013.
Accusations of the company "storing and intentionally,
systematically and repeatedly divulging" users' search queries and
histories to third-party websites and companies were rampant.
Despite not being divulged in Google's terms of service, personally
identifiable information like names, street addresses, credit card
and financial account information, and phone numbers were allegedly
sold out.
While Google admits no wrongdoing, it is forced to pay out $23
million. Part of the settlement is to regularly and transparently
update Google's data collection, storage, and relationship with
third parties in its FAQ page.
Users can submit their claim until July 31. Users would be asked to
enter their name, street, email address, and some form of
attestation. While it's unclear when the claims will be
distributed, the next court date for the case is October 12.
This isn't the first time the search engine company has lost user
privacy cases. Early last year, it was asked to pay $391.5 million
to settle allegations that the search and advertising giant
illegally tracked users' locations even when specifically asked not
to.
Last year, Meta, Facebook's parent company, agreed to pay $725
million to settle a similar class-action lawsuit over its handling
of user data. [GN]
GREEN MESSENGERS: Ibarra Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jonathan Ibarra and Jessica Nestor, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREEN
MESSENGERS, INC., a California corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-03940-HDV-KSx was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on June 22, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-03100-DMR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Green Messengers, Inc. is a courier service in San Diego,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Esq.
Alexandra Rochelle McIntosh, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP APC
2155 Campus Drive Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2355
Email: fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
amcintosh@haineslawgroup.com
- and -
Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN LLP
5900 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 920
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (323) 937-9900
Fax: (323) 937-9910
Email: phaines@bollaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brandon L. Sylvia, Esq.
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
18575 Jamboree Road
Ninth Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (714) 641-5100
Fax: (714) 546-9035
Email: bsylvia@rutan.com
- and -
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
Max C. Fischer, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: (213) 612-2500
Fax: (213) 612-2501
Email: jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com
brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
max.fischer@morganlewis.com
- and -
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, LLP
One Market Plaza
Spear Street Tower, Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 442-1790
Fax: (415) 442-1001
Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
HAVENLY INC: Shoffner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA SHOFFNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HAVENLY INC.; LEE MAYER; and/or any related
individuals and entities, Case No. 609706/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Nassau
Cty., June 20, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
commissions and damages including, inter alia, commissions earned,
overtime pay, commissions reduced, benefits, missing wages, illegal
deductions, and other monies, damages, penalties, and interest,
pursuant to New York Labor Law, the Miscellaneous Wage Order, NYC
Freelancers Law, contract law and other laws in New York.
During employment with the Defendants, Ms. Shoffner was allegedly
paid a flat project rate and was also partially paid commissions
based on the number of products that she sold to Havenly's
customers, in accordance with an agreement that she entered into
with the Defendants. Despite that Commission Agreement, its express
terms, and her substantial contributions to the Defendants'
business in compliance with that agreement, the Plaintiff was not
properly compensated, including (but not limited to) by not
receiving minimum wage and overtime payments, by not receiving all
earned commissions, by being subject to unilateral deductions in
her pay, by not receiving proper notice of wages or pay, by having
commissions withheld, and by other acts by the Defendants that have
harmed the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers, says the
suit.
Ms. Shoffner would work between 10 and 30 hours on a specific
project and would receive between $40 and $80 dollars, which would
equate to an hourly rate of pay of $3.00 per hour. The rates paid
to the Plaintiff and putative class members typically was far less
than minimum wage in New York and New York City. Ms. Shoffner would
also find a buyer of a Havenly product, who would then purchase the
product, and she would be paid less in commissions than she was
entitled under the Commission Agreement.
Accordingly, the Defendants elected to improperly classify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated workers as independent contractors
to avoid the Labor Law and other laws protecting workers in New
York State and New York City.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
others that performed work on behalf of Havenly Inc. and Lee Mayer
in the State of New York since 2016, and on behalf of a subclass of
individuals who did so specifically while located in New York City.
The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from
this Court, including to enforcing and/or invalidate part or all of
the Commission Agreement and to obligate the Defendants to cease
improper wage and commission payments to its workers.
Since 2020, Ms. Shoffner has performed work on behalf of the
Defendants as a salesperson, consultant, and interior design
advisor - under the direction, supervision, and control of the
Defendants.
Havenly is an interior design company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
HEALTH BENEFIT: Suhr Bid for More Time to File Class Cert OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUHR v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE AUTHORITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00694
(D.D.C., Filed March 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's consent motion for
extension of time to move for class certification.
The Court further ordered that the parties shall confer and propose
a class certification deadline at their initial scheduling
conference in this matter.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.
HBX is a private-public partnership established to foster
competition and transparency in the private health insurance
market.[CC]
INDIANA: Partial Prelim. Injunction Entered in KC v. Medical LB
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, K. C., et al., Plaintiffs v. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF
THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA, in their official
capacities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00595-JPH-KMB
(S.D. Ind.), Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division,
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.
Recently enacted by the Indiana General Assembly, Senate Enrolled
Act 480 is scheduled to become effective July 1, 2023. If it takes
effect, S.E.A. 480 will prohibit physicians and other practitioners
from knowingly providing gender transition procedures to a minor,
and from aiding or abetting another physician or practitioner in
the provision of gender transition procedures to a minor. Gender
transition procedures banned by S.E.A. 480 include the use of
puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormone therapy, and gender
reassignment surgery.
The Plaintiffs are four minor children, many of their parents, and
a doctor and her family medical practice. Alleging that S.E.A. 480
violates the United States Constitution and other federal laws, the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a preliminary injunction that
would prohibit the Defendants -- who are various State officials
--- from enforcing S.E.A. 480.
The Plaintiffs brought the action in April 2023, alleging that
S.E.A. 480's restrictions violate (1) the minor plaintiffs'
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights; (2) the parent
plaintiffs' "fundamental rights protected by due process" under the
Fourteenth Amendment, (3) the medical-provider plaintiffs' First
Amendment speech rights; and (4) Medicaid provisions in 42 U.S.C.
Sections 18116 and 1396d(a).
The parties have agreed that there should not be an evidentiary
hearing. To develop the preliminary-injunction record, they have
conducted substantial discovery, filed a statement of stipulated
facts, and designated extensive evidence. Despite the volume of
designated evidence and the contradicting expert opinions, the
parties have designated only a small portion of the evidentiary
filings in their briefs, generally relying on summaries of evidence
in their experts' reports.
Judge Hanlon held oral argument on June 14, 2023. He explained that
the State has a strong interest in enforcing democratically enacted
laws. And the Defendants have shown that there are important
reasons underlying the State's regulation of gender transition
procedures for minors. Still, the Plaintiffs have carried their
burden of showing some likelihood of success on their claims that
S.E.A. 480 would violate their equal protection rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment and free speech rights under the First
Amendment.
Under the evidence available at this preliminary stage, Judge
Hanlon noted that there is not a "close means-end fit" between the
State's important reasons for regulating the provision of gender
transition procedures to minors and S.E.A. 480's broad ban of those
procedures. So, when the State's interests are weighed against the
likelihood that the Plaintiffs will be able to show that S.E.A. 480
would violate their constitutional rights and the risk of
irreparable harm, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary
injunction.
For these reasons, Judge Hanlon grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. He grants in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to the
extent that, while the case is pending, the Defendants may not
enforce S.E.A. 480's prohibitions on (1) providing gender
transition procedures for minors except gender reassignment surgery
and (2) speech that would aid or abet gender transition procedures
for minors. He denies in part the Plaintiffs motion as to the ban
on gender reassignment surgeries. The Plaintiffs lack standing to
challenge that ban because gender reassignment surgeries are not
provided to minors in Indiana.
A separate injunction will be issued contemporaneously with Judge
Hanlon's Order. The assigned magistrate judge is asked to enter a
case management plan for resolving the case. The Court will then
set a trial date.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3n24hwr5 from Leagle.com.
INDONESIA: BPOM Faces Probe Over Tainted Cough Syrups
-----------------------------------------------------
Stanley Widianto, writing for Reuters, reports that Indonesia's
police are conducting preliminary inquiries into whether any
actions by officials at the country's drug regulator could amount
to criminal wrongdoing, as they expand a probe into tainted cough
syrups linked to the deaths of more than 200 children across the
nation, two top inspectors told Reuters.
The police scrutiny of Indonesia's food and drugs agency (BPOM) is
the latest escalation by states seeking accountability for
contaminated syrups that were linked to the deaths of dozens more
children in Gambia and Uzbekistan last year. The World Health
Organization is working with countries to investigate the global
pharmaceutical supply chain for such syrups.
Late last year police arrested and charged eight individuals at
Indonesian companies that imported and distributed raw materials to
drugmakers whose cough syrups were found to contain toxic
industrial-grade chemicals instead of the legitimate ingredient.
Andika Urrasyidin, lead police investigator of the case, told
Reuters police have called in "many" BPOM officials for
questioning, and the investigation is still underway.
"We're still looking into it. But . . . if there were actions, then
yes there needs to be responsibility," he said, declining to say
what, if any, charges may be brought.
No one at BPOM has been accused of wrongdoing. The police could
ultimately pursue criminal charges or close the probe without
taking action.
Officials from the BPOM did not respond to a request for comment.
Hersadwi Rusdiyono, the director of Indonesia's national police's
crimes detection unit, said BPOM officials were brought in as
witnesses, but investigators are now checking if any wrongdoing was
committed by drug regulators.
"We asked them according to their functions, as regulators, whether
they've conducted supervision and what kind of supervision," he
told Reuters. "They were only interrogated as witnesses, we're
coordinating with the prosecutors."
Hersadwi said the probe so far has focused on staff at lower levels
and not included BPOM'S chief, Penny Lukito. Penny did not respond
to a request for comment.
BPOM has said a spike in cases of acute kidney injury occurred as
several parties "exploited a gap in the safety guarantee system"
and pharmaceutical companies did not sufficiently check the raw
ingredients they used.
In January, Pipit Rismanto, a senior police official, told
reporters the authorities had found one company sold
"industrial-grade" toxins as pharmaceutical-grade propylene glycol,
a key base of syrupy medicines.
The toxins, ethylene glycol (EG) and diethyelene glycol (DEG), can
be used by unscrupulous actors as a substitute for propylene glycol
because they can cost less than half the price, several
pharmaceutical experts told Reuters.
Police have charged four companies involved in the case --
drugmaker Afi Farma, which allegedly sold tainted syrups, CV
Samudera Chemical, which according to the police supplied the
chemicals, and two of its distributors Tirta Buana Kemindo and
Anugrah Perdana Gemilang.
A lawyer for Afi Farma, which attended its first court hearing on
the case on June 20, said the company would respect the law.
Tirta Buana Kemindo declined to comment. CV Samudera and Anugerah
Perdana Gemilang could not be reached.
BPOM is also named in a separate class action suit launched in
January by parents whose children died or are suffering from
long-term complications of the acute kidney injury.
The first day of trial has not been scheduled and a mediation
process has just concluded, said the families' lawyer. [GN]
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: KSF Commences Securities Suit Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"), on June
24 disclosed that KSF has commenced an investigation into
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR).
On April 14, 2022, Blue Orca Capital reported that Michael King,
co-founder and CEO of one of the Company's largest tenants, Kings
Garden, Inc., had a history of fraud and theft allegations, name
changes, and litigation, and that this information was available to
the Company from early 2019, before it ever contracted with Kings
Garden. The Company, which had previously touted its extensive
background checks on prospective tenants/operators, subsequently
denied the Blue Orca report in its entirety, praising King as
having "one of the best reputations for product quality and
consistency." Then, in August 2022, the Company disclosed that it
had filed a civil lawsuit against Kings Garden, Michael King, and
related parties, alleging fraud, theft, and RICO violations.
The Company and certain of its executives have been sued in a
securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period in violation
of federal securities laws, which remains pending.
KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Innovative's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to its
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.
If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Innovative shares and would like
to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, call toll-free at 1-833-938-0905 or email KSF Managing
Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-iipr/ to learn more.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California,
Louisiana and New Jersey.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit ksfcounsel.com.
Contacts
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
INTERFACE INC: $7.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Interface Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THOMAS S. SWANSON, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERFACE, INC., DANIEL T. HENDRIX,
JAY D. GOULD, BRUCE A. HAUSMANN
and PATRICK C. LYNCH,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-05518-BMC-RER
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED INTERFACE, INC.
(“INTERFACE” OR THE “COMPANY”) COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD BETWEEN MAY 12, 2016 AND SEPTEMBER 28, 2020, INCLUSIVE, AND
ARE NOT OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS (“SETTLEMENT
CLASS” OR “SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS”)
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September
18, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., before Judge Brian M. Cogan, at the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, to determine whether: (1)
the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned
action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
(“Stipulation”)1 for $7,500,000 in cash should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) for purposes of
the proposed Settlement only, the Litigation should be certified as
a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class; (3) the Judgment
as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the
Litigation with prejudice; (4) to award Lead Counsel attorneys’
fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), and to award Lead Plaintiff reimbursement of its time
and expenses pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) in connection with
its representation of the Settlement Class, and, if so, in what
amounts; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or
telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Settlement Class Members
to appear remotely at the hearing, without further written notice
to the Settlement Class. In order to determine whether the date and
time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement
Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is
important that you monitor the Court’s docket and the Settlement
website, www.InterfaceSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any
plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at
the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.InterfaceSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court requires
or allows Settlement Class Members to participate in the Settlement
Hearing by remote means, the information for accessing the hearing
will be posted to the Settlement website.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED INTERFACE COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 12,
2016 AND SEPTEMBER 28, 2020, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form (“Proof of Claim”) by mail (postmarked no later than
September 13, 2023) or electronically (no later than September 13,
2023). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by September 13,
2023, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your
receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of
this Litigation. If you purchased or acquired Interface common
stock between May 12, 2016 and September 28, 2020, inclusive, and
do not validly and timely request exclusion from the Settlement
Class in accordance with the requirements set by the Court, you
will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice), and other Settlement documents, may be
accessed online at www.InterfaceSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
writing to:
Interface Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301171
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY AUGUST
28, 2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF
THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES NOT TO EXCEED 33-1/3% OF
THE $7,500,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED
$150,000 AND AN AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF NOT TO EXCEED $3,000 IN
CONNECTION WITH ITS REPRESENTATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS. ANY
OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL
AND DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL SO THAT THEY ARE RECEIVED BY AUGUST 28,
2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: May 26, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
1The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.InterfaceSecuritiesSettlement.com.
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Demeter Sues Over Fragrance Price-fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETER F.L., INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES INC.,
GIVAUDAN SA, GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORP., DSM-FIRMENICH AG, FIRMENICH
INTERNATIONAL SA, FIRMENICH INC., SYMRISE AG, AND SYMRISE INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03265 (D.N.J., June 14, 2023) arises
from an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, or maintain the prices
for fragrances and fragrance ingredients by Defendants in violation
of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.
On March 7, 2023, the European Commission announced that it had
carried out dawn raids at several suppliers and an industry
association in the fragrances and fragrance ingredient industry in
coordination with the Swiss Competition Commission, the U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division, and the U.K. Competition
and Markets Authority. Although the EC's announcement did not name
the companies that were under investigation, that same day, the CMA
announced that it "has reason to suspect anti-competitive behaviour
has taken place involving suppliers of fragrances and fragrance
ingredients for use in the manufacture of consumer products such as
household and personal care products, and named Firmenich
International SA, Givaudan SA, International Flavors & Fragrances
Inc, and Symrise AG as the subjects of the investigation.
The next day, COMCO revealed that the dawn raids were based on
"indications that several undertakings active in the production of
fragrances have violated cartel law. COMCO also identified the same
Defendants as the subject of the investigation and disclosed that
"there are suspicions that these undertakings have coordinated
their pricing policy, prohibited their competitors from supplying
certain customers and limited the production of certain
fragrances."
The Defendants are the four largest producers in the global flavors
and fragrances market, together comprising 64% of the market. Since
at least January 1, 2018, Defendants have allegedly imposed price
increases that are not adequately explained by competitive
factors.
The Plaintiff purchased fragrances and fragrance ingredients from
one or more Defendants at artificially inflated prices and was
thereby injured in its business or property. Thus, Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of itself and a Class that directly purchased
fragrances or fragrance ingredients during the period from January
1, 2018 until the effects of the conspiracy ceased.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BRYNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Hilary Scherrer, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: hscherrer@hausfeld.com
- and -
Scott Martin, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
- and -
Katie R. Beran, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com
JOHN WILEY: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (NYSE: WLY, WLYB) resulting
from allegations that Wiley may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Wiley securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17186 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 9, 2023, Wiley announced its Q3 2023
financial results, in which it disclosed issues at Hindawi, one of
its subsidiaries. The Company's CEO stated "Our third quarter
results and revised full year outlook are clearly below our
expectations" and "While our core business and markets are strong,
we've been challenged this year by unpredictable market headwinds
and an unplanned publishing pause at Hindawi." It was further
announced that "Research was down 4% as reported, or down 2% at
constant currency and excluding acquisitions, primarily due to a
pause in the Hindawi special issues publishing program. The program
was suspended temporarily due to the presence in certain special
issues of compromised articles. As a result, Hindawi revenue
declined $9 million vs. prior year, offsetting growth in other open
access publishing programs."
On this news, the price of Wiley Class A stock price declined by
$7.55, or 17.35%, to close at $35.96 per share on March 9, 2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Epstein Victims Seek Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Atkins, writing for NBC News, reports that the victims of
disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein formally asked a U.S. federal
judge in New York on June 22 to approve a $290 million settlement
with JPMorgan Chase over allegations that the bank turned a "blind
eye" toward Epstein's conduct and continued to finance him.
Attorneys for the victims said the cash settlement is "within the
range of reasonable resolutions" and is "adequate, and in the best
interests" of their clients, according to a memorandum filed in the
case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
The request comes after the Epstein victims and the Wall Street
giant agreed to resolve a suit filed in federal court last year by
a woman identified as "Jane Doe 1," who alleged the bank enabled
Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise.
The unnamed woman sued on behalf of a large number of Epstein
victims. A judge overseeing the case ruled that it could move
forward as a class-action lawsuit.
Epstein, who was convicted in 2008 of procuring a person under 18
for prostitution, was a JPMorgan Chase client for 15 years until
the bank severed ties with him in 2013.
He died by suicide in 2019 at a New York City correctional center,
where he was being held on federal sex-trafficking charges. [GN]
KRAFT HEINZ: $450MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 12
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN RE KRAFT HEINZ SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 1:19-cv-01339
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired The
Kraft Heinz Company ("Kraft Heinz") common stock or call options on
Kraft Heinz common stock, or sold put options on Kraft Heinz common
stock, from November 6, 2015 through August 7, 2019, inclusive
("Class Period"), and were damaged thereby ("Settlement Class"):
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois ("Court"), that the
above-captioned action ("Action") has been provisionally certified
as a class action for purposes of settlement, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated May 2, 2023 ("Stipulation") and the detailed
Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses ("Notice"). The Stipulation and Notice can be
viewed at www.KraftHeinzSecuritiesLitigation.com.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs Sjunde
AP-Fonden and Union Asset Management Holding AG and additional
named Plaintiff Booker Enterprises Pty Ltd. (collectively
"Plaintiffs"), and defendants Kraft Heinz, Bernardo Hees, Paulo
Basilio, David Knopf, Alexandre Behring, George Zoghbi, Rafael
Oliveira, and 3G Capital Partners and its affiliates, including the
following affiliated funds and business entities: 3G Capital, Inc.
(a Delaware corporation) and the Cayman Islands entities 3G Global
Food Holdings, L.P., 3G Global Food Holdings GP LP, 3G Capital
Partners LP, 3G Capital Partners II LP, and 3G Capital Partners Ltd
(collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of
the Action on behalf of the Settlement Class for $450,000,000 in
cash ("Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing ("Settlement Hearing") will be held on September 12, 2023
at 10:00 a.m. Central Time, before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso,
United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois,
in Courtroom 1903 of the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States
Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, to
determine, among other things: (i) whether, for purposes of
settlement, the Action should be certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, Plaintiffs should be appointed as
class representatives for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel
should be appointed as class counsel for the Settlement Class; (ii)
whether the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in
the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement
Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (iii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants
and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in
the Notice) should be granted; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees in the amount of 20% of the Settlement
Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $3.2
million (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of
the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs directly
related to their representation of the Settlement Class) should be
approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including
any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding
in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to
the website for the Settlement,
www.KraftHeinzSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only
a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice. You
may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, on the
website for the Settlement, www.KraftHeinzSecuritiesLitigation.com.
You may also obtain a copy of the Notice and Claim Form by
contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at Kraft Heinz
Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box
91207, Seattle, WA 98111; by calling toll free 1-844-798-0760; or
by sending an email to info@KraftHeinzSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be found on Lead
Counsel's websites www.ktmc.com and www.blbglaw.com.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment from the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online via
www.KraftHeinzSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than October 10,
2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim
Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered
by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than August 22, 2023,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not receive any benefits from the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than August 22, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this
notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims
Administrator:
Kraft Heinz Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91207
Seattle, WA 98111
1-844-798-0760
info@KraftHeinzSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.KraftHeinzSecuritiesLitigation.com
All other inquiries should be made to Lead Counsel:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq.
Joshua A. Materese, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
1-610-667-7706
-and-
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
1-415-400-3000
info@ktmc.com
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
Jesse L. Jensen, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
LFC AGRICULTURAL: Fails to Pay Migrant Workers' OT, Louis Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Thermanite Louis, and Monique Bertrand, individually on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LFC Agricultural Services, Inc., Kuzzens, Inc., and Six
L's Packing Company, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00284 (E.D. Va., June
20, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Migrant
and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and under Virginia
law.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of indigent
migrant farmworkers who worked in Lipman Family Farms' Virginia
packing facility. Most or all members of the class are
Creole-speaking migrant workers of Haitian decent who reside in
Florida. Many are older workers in their sixties or early
seventies. Many have limited literacy in Haitian Creole. Each year,
they would leave their families to migrate up the East Coast,
working at Lipman packing facilities in South Carolina and Virginia
before returning to work for Lipman in Florida.
Between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, when Virginia's overtime
law covered many agricultural workers, the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated were employed by the Defendants in hourly
(non-salary) capacities, were often required by the Defendants to
work in excess of 40 hours per week and did not receive overtime
compensation.
The Plaintiffs and class members worked extremely long hours when
production was high. For example, Ms. Louis worked 62.75 hours for
the week of July 23 to July 29, 2021, at a rate of $10.00 per hour.
Her earnings were $627.50 prior to withholdings and deductions.
However, had she been paid overtime for the 22.75 hours in excess
of 40 hours, she would have received $741.25, the suit claims.
On multiple occasions, the Plaintiffs and other class members were
required to wait upon arriving at the packing facility for the
produce to arrive before they were permitted to clock in. When
machinery in the packing facility broke down, Lipman required the
Plaintiffs and other workers to clock out and wait for the
machinery to be fixed. Lipman did not compensate workers for this
wait time, the suit adds.
The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated seek actual damages and
statutory damages under the AWPA. They also seek unpaid wages and
liquidated damages under the Virginia Overtime Wage Act. The
Plaintiffs and other class members have allegedly suffered damages
as a result of Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are entitled to recover the
greater of their actual damages, or statutory damages of up to $500
per Plaintiff per violation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1854.
Ms. Louis worked in Lipman's packing facilities in Florida, South
Carolina, and Virginia. In 2021, she worked for Lipman in Virginia
between July and September or October. Ms. Louis is a resident of
Florida.
Lipman is an interconnected web of privately held companies
constituting the largest field tomato producer in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Kristin F. Donovan, Esq.
Rachel C. McFarland, Esq.
Jason B. Yarashes, Esq.
LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Telephone: (434) 529-1813
Facsimile: (434) 977-0558
E-mail: kristin@justice4all.org
RMcFarland@justice4all.org
jasony@justice4all.org
LUXURY PERFUMES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luxury Perfumes, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Luxury Perfumes, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05316 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Luxury Perfumes -- https://luxuryperfume.com/ -- offer a wide
selection of fragrances from the world's leading brands.[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
MAMBA LOGISTICS: Faces Newton Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY NEWTON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAMBA LOGISTICS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV13747 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty,
June 14, 2023) is an enforcement action under the California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code,
to recover civil penalties on behalf of Plaintiff, the State of
California, and all individuals who worked for Defendants in the
State of California as hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees at
any time during the period from April 10, 2022.
The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the time period involved in
this case, Defendants hired Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees but
failed to properly pay them all wages owed for all time worked
(including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages),
failed to provide them with all meal periods and rest periods and
associated premium wages to which they were entitled, failed to
timely pay them all wages during their employment, failed to timely
pay them all wages due upon termination of their employment, failed
to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, failed to
maintain accurate payroll records, and failed to reimburse them for
necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Newton was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid delivery driver associate from approximately September
2021 to June 2022.
Mamba Logistics is a freight and package transportation
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
Miriam Schimmel, Esq.
Joana Fang, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 622-4278
E-mail: genish@blackstonepc.com
mschimmel@blackstonepc.com
jfang@blackstonepc.com
MANAGED CARE: Buechler Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
------------------------------------------------------------
James T. Buechler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., d/b/a MCNA DENTAL,
Case No. 0:23-cv-61192-X (S.D. Fla., June 22, 2023), is brought
against Defendant MCNA for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected medical and
health information, including, without limitation, "protected
health information" or "PHI", and "personally identifiable
information" or "PII" as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") (collectively,
PHI and PII are also referred to therein as "Private
Information").
In the course of providing services Defendant acquired and
collected Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI to facilitate
the healthcare-related services Plaintiff and Class Members
requested or received. Defendant knew, at all times material, that
it was collecting, and responsible for the security of sensitive
data, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly confidential
PII and PHI.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and more than 8.9
million other similarly situated persons by virtue of a massive and
preventable cyberattack that began no later than February 26, 2023,
by which cybercriminals infiltrated the computer system on which
the Private Information that Defendant was entrusted with and
responsible for, was stored (the "Data Breach"). Plaintiff further
seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that the PII
and PHI was maintained in a manner consistent with industry
standards, the HIPAA.
The Defendant knew or should have known of the cyber-attack by no
later than March 6, 2023. Nonetheless, Defendant waited more than
two and a half _ to inform victims of the Data Breach. Indeed,
Plaintiff and Class Members did not begin to receive notification
letters from Defendant informing them of the Data Breach (the
"Notice"), until commencing on or about May 26, 2023 and at various
times thereafter.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, Defendant assumed legal
and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from
HIPAA and other state and federal statutes and regulations, as well
as common law principles. HIPAA provides the standard of procedure
by which a medical provider must operate when collecting, storing,
and maintaining PHI and imposes a duty on MCNA to maintain the
confidentiality of such information. Defendant is charged, inter
alia, with legal violations predicated upon the duties set forth in
HIPAA that underpin those violations and that were not honored, or
were otherwise breached by MCNA.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI was safeguarded, failing
to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of
data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate
protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of
data, even for internal use.
As a result, the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members were
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to an
unknown and unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious
third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding
Plaintiff and Class Members in the future--and are entitled to
damages. In addition, Plaintiff and Class Members, who have a
continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and
remains safe, are entitled to injunctive and other equitable
relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received dental insurance services through MCNA.
MCNA is a dental benefits manager that describes itself as
providing "services to state agencies and managed care
organizations for their Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance
Program (CHIP), and Medicare members" as well as providing dental
plans for private employers, individuals, and families.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca Kester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: 813/223-5505
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
fkester@forthepeople.com
jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
Email: sward@barrack.com
- and -
Andrew H. Jeo, Esq.
Jordan R. Laporta, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 963-0600
Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
Email: ajeo@barrack.com
jlaporta@barrack.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Phone: 800-551-8649
Fax: 501-286-4659
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Branson Says
------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY BRANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61143-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 14, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and unjust enrichment arising from the unlawful
conduct of Defendant in acquiring, collecting, and storing
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal health
information/personally identifiable information (PHI/PII) and/or
financial information.
According to the complaint, on no later than February 26, 2023,
unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information as
hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of
the PII and financial information, including marketing and selling
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII. The total number of
individuals who have had their data exposed due to Defendant's
failure to implement appropriate security safeguards is a
staggering 8,923,662 persons.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PHI/PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps
to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow
applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and
procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a result, the PHI/PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit
off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future, says the suit.
Managed Care of North America, Inc. is a dental benefits manager
providing services to state agencies and managed care organizations
for Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program, and Medicare
members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
MARYLAND: Bid to Dismiss Albert v. Comptroller Franchot Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN ALBERT and BARRY DIAMOND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PETER
FRANCHOT, in his official capacity as the Comptroller of the State
of Maryland, Defendant, Case No. 1-22-cv-01558-JRR (D. Md.), Judge
Julie R. Rubin of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs Albert and Diamond bring the action challenging
provisions of the Maryland statute concerning abandoned and
unclaimed property. The Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of
Maryland. As defined by section 17-101 of the Act, they are also
"owners" of property currently in the Defendant's custody.
The Plaintiffs bring the class action on behalf of "all current
owners of unclaimed property held by the Comptroller in the form of
money." The Defendant is the Comptroller for the State of Maryland,
and, in that position, oversees supervising and administering the
Act. The Plaintiffs sue the Defendant in his official capacity.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Act allows for a taking in violation
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland
Constitution. According to the Plaintiffs, the Act deprives owners
just compensation because it does not provide recovery of interest
or dividends or other increments that accrue on the property after
delivery to the State.
On June 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the Class Action Complaint
for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Complaint sets forth two
counts: Claim for Declaratory and Prospective Injunctive Relief of
Under the Fifth Amendment (Count I); and Claim for Declaratory and
Prospective Injunctive Relief Under Article III, Section 40 of the
Maryland Constitution (Count II).
The prayer for relief seeks a declaration by the Court:
a. that the State's confiscation of interest, dividends,
earnings, or other fruits of the property delivered to the State
under the Act and the State's use of unclaimed private property for
public purposes while in the State's custody are takings of
property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and Article III,
Section 40, for which the State is required to pay just
compensation;
b. that the proper measure of just compensation is the value
of the property taken and returned to the owner, taking into
account the benefit to the State by its use of the unclaimed
property in its custody;
c. setting forth the appropriate standard for measuring just
compensation owed to an owner of unclaimed property that is used by
the State while in its custody;
d. that the Defendant must pay just compensation according to
the standard determined by the Court.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring the State
to comply with any just compensation standard determined by the
Court, as well as attorney's fees and costs.
The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguing that, to the
extent the Plaintiffs seek retroactive relief, those claims are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment; the Plaintiffs lack standing to
bring the action; the Plaintiffs claims are not ripe for
adjudication; and the Complaint fails to state a facial challenge
to the constitutionality of the Act.
First, the Defendant allows that he construes the Complaint to seek
only prospective and injunctive relief but argues that were the
Court to construe the Complaint to seek damages or retroactive
relief, those claims would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Judge Rubin agrees with the Defendant that the Complaint seeks
prospective injunctive and declaratory relief as allowed under the
Ex parte Young doctrine. She says the Plaintiffs' requested relief
seeks, to their way of seeing it, to bring the Act into compliance
with the Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution and the
Maryland Constitution. That the Defendant may have to spend state
funds to effect compliance with federal law does not remove the
Plaintiffs' claims from the Ex parte Young exception.
Next, the Defendant asserts (i) the Plaintiffs fail to allege facts
showing that they have suffered an injury; (ii) absent an actual
injury, no chain of causation is traceable to anyone -- including
the Defendant; and (iii) because the Plaintiffs have not suffered
an injury in fact, there is nothing to be redressed.
Judge Rubin opines that (i) she is satisfied that the Plaintiffs
have adequately alleged an injury in fact for Article III standing;
(ii) the traceability factor of standing is met because the alleged
injury -- the taking -- occurs pursuant to the Act, which the
Defendant enforces as Comptroller of the State; and (iii) the
Plaintiffs have ably pled an injury in fact that is traceable to
the Defendant.
The Defendant also argues that because the Plaintiffs have not
suffered an injury in fact, their demand for declaratory and
injunctive relief is, in essence, a demand for a disallowed
advisory opinion on a hypothetical circumstance. As such, it
argues, the Complaint must be dismissed for violation of the
ripeness doctrine.
Judge Rubin holds that the Plaintiffs adequately allege an injury
in fact that is traceable to the Defendant and redressable by court
action. The Plaintiffs' claims arose at the time of the taking;
therefore, their claims are ripe for the Court to determine whether
the Act complies with the requirements of the Takings Clauses of
the Fifth Amendment and Article III, Section 40.
The Defendants then argue that the Complaint does not adequately
plead a facial challenge to the Act because although the Plaintiffs
allege they would be prohibited from receiving interest (by
operation of the Act) if they filed a claim, they have not filed
any such claim. They further assert that the Act is silent
regarding interest and does not prohibit the Comptroller from
paying interest on property used by the State upon receipt of an
owner's claim.
Judge Rubin holds that at the pleading stage of the litigation, the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a constitutional challenge to
the Act. The Plaintiffs allege that an interest in unclaimed
property held by the State pursuant to the Act, that the Act
requires public benefit use of unclaimed private property held by
the State per the Ac, and that the Act effectively disallows a
demand for, and reimbursement of, interest, thereby denying their
just compensation for the State's use of their private property
while in its custody.
Finally, the Defendant argues that where a plaintiff fails to
allege facts plausibly stating a cognizable claim, declaratory and
injunctive relief cannot stand alone and should be dismissed.
Because she declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims at this
stage of the litigation, Judge Rubin opines that the Defendant's
argument that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to declaratory or
injunctive relief because such relief cannot stand as an
independent cause of action is without merit.
For these reasons, by separate order, the Motion is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yck7akba from Leagle.com.
MASON'S PROFESSIONAL: Watts Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA WATTS RASHAD and
CALVIN BELL, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated current and former employees, v. MASON'S
PROFESSIONAL CLEANING SERVICE, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability
Company, FLSA Opt-In Collective Action DOROTHY MASON, individually,
and ELLIOT MASON, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-02635-JTF-tmp
(W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) to enter an Order:
(1) authorizing the case to proceed as a FLSA collective action
for
overtime violations on behalf of similarly situated
hourly-paid
non-exempt custodial/janitorial/sanitation workers;
(2) directing the Defendants to immediately provide the
Plaintiffs'
counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last
names first), last known physical addresses, last known
email
addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and
last known telephone numbers of all putative class members;
(3) providing that the Court-approved notice be posted at all of
the Defendants' locations where putative class members work,
as
well as be mailed and emailed to the putative class;
(4) tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as
of
the date this is fully briefed; and
(5) requiring that the opt-in plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms
be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PvGmfC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in East Bay v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as East Bay Municipal Utility
District v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-00626 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 29, 2013), the Hon. Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7,
2023
of Defendants rolling production of
all document discovery relating to the
Upstream Issues and class certification
in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including April 4,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024
on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for
Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the
OTC class with respect to the Foreign
Defendants, Deadline to file motions to
exclude experts concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
-- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10,
2023
if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and
class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23,
2023
testimony abroad concerning the Upstream
Issues or class certification in the OTC
Action:
-- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19,
2024
interrogatories and RFAs concerning the
Upstream Issues or class certification in
The OTC action:
-- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024
concerning the Upstream Issues or class
certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream
Issues and class certification in the
OTC action:
-- Deadline for parties to serve April 19,
2024
opening expert reports concerning
the Upstream Issues and OTC class
certification:
-- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024
Expert reports concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
The East Bay case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262.
The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local
transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that
the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments
are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint
demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions
already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44oiRta at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Maragos v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maragos v. Bank of America
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02297 (S.D.N.Y., Filed April
8, 2013), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling
order as follows:
-- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7,
2023
of Defendants rolling production of
all document discovery relating to the
Upstream Issues and class certification
in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including April 4,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024
on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for
Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the
OTC class with respect to the Foreign
Defendants, Deadline to file motions to
exclude experts concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
-- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10,
2023
if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and
class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23,
2023
testimony abroad concerning the Upstream
Issues or class certification in the OTC
Action:
-- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19,
2024
interrogatories and RFAs concerning the
Upstream Issues or class certification in
The OTC action:
-- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024
concerning the Upstream Issues or class
certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream
Issues and class certification in the
OTC action:
-- Deadline for parties to serve April 19,
2024
opening expert reports concerning
the Upstream Issues and OTC class
certification:
-- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024
Expert reports concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
The Maragos case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262.
The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local
transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that
the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments
are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint
demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions
already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XBwiE8 at no extra charge.[CC]
MEIJER INC: Howard County Receives $562,000 from Opioid Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Juranovich, writing for Kokomo Tribune, reports that Howard
County is receiving more than half a million dollars in additional
opioid settlement money.
The Howard County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved
establishing a fund to deposit $562,000 from a national class
action lawsuit against Meijer Inc., the Michigan-based superstore
chain, that the county joined.
The county has received the money in one lump sum, County Attorney
Alan Wilson said, and will have to spend at least 85% of the funds
on opioid use and addiction abatement. The other 15% can be spent
at the commissioners' discretion. How exactly that money will be
spent has not yet been decided.
Meijer, like many other pharmacies across the country, were sued by
communities for their alleged role in contributing to the opioid
epidemic. Meijer specifically was alleged to have "contributed to
the opioid crisis by creating a public nuisance through its
distribution of prescription opioid medications sent to the
pharmacies it owns and operates in its stores," according to the
class action lawsuit.
Meijer denied those allegations and is not admitting any guilt in
choosing to settle the lawsuit. The total amount for the settlement
was $35 million.
This marks at least the second time Howard County has received
settlement money related to lawsuits filed over the opioid
epidemic.
The county will also receive a total of $4.3 million through 2038
from a separate national settlement with drug manufacturer Johnson
& Johnson and national distributors Cardinal Health, McKesson and
Amerisource Bergen.
In December, the commissioners approved allocating the first two
years (2022 and 2023) worth of that opioid settlement money,
totaling more than $982,562, to five local organizations, including
Turning Point -- A System of Care, Howard County Drug Free Task
Force, Valley of Grace, Gilead House and Family Service Association
of Howard County. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Spring Cove School District to Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altoona Mirror reports that The Spring Cove School Board approved
the 2023-24 general fund budget with no tax increase on June 19.
The budget puts the district's total projected expenditures at
$30,655,322 and total projected revenue at $28,188,738. With a
budgetary reserve of $600,000, the deficit is brought from a
$2,466,584 deficit down to $1,866,584, Business Manager Steven Foor
has said at previous meetings. With no tax increase, the millage
rate in the district will stay at 11.2506 mills.
Superintendent Betsy Baker said that the district always projects
its revenue low and its expenditures high. The district is also
always applying for grants to even things out as it waits for the
state to pass its own budget.
"It always balances for us," Baker said about the budget. "We have
reserves we could use if it comes out worse-case scenario, but
we're hoping we'll end up like we did in past years where we
haven't had to."
Social media lawsuit
The board also approved a resolution to join a class action lawsuit
against social media platforms for allegedly causing higher rates
of mental health issues in its student body, joining Forest Hills,
Williamsburg Community, Altoona Area and other area school
districts.
During the board's June 12 meeting, board solicitor Joseph D. Beard
had explained that the lawsuit argues that school districts are
experiencing higher rates of social disorders, social anxieties and
mental health issues among their student bodies because social
media platforms manipulate the human mind, creating an addiction.
"Their argument is that this has resulted in higher mental health
issues and they're suing the social media platforms in general,
like Meta, to recover funds to help address those types of issues,"
Beard said.
Baker said that there would be no cost to participate in the class
action lawsuit, but the district would receive money if the school
districts win their case.
In other matters, the board approved the establishment of a Central
High School Drama Club at no cost to the district and approved an
agreement with Crabtree, Rohrbaugh and Associates for completion of
a districtwide feasibility study.
"It gives them a better idea for planning for the future for bigger
projects and recategorize what's the bigger need and whatnot so
districts will tend to do those either on an as-need basis or on a
periodic cycle," board solicitor Jennifer Dambeck said.
Mirror Staff Writer Rachel Foor is at 814-946-7458. [GN]
MIKE FITZHUGH: Patton Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mike Fitzhugh, et al.
The case is styled as Bradley Patton, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Mike Fitzhugh, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Rutherford County, Tennessee; Melissa
Harrell, in her official capacity as Clerk of the Rutherford County
Circuit and General Sessions Courts; Judge James Turner, Barry
Tidwell, Howard Wilson, in their official capacity as Circuit Judge
for the Sixteenth Judicial District; Case No. 3:23-cv-00637 (N.D.
Ga., June 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Sheriff Mike Fitzhugh -- https://rcsotn.com/sheriff -- was elected
as Rutherford County Sheriff in September, 2018.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew Justice, Esq.
THE JUSTICE LAW OFFICE
1902 Cypress Drive
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Phone: (615) 419-4994
Fax: (877) 768-8271
Email: drew@justicelawoffice.com
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ruben Hernandez, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEOVIA LOGISTICS
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; NEOVIA
LOGISTICS DISTRIBUTION, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; and
DOES 1 through 100, Case No. CIVSB2305867 was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on June 23, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01221.
On May 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
against Defendants. The Plaintiff's FAC asserts: Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide
Meal Periods; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages
Due Upon Separation of Employment; Unfair Business Practices; and
California Labor Code ("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tracie Childs, Esq.
Keenan P. O'Connor, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: 858-652-3100
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
Email: tracie.childs@ogletree.com
keenan.oconnor@ogletree.com
NES GLOBAL: Molleur's Bid to Compel Discovery Reponses Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN MOLLEUR, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NES GLOBAL, LLC, Defendant, Civ. No. 22-777
DHU/SCY (D.N.M.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbough of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel responses to
several discovery requests from his second set of discovery.
In this proposed class action case, Molleur alleges that the
Defendant paid him and other employees "straight time for overtime"
-- i.e., it paid employees the same hourly rate for all hours
worked each week, including those over 40 hours -- in violation of
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Presently before the Court is the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. The Plaintiff seeks to the
compel responses to several discovery requests from his second set
of discovery (or what he calls "class discovery").
Before turning to the merits of the motion to compel, Judge
Yarbough addresses two initial matters the Defendant has raised:
The Plaintiff's failure to meet and confer and his excessive
exhibits.
At the outset, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's motion
should be denied because he failed to properly meet and confer on
the allegedly deficient discovery responses. Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), a motion to compel discovery must include
a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery to obtain it without court action.
Molleur explains that on March 21, 2023, his counsel conferred with
defense counsel regarding the discovery responses and sent a letter
outlining purported deficiencies. The Defendant supplemented its
responses on April 3 but the Plaintiff remained unsatisfied and so
filed his motion on April 4.
Judge Yarbough says given the March 21 letter, the Plaintiff's meet
and confer efforts were not totally absent. In his discretion, he
declines to summarily deny the Plaintiff's motion and considers it
on the merits. He advises the Plaintiff, however, that going
forward he should review and follow the Court's meet and confer
instructions concerning discovery disputes.
Next, the Plaintiff attached 13 exhibits to his motion, totaling
150 pages. In its response, the Defendant moves to strike the
exhibits. First, it argues that the total number of pages of the
Plaintiff's exhibits is triple that allowed by this Court's local
rules. Although this is correct, the Plaintiff has since moved for
an order extending the allowable pages, which the Court granted.
Second, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff unnecessarily
attached the entirety of both sets of his discovery requests as
well as all of the Defendant's responses, instead of just attaching
those responses at issue in the motion.
Judge Yarbough declines to strike Plaintiff's exhibits. He finds
that striking certain exhibits unnecessary. The Defendant also
requests that the Court strikes exhibit 1, which is a copy of the
Plaintiff's original class action complaint. Again, although this
exhibit is unnecessary since it appears elsewhere on the docket, no
compelling reason exists to strike it and doing so would require
more resources than not doing so.
In addition, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has failed to
disclose the identities of all putative class members.
Specifically, Interrogatory No. 1 asks the Defendant to "IDENTIFY
each PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER name, position(s), job title(s), dates
and location(s) of employment with YOU, last known home address,
phone number, and email address."
Four Requests for Production ask for related information:
1. Request for Production No. 3: All DOCUMENTS, with
computer-readable data, identifying all PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS (by
name, dates of employment/work, locations where services rendered,
the compensation you paid to them during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD,
their last known home address, phone number, and any email
addresses).
2. Request for Production No. 4: All documents submitted to
NES's Commercial and Legal Team for review or approval of any
decision regarding the classification or pay of PLAINTIFF or
PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS.
3. Request for Production No. 10: The timesheets and payroll
records for PLAINTIFF and PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER for the RELEVANT
TIME PERIOD.
4. Request for Production No. 11: The DOCUMENTS reflecting the
job duties or job descriptions for PLAINTIFF and PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBER during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
In response, the Defendant identified 10 putative class members by
name and dates of employment and produced the requested documents
for those 10 people. It also withheld the putative class members'
contact information based on a privacy objection. The Plaintiff now
moves to compel, arguing that the Defendant failed to disclose all
putative class members and related documents for those class
members.
Judge Yarbough agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff's
exhibits do not demonstrate that the Defendant's discovery response
is incomplete. More importantly, it has represented that the
individuals in the examples the Plaintiff provides worked for a
different company. The same is true for Plaintiff's argument
regarding Paulito Gallegos.
Judge Yarbough also accepts Lowri Thomas' representation and will
not require the Defendant to provide further assurance. The
Defendant will provide discovery related to "internal" employees
that fit the Plaintiff's discovery class definition. Otherwise, the
Plaintiff's motion to compel as to Interrogatory No. 1 and Requests
for Production Nos. 3, 4, 10, and 11 is denied.
Request for Production No. 12 seeks "the master services agreement,
along with any addendums thereto, between YOU and each third party
for which PLAINTIFF or the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS worked during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Judge Yarbough agrees with the Defendant
that the requested master services agreements are irrelevant to the
Plaintiff's claims and denies the Plaintiff's motion to compel as
to Request for Production No. 12.
Interrogatory No. 3 asks the Defendant "to describe the policies
and procedures used by YOU to ensure compliance with federal and
state wage and overtime payment laws and regulations, including but
not limited to the FLSA and NMMWA." Relatedly, Request for
Production No. 5 seeks "all documents and communication referring
or relating to your compensation policy that PLAINTIFF or PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBERS should be paid hourly or subject to a 'Retainer.'"
And Request for Production No. 9 seeks "the DOCUMENTS that contain
YOUR corporate policies and procedures regarding efforts to comply
with the NMMWA." The Defendant provided responses to all three, but
the Plaintiff asserts that the responses are insufficient.
Judge Yarbough denies the Plaintiff's motion to compel as to
Interrogatory No. 3 and Requests for Production Nos. 5 and 9. He
finds that given that the Defendant has produced responsive
documents and has represented to the Court that no other responsive
documents exist, he accepts this answer.
Interrogatory No. 4 asks the Defendant to "State the factual and
legal basis for your contention(s) that the proposed class is
inappropriate, specifically addressing the following affirmative
defenses raised in YOUR Answer." Similarly, Request for Production
No. 1 seeks "the DOCUMENTS YOU will rely on to prove YOUR
affirmative defenses." As to Interrogatory No. 4, the Defendant
objected and stated that it "will supplement its response to
provide a complete answer after the close of class discovery." As
to Request for Production No. 1, the Defendant directed the
Plaintiff to "all documents identified in and produced along with
Defendant's Initial Disclosures and as well as all other documents
produced in this litigation." The Plaintiff moves to compel
complete answers to both requests.
Judge Yarbough holds that class discovery is nearing its end. The
Court entered a Scheduling Order allowing class discovery to begin
on Jan. 31, 2023. Under that Order, class discovery closes on July
10, 2023 and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due
Aug. 10, 2023. Accordingly, he rejects the Defendant's argument
that the contention interrogatory is premature. The Defendant will
fully respond to Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for Production No.
1.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Yarbough grants in part and denies
in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Within 30 days of the
entry of his Order, the Defendant will respond to the following
discovery:
a. Interrogatory No. 1 and Requests for Production No. 3, 4,
10, 11: If the Defendant has only provided discovery related to
Candidate employees, it will provide discovery related to internal
employees that fit the Plaintiff's discovery class definition.
b. Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for Production No. 1: The
Defendant will provide complete responses to both.
The remainder of the motion to compel is denied. Additionally,
because he grants the motion to compel in part, Judge Yarbough
denies the Defendant's request for attorney's fees and costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5xtec4tz from Leagle.com.
NINETEEN BAR: Windheim Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA WINDHEIM, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NINETEEN BAR LLC,
and JOHN FRANCESCO, individually, Case No. 7:23-cv-01039-D-BM
(E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
his motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) collective action.
The Plaintiff moves to conditionally certify the following
collectives of similarly situated Servers and Bartenders:
-- Tip Notice Collective
"All servers and bartenders who worked at Nineteen Bar &
Restaurant in Hampstead, North Carolina, during the past three
years, who did not receive proper notice from the Defendants
that
they would be taking a tip credit toward the required federal
minimum wage.
-- Tip Share Collective
"All servers and bartenders who worked at Nineteen Bar &
Restaurant in Hampstead, North Carolina, during the past three
years, who were required to share any portions of their tips
with
their employer, managers, and/or supervisors.
-- 80/20 Collective
"All servers and bartenders who worked at Nineteen Bar &
Restaurant in Hampstead, North Carolina, during the three
years
preceding this lawsuit who were required to spend more than
20%
of any workweek performing nontipped duties and side work and
did
not receive the full applicable minimum wage."
-- Substantial Side Work Collective
"All servers and bartenders who worked at Nineteen Bar &
Restaurant in Hampstead, North Carolina, who were required to
spend 30 or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and
side
work during any shift after December 28, 2021."
Federal Overtime Collective
"All servers and bartenders who worked at Nineteen Bar &
Restaurant in Hampstead, North Carolina, during the three
years
preceding this lawsuit who worked more than 40 hours in
any workweek."
.
The Defendants paid a sub-minimum wage to Servers and Bartenders
and attempted to take a tip credit toward federal minimum wages
owed to these individuals for every single hour they worked but
failed to sufficiently notify Servers and Bartenders of the federal
tip credit as required under the FLSA.
Windheim worked for the Defendants as a Server from October 2022
through March 2023.
The Defendants operate Nineteen Bar & Restaurant located in
Hampstead, North Carolina. Within the past three years the
Defendants have employed dozens of Servers and Bartenders who
perform substantially similar duties at the restaurant.
These Servers and Bartenders, however, have been denied applicable
federal minimum and overtime wages. On June 14, 2023, the
Plaintiff, Windheim, filed his Consent to Join Collective Action.
A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion dated June 14,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JyWoBw
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
GESSNER LAW, PLLC
1213 Culbreth Drive, Suite 426
Wilmington, NC 28405
Telephone: (704) 234-7442
Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
- and -
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (704) 234-7442
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
NOVOCURE LIMITED: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 25
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of NovoCure Limited (NASDAQ: NVCR) between
January 5, 2023 and June 5, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than August 18, 2023.
SO WHAT : If you purchased NovoCure securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the NovoCure class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17256 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 18, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company concealed the
true nature of the LUNAR study resultsthat the overwhelmingly
positive way that the Company described them was only a half-truth
at best given that the study failed to evaluate the efficacy of the
drug against a population of patients that had been receiving
standard of care treatment; (2) as a result, the Company's business
prospects, effectiveness of its products, and ultimately the
likelihood of FDA approval were materially misleading during the
Class Period; (3) the foregoing, once revealed, was reasonably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial condition; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the NovoCure class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17256 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Court Extends Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 22,
2022), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a scheduling order as
follows:
(1) Motion to Compel is denied, without prejudice;
(2) Letter Motion seeking to extend deadline for the Plaintiff
to
file Class Certification motion is granted insofar as and to
the extent that the parties are directed to file by Sept.
24,
2023, status reports advising and recommending a date
certain
for the Court to set as a final deadline for filing of the
Class Certification motion; and
(3) Joint Motion seeking to stay discovery of putative class
members from outside of New York state is denied as moot,
for
the reasons set forth at the June 14, 2023, hearing.
The suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Ollie's Bargain offers brand name merchandise at up to 70% off the
fancy store prices.
PARAMOUNT EXCLUSIVE: Order Denying Cabir's Arbitration Bid Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PARAMOUNT EXCLUSIVE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff and Respondent v. SHANTELLE CABIR, Defendant and
Appellant, Case No. B315279 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Seven:
a. vacates the trial court's denial of Cabir's motion to
compel arbitration; and
b. remands to the trial court to vacate its denial and enter a
new order granting the motion to compel arbitration.
Paramount filed the action against its former sales agent Cabir,
alleging the latter breached a confidential information and
non-solicitation agreement and misappropriated Paramount's trade
secrets by soliciting Paramount's customers. Cabir filed a class
action cross-complaint against Paramount, alleging that it
deliberately misclassified her and other sales agents as
independent contractors and that Paramount wrongfully terminated
her in retaliation for complaints about the misclassification.
Paramount is an insurance broker and agent. Cabir worked for
Paramount from Oct. 2, 2012 through May 20, 2020, most recently as
a commercial sales agent. In May 2019, she entered into three
agreements with Paramount: an independent contractor commission
agreement, an arbitration agreement, and a confidential information
and non-solicitation agreement.
Cabir signed the independent contractor commission agreement and
arbitration agreement on May 6, 2019. In the independent contractor
agreement, Paramount agreed to pay commissions to Cabir at
specified rates. The agreement stated Cabir was an independent
contractor and was not entitled to benefits Paramount provides to
employees. Cabir signed the confidential information and
non-solicitation agreement on May 16, 2019. On May 20, 2020, Cabir
was terminated from Paramount. She went to work for Newfront
Insurance Services, Inc., a competitor of Paramount.
On May 29, 2020, Paramount filed the action against Newfront and
Cabir. A first amended complaint was filed on July 17, 2020. Cabir
filed a demurrer, which was sustained in part with leave to amend
and overruled in part. Paramount filed a second amended complaint
on Nov. 25, 2020, which Cabir answered on Dec. 28, 2020.
Paramount alleged that, in violation of the confidential
information and non-solicitation agreement and in violation of
duties arising out of her work relationship, Cabir misappropriated
its customer list and used its trade secrets and confidential
information to contact and solicit Paramount's customers. Paramount
asserted causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of written contract, and other
related claims against Cabir and Newfront.
On Aug. 17, 2020, Cabir filed a class action cross-complaint
against Paramount and its CEO Shawn Kohen. Cabir alleged that she
was employed by Paramount as a commercial sales agent and sales
manager, and that Paramount and Kohen deliberately misclassified
her and other insurance agents as independent contractors instead
of as employees. She alleged violations of Business & Professions
Code section 17200 et seq. and various provisions of the Labor Code
on behalf of herself and members of the class. She also alleged she
complained to Paramount about the misclassification and Paramount
retaliated against her in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 by
terminating her. She asserted claims for retaliation and wrongful
termination on her own behalf.
On Dec. 15, 2020, Newfront filed a cross-complaint against
Paramount, alleging, among other things, interference with business
relations. A first amended cross-complaint was filed on July 30,
2021.
On Oct. 14, 2020, Paramount and Kohen moved to compel arbitration
of Cabir's cross-complaint and to dismiss the class claims. On Dec.
23, 2020, Paramount and Kohen filed an amended motion to compel
arbitration. Cabir opposed the motion, arguing the arbitration
agreement was unconscionable and that Paramount had waived the
right to arbitrate by filing this action. On March 10, 2021, the
court granted the motion to compel arbitration of Cabir's
individual claims, implicitly denied the motion to dismiss Cabir's
class claims, and stayed the litigation as to the class claims
only. It denied the request to stay the action as to Paramount's
complaint pending completion of arbitration, but on April 2, 2021,
it granted a temporary stay while Cabir sought writ review.
Cabir filed a writ petition on April 16, 2021, and the Court of
Appeals summarily denied it on April 21, 2021. The trial court
lifted the stay on May 25, 2021. The trial court's order granting
Paramount's motion to compel arbitration of Cabir's cross-complaint
is not at issue in this appeal.
On June 15, 2021, Cabir filed a motion to compel arbitration of the
claims in Paramount's second amended complaint. In opposition,
Paramount argued that the trial court had already decided that
Paramount's claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration
agreement when it granted Paramount's motion to compel arbitration
of Cabir's cross-complaint. The court denied the motion, concluding
that Cabir waived the right to arbitrate. Cabir timely appealed
from the order.
The Court of Appeals opines that it does not need to review the
order granting Paramount's motion to effectuate any ruling in this
appeal. The court's order on Paramount's motion is not intermediate
to the order denying Cabir's motion.
Next, the Court of Appeals opines that the trial court erred in
denying Cabir's motion to compel arbitration. It finds that the
trial court's finding of waiver is not supported by substantial
evidence. The facts are undisputed. The only reasonable inference
we can draw from the undisputed facts is that Cabir did not waive
her right to demand mutual arbitration. The Court of Appeals thus
concludes the trial court erred in finding waiver.
In addition, Paramount's claims are within the scope of the
arbitration agreement, the Court of Appeals says. It finds that the
claims against Cabir in Paramount's second amended complaint fall
within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The agreement
further contains a severability provision stating: "If any
provision of this Agreement will be held to be illegal, invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions will remain in full force
and effect." Paramount did not argue in the briefing in the trial
court or in this appeal that its claims should not be ordered to
arbitration because the exclusion provision applies. Any such
argument has been forfeited.
For these reasons, the order denying Cabir's motion to compel
arbitration is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial
court with directions to vacate its order and enter a new order
granting the motion. Cabir's delay in seeking to compel arbitration
was reasonable, and Paramount has not demonstrated prejudice from
the delay. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the
undisputed evidence is that there was no waiver, and the trial
court's conclusion to the contrary is not supported by substantial
evidence. Further, Paramount's claims fall within the scope of the
arbitration agreement. Cabir is to recover her costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3pm5pwpj from Leagle.com.
Moore Ruddell, Bonita D. Moore -- bmoore@mooreruddell.com -- and
Howard D. Ruddell -- hruddell@mooreruddell.com -- for the Defendant
and Appellant.
Michelman & Robinson, Jeffrey D. Farrow -- jfarrow@mrllp.com --
Reuben A. Ginsburg -- rginsburg@mrllp.com -- and Samantha Drysdale
-- sdrysdale@mrllp.com -- for the Plaintiff and Respondent.
PRANA LIVING LLC: Alexandria Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prana Living, LLC.
The case is styled as Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Prana Living, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05297 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Prana Living, LLC -- https://www.prana.com/ -- was founded in 2008.
The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
clothing, furnishings, and accessories for men, women, and
children.[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
QC TERME NY LLC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against QC Terme NY LLC. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. QC Terme
NY LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04478 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
QC Terme NY LLC -- https://www.qcny.com/ -- is a tailored massage
offers through over 20 wellness spa experiences.[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
QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: Dunne Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY DUNNE, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL, INC., a Washington for-profit
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-05535 (W.D. Wash., June
14, 2023) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff
to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Washington Minimum
Wage Act.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and
the putative Class members overtime wages at rates not less than
1.5 times their regular rates of pay for all overtime hours worked
and failure to provide bona fide meal breaks. The Defendant also
violated, and is violating, the WWRA by willfully withholding
earned wages, says the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Dunne has worked for Quantum as a maintenance technician
at Quantum's residential communities in Vancouver and Camas,
Washington since approximately November 2021.
Quantum Residential, Inc. is a Property management company in
Vancouver, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
RABOBANK NA: Court Remands Villanueva Class Suit to Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOE VILLANUEVA, Plaintiff v. RABOBANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-00825-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R.
Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to
state court.
The case involves Rabobank's allegedly deceptive and unlawful
collection of overdraft (OD) fees from its customers. Five years
ago, Villanueva brought a putative class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. That
complaint alleged that Rabobank breached its contract with its
customers and violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by
assessing both continued OD fees and OD fees on the same
transaction. Rabobank compelled arbitration, but the arbitrator
ultimately found the arbitration agreement unenforceable. The case
was transferred to the County of Contra Costa, and discovery
began.
As of Jan. 21, 2022, Rabobank was aware that Villanueva was looking
into whether it had violated 12 C.F.R. Section 1005.17 (Regulation
E), a regulation that requires customers to affirmatively consent
to optional OD fee programs. On March 30, 2022, the parties
stipulated to allow Villanueva to file an amended complaint.
Villanueva filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) on April 15,
2022. Although the FAC again included just a single breach of
contract claim and a single UCL claim, it added a new theory under
the UCL explicitly based on Regulation E: that Rabobank charged its
checking account customers certain OD fees without their
affirmative consent or opt-in. The FAC thus alleged that Rabobank
violated the UCL by misrepresenting and failing to appropriately
disclose that the Continuing Overdraft Fee is assessed in addition
to a per-item OD Fee (the original theory) and because it violates
the opt-in requirements of Regulation E, which serves as a
predicate to the UCL's unlawful prong (the new theory).
On Dec. 2, 2022, Rabobank filed a demurrer requesting that the FAC
be dismissed in its entirety without leave to amend, because the
FAC failed to state a breach of contract claim and a UCL violation
based on either the continuing overdraft fee theory or the
automatic opt-in/Regulation E theory. It argued as to the
Regulation E theory that the Plaintiff's new claims can be promptly
disposed of for the simple reason that he has not pled any facts in
support of it. It also filed a motion to strike the proposed "no
opt-in class." Villanueva opposed both motions and Rabobank filed
replies in support of both motions.
The state court granted the motion to strike and overruled the
demurrer, holding as to the Regulation E theory that the FAC failed
to adequately allege a UCL violation premised on Regulation E
because it did not allege facts to show that the Plaintiff has
sustained injury pursuant to Regulation E. Regulation E requires a
bank customer to affirmatively opt in to overdraft protection
before a bank may charge OD fees for covering ATM withdrawals or
one-time debit-card transactions. The state court noted that
allegations of injury based on ATM or debit card transactions were
absent in the FAC, but concluded -- in light of a declaration from
Villanueva's counsel opposing the demurrer -- that Villanueva may
be able to amend to add such allegations.
Villanueva filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on Feb. 14,
2023. The SAC still included just a single breach of contract claim
and a single UCL claim. But it added additional facts about
Villanueva's injury under Regulation E: nine instances when
Villanueva incurred OD fees on ATM withdrawals and one-time debit
transactions. On Feb. 23, 2023, 10 days after Villanueva filed the
SAC, and over four-and-a-half years after Villanueva first sued,
Rabobank removed the case to federal court, asserting that there is
federal question jurisdiction because the SAC arises under
Regulation E.
Villanueva now moves to remand. The Court held a hearing on this
motion on June 9, 2023 and took the matter under submission.
Villanueva makes two main arguments in support of remand. First, he
argues that removal was untimely because it occurred more than 30
days after Rabobank had notice that the case was removable. Second,
he argues that his claims are based in state law and not on a
federal question, and so even if timeliness is not at issue,
jurisdiction is.
Judge Breyer need not reach the second argument, because removal
was untimely. The key rule is that where the case stated by the
initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed
within thirty days after receipt by the defendant of a copy of an
amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may
first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become
removable. Where removal occurs more than thirty days after a case
became removable, it is untimely. Neither party contends that the
original complaint was removable -- it did not raise the Regulation
E issue -- so the question is when the case became removable.
Villanueva contends that the FAC put Rabobank on notice on April
15, 20224 that the UCL claim relied on Regulation E, and so if the
UCL claim raises a federal question, Rabobank should have removed
the case within thirty days of April 15, 2022. Rabobank responds
that while the FAC asserted a UCL violation predicated on a
violation of Regulation E, the FAC did not trigger Rabobank's
30-day deadline to remove the case because it did not adequately
plead a UCL violation predicated on a violation of Regulation E.
Judge Breyer turns to the question of what put Rabobank on notice
that the case was removable to federal court, triggering the 30-day
deadline to remove. He says Rabobank has not cited to any authority
holding that a claim must be able to survive a motion to strike to
trigger the removal clock. Rabobank agreed to the filing of the FAC
to allow Villanueva to add the Regulation E theory, and that is
what the FAC did. The FAC therefore is quite possibly an amended
pleading from which it may first be ascertained that the case is
one which is or has become removable.
Even if the FAC did not start the removal clock, Judge Breyer says
the case's removability was clear before the filing of the SAC.
While Rabobank had no obligation to search its records for evidence
of Villanueva's injury when it received the FAC, Rabobank had
produced that exact evidence to Villanueva earlier in the case and
Villanueva cited to that exact evidence in two filings prior to the
SAC: in his opposition to Rabobank's demurrer and his filed
declaration from his counsel in support of his opposition to the
demurrer. These filings both occurred on Dec. 30, 2022 -- more than
30 days before Rabobank removed the case.
Rabobank, therefore, did not need to wait for Villanueva to file
the SAC to know whether Villanueva would include a UCL claim
predicated on a Regulation E violation, whether Rabobank would be a
named defendant, or whether Villanueva would have standing to bring
such a claim. The "other papers" Villanueva filed on Dec. 30, 2022
put Rabobank on notice that the jurisdictional facts supporting
removal were evident. Hence, the removal clock started to run no
later than Dec. 30, 2022. Because Rabobank waited more than 30 days
after that to remove, removal was improper. The case belongs back
the state court.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Breyer grants the motion to
remand.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6sad585 from Leagle.com.
RAHMAN FOOD: Sherpa Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TASHI SHERPA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
RAHMAN FOOD USA INC., SAGAR CHINESE, INC., SAGAR RESTAURANT INC.,
d/b/a SAGAR CHINESE, SHAMIUR RAHMAN, RUKSHANA AKTER, MIRON AHMED
SIDDIQUE, and JABER DOE, Case No. 1:23-cv-04583 (E.D.N.Y., June 20,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages due to off the clock
work, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as
unpaid regular and overtime wages due to off the clock work,
misappropriated tips, liquidated damages for the late payment of
wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law, the supporting New
York State Department of Labor Regulations, and the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff regularly worked five to six days per
week. She would either work a full day shift or a half day shift.
On a typical week, the Plaintiff worked between 50 and 60 hours per
week. Throughout her employment, despite the Plaintiff working well
over 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff was only paid for around
20-22 hours of work each week. Based on her observations and
conversations with her co-workers, FLSA Collective Members and
Class Members were similarly only paid for a fraction of the hours
they worked, the Plaintiff says.
Additionally, the Defendants required the Plaintiff, FLSA
Collective Members and Class Members to share their tips with
members of Sagar Chinese's management team through a tip pooling
system. Specifically, the general manager, Miron Ahmed Siddique,
would take an equal share of the tip pool despite him not directly
serving customers. As a result of the Defendants' invalid tip
policies and practices, the Plaintiff and other tipped employees at
Sagar Chinese were not paid the full and proper tip amounts every
week, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiff further alleges, pursuant to the New York State Human
Rights Law, New York State Executive Law, and New York City Human
Rights Law, that she was deprived of her statutory rights as a
result of Defendants' discriminatory employment practices on the
basis her gender, ethnicity, national origin, and religion, and
seeks to recover economic damages, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a server at
the Sagar Chinese restaurant located at 74-19 37th Avenue, Jackson
Heights, NY 11372 from September 14, 2018, to March 20, 2023.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN KWON & LAM LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 295-5825
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
REDEEMER HEALTH: Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REDEEMER HEALTH, and HOLY REDEEMER
HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. CIV SB 2309124 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the United States District Court, Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on June 22, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-02405.
The Plaintiff's case seeks to undermine the substantial efforts of
Defendants Redeemer Health and Holy Redeemer Health System to
fulfill longstanding federal policy to expand the use of electronic
health records ("EHR") and bring the U.S. health infrastructure
into the 21st century. Plaintiff challenges common methods by which
both the federal government and private healthcare providers seek
to increase patient engagement with EHR.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey D. Grossman, Esq.
William T. Mandia, Esq.
Chelsea A. Biemiller, Esq.
STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP
A Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership
2005 Market Street, Suite 2600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 564-8000
Fax: (215) 564-8120
Email: jgrossman@stradley.com
wmandia@stradley.com
cbiemiller@stradley.com
RESORTPASS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resortpass, Inc. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Resortpass, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05180 (S.D.N.Y., June 20,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ResortPass -- https://www.resortpass.com/ -- offers day access to
luxury hotel amenities in their own neighborhoods.[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
RICOLA USA INC: Jordan Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ricola USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Tabitha Jordan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ricola USA, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-03212-CRL-KLM (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Ricola USA, Inc. -- https://www.ricola.com/ -- headquartered in
Morris Plains, NJ, is the U.S. branch of the Swiss cough drop
manufacturer. The company produces one of the most recognized
brands of cough drops made of herbal ingredients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 260-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ROBINS JEAN RETAIL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robins Jean Retail,
Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Robins Jean Retail, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05061-PAE-VF (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Robin's Jean -- https://robinsjean.com/ -- is an apparel & fashion
company specializing in Robins Jeans.[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
RON NEAL: Court Tosses Mayberry Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY MARCUS MAYBERRY,
v. RON NEAL, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00406-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.),
the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty entered an order denying Mayberry's
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring the case on behalf of all similarly
situated prisoners at Indiana State Prison.
To be certified as a class, Mr. Mayberry must first satisfy the
four elements in Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy of representation. Here, Mr. Mayberry cannot satisfy
the element of adequacy of representation because as a nonlawyer,
he cannot represent the other potential members of the class, The
Court says.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) Denies the motion for a preliminary injunction;
(2) Denies the motion for class certification;
(3) Grants Timothy Marcus Mayberry until July 13, 2023, to
resolve
his filing fee status; and
(4) Cautions him if he does not respond by the deadline, the case
may be dismissed without further notice.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JtHxbI at no extra charge.[CC]
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Seeks to Hold Class Cert Response Briefing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, for himself
and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order holding the response briefing to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
1. On April 28, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit issued an Opinion vacating this Court's class
certification ruling and finding that the Plaintiff
"undisputedly lacked standing as to the 26 non-Gratiot
Counties."
2. Because the Courts November 18, 2022 stay remains in place,
the
deadline for the Defendants to respond to that motion has not
yet begun to run.
3. The Defendants note since the Sixth Circuit's ruling,
additional
doubt has been cast on the viability of class certification
in
these cases.
4. The Plaintiff's class certification motion relied heavily on
a
class certified by the Michigan Court of Claims in Hathon v.
State of Michigan, but the Michigan Supreme Court recently
granted oral argument on the application for leave to appeal
that ruling, and requested supplemental briefing to determine
whether the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction to certify a
class action based on the statutory mechanism available under
2020 PA 256, and "whether the Court of Claims abused its
discretion by certifying a class in this case."
5. In summary, the non-Gratiot counties should not be required
to
respond to the Plaintiff's class certification ruling because
the Court lacks jurisdiction over those counties.
Saginaw County contains three cities, 27 townships and six
incorporated villages.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 13, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jq0ex6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
Kyle M. Asher, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
Lansing, MI 48933
E-mail: kasher@dykema.com
tseitz@dykema.com
- and -
Matthew T. Wise, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY
37000 Woodward, Ste. 225
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
E-mail: mwise@grsm.com
- and -
Charles A. Lawler, Esq.
CLARK HILL
212 E. Grand River Avenue
Lansing, MI 48906-4328
E-mail: clawler@clarkhill.com
- and -
Michael G. Brady, Esq.
Matthew T. Nelson, Esq.
WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP
1500 Warner Building
150 Ottawa Avenue NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
E-mail: mnelson@wnj.com
- and -
Frank J. Krycia, Esq.
Peter C. Jensen, Esq.
MACOMB COUNTY CORPORATION
COUNSEL
1 South Main Street, 8th Floor
Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
E-mail: frank.krycia@macombgov.org
- and -
Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq.
CUMMINGS MCCLOREY DAVIS & ACHO
2851 Charlevoix Dr. SE, Suite 327
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
E-mail: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com
SAKS FIFTH: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Henderson
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONIQUE T. HENDERSON, v.
SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09925-AT-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
Pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
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 Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- The Plaintiff has requested an extension but has not specified
the length of extension she requests, nor has she indicated
whether defendant consents to her request. In light of
plaintiff's pro se status, the Court grants request for an
extension and extends plaintiff's deadline to respond to June
27,
2023.
Saks Fifth is an American luxury department store chain
headquartered in New York City and founded by Andrew Saks.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43ZqYg0 at no extra charge.[CC]
SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED: Hawkins Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Russell Hawkins, 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-07620 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 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22260 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried, also known by the initials SBF, is
an American entrepreneur, investor, and alleged fraudster.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED: Imbert Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kenny Imbert, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED, ZIXIAO "GARY"
WANG, NISHAD SINGH and CAROLINE ELLISON., Case No. 3:23-cv-02475
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 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22266 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried, also known by the initials SBF, is
an American entrepreneur, investor, and alleged fraudster.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Audet, Esq.
Ling (David) Kuang, Esq.
Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
Phone: (415) 568-2555
Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
Email: waudet@audetlaw.com
lkuang@audetlaw.com
kkessler@audetlaw.com
SAN DIEGO, CA: Dismissal of Buckelew Prisoner Complaint Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DION SCOTT BUCKELEW, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM D. GORE;
CAPTAIN BUCHANAN; CAPTAIN HAYES, Defendants, Case No. 21cv0810-LL
(NLS) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California recommends
that:
a. the Defendants' motions to dismiss be granted; and
b. the Defendants' motions to strike portions of the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint be granted and denied
in part.
The Report and Recommendation is submitted to U.S. District Judge
Linda Lopez pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) and Civil Local
Rule 72.1(c) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.
Buckelew filed the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated at San Diego Central Jail on several occasions. Now
pending before the Court are motions to dismiss and strike portions
of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed by Sheriff
William D. Gore, Captain Buchanan, and Captain Hays.
On April 23, 2021, the Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 against Defendant Gore and several others. The complaint
alleged several constitutional rights violations, based on failure
to prevent the Plaintiff from contracting COVID-19 while
incarcerated, denial of religious services, and failure to prevent
a physical attack. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to state a claim with leave to file an amended
complaint.
On July 12, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
("FAC"), which was largely unchanged from his initial complaint,
except for the addition of Captain Buchanan and Captain Hays as
Defendants. Defendant Gore moved to dismiss the FAC, joined by
specially appearing Defendants Buchanan and Hays.
The Court granted the motion, but again granted the Plaintiff leave
to amend his complaint. The order stated that the SAC had to be
limited to claims arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,
or series of occurrences, that presented questions of law or fact
common to all defendants, and that it "must not alter the nature of
the suit by alleging new unrelated claims." In other words, the
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend: (1) the First Amendment free
exercise claim (Count 1); and the (2) Fourteenth Amendment
conditions claim related to medical care (Count 2).
Despite the Court's order, the Plaintiff's SAC realleged a
previously dismissed claim and added four unrelated claims against
twelve new defendants. The Court struck the surplus claims and
dismissed the additional defendants. Therefore, the Court will only
consider the remaining claims and the Defendants in its analysis of
the Plaintiff's SAC as follows:
Count 1: Free Exercise of Religion, which alleges claims under
RLUIPA and Section 1983 for violation of the First Amendment from
March 15, 2020, to May 4, 2022 (Listing William D. Gore, Captain
Buchanan, and Captain Hays as Defendants).
Count 2: Deliberate Indifference under the Fourteenth
Amendment based on failure to protect the Plaintiff from the
COVID-19 virus on Dec. 16, 2020 (Listing Captain Buchanan and
Captain Hays as Defendants).
The Plaintiff's two claims are essentially unchanged from his FAC,
except for an expansion in the first claim's violation date to
include 2022.
The Plaintiff's first claim alleges that the Defendants violated
his rights to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and
rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act ("RLUIPA"). Specifically, he alleges that from March 15, 2020,
to May 4, 2022, the Defendants denied him access to church
services, communion, and pastor/chaplain services. The Plaintiff
alleges that such denials during the COVID-19 pandemic severely
burdened his religious beliefs and caused him to suffer mental and
physical damage. He alleges that these denials were all due to
policies and procedures implemented and carried out by the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff's second claim alleges that the Defendants Buchanan
and Hays violated his rights to be "free from infectious diseases,"
from cruel and unusual punishment, and to medical care by
implementing and carrying out COVID-19 protocols that resulted in
Plaintiff contracting the virus around Dec. 16, 2020. He further
alleges that he contracted the virus at least two other times while
in custody, and that after contracting the virus, he was not given
proper and adequate medical treatment. He claims that he suffered
from various physical ailments because of contracting the virus.
Judge Stormes first considers the Defendants' motions to dismiss
the Plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. She
recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
First Amendment claim under Section 1983 be granted. She finds that
because the SAC fails to allege both necessary elements of a free
exercise claim, it fails to state a free exercise claim upon which
relief may be granted. Even if the SAC had sufficiently stated a
free exercise claim, the Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient
to meet the level of specificity required to state a Section 1983
claim.
Next, analyzing the same set of facts, Judge Stormes considers the
Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim. She says the Plaintiff's claim is now
rendered moot because he has been transferred to a prison in
Lancaster and the parties no longer possess a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome. In other words, the only relief available
to the Plaintiff under RLUIPA was to remove the alleged substantial
burden on her religious exercise by the Defendants, and the
Defendants are no longer able to impose or remove any restrictions
on the Plaintiff's religious exercise. Accordingly, Judge Stormes
recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
RLUIPA claim be granted.
Next, Judge Stormes considers the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment
Claim. She finds that listing more of such generalized allegations,
without more specific allegations that explain how the Defendants
Buchanan and Hays subjected the Plaintiff to a substantial risk of
serious harm, does not sufficiently state a claim. Moreover, the
Plaintiff does not explain how each Defendant was specifically
responsible for any of the alleged failures, which fails to specify
the required causal link between each Defendant's actions and the
claimed constitutional violation. Accordingly, Judge Stormes that
Buchanan and Hays' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Fourteenth
Amendment claim be granted.
Next, Judge Stormes considers the Defendants' motion to dismiss or
strike portions of the Plaintiff's SAC. The Defendants' move to
strike or dismiss various portions of the Plaintiff's SAC,
including a miscellaneous letter, state court documents, an
injunctive relief request, and a punitive damages request. The
Defendants argue that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(f), the miscellaneous letter and dismissed state court documents
should be stricken because they are immaterial to the Plaintiff's
claims and not part of a pleading. They also argue that the
injunctive relief request should be dismissed as moot because the
Plaintiff lacks standing, and his punitive damages request stricken
for not being recoverable against the Defendants in their official
capacity.
Judge Stormes recommends that the Defendants' motion to strike the
Plaintiff's miscellaneous letter be granted. She holds that the
Defendants correctly argue that the Plaintiff's letter is
immaterial to his claims at present. She also recommends that the
Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiff's state court documents
be granted. She finds that the documents consist of hearing date
notices, a certification of service by mail, minute orders, the
complaint, and summons. The state court documents are impertinent
to the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff's dismissed state court
case does not pertain to his current claims in federal court, and
the documents are not necessary to the issues in question.
Judge Stormes further recommends that the Plaintiff's injunctive
relief claim be denied as moot. The Plaintiff was transferred from
San Diego Central Jail to a prison in Lancaster, which means that
he is no longer subject to the alleged conduct by the Defendants.
Furthermore, an inmate's claims for injunctive relief are generally
moot upon transfer to a different institution unless there is a
reasonable expectation that the Plaintiff will return to the
Defendants' custody.
The Defendants correctly argue that California Government Code
section 818 "bars any award of punitive damages against a public
entity." However, because she finds that the Plaintiff's SAC failed
to state a claim, Judge Stormes says the punitive damages request
for relief is moot. Therefore, she recommends that the Defendants'
motion to strike the Plaintiff's punitive damages request be denied
as moot.
Despite being given multiple opportunities and guidance from the
Court, the Plaintiff has continuously failed to cure the
deficiencies in his complaint. Judge Stormes believes that the
Plaintiff has put his best case forward. If the Plaintiff has
missing facts that would transform the complaint into a plausible
claim for relief, the facts should have been included in the
previous three complaints. Accordingly, Judge Stormes recommends
that the Plaintiff be denied leave to amend his complaint.
Lastly, on Nov. 16, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a document that
included several requests to the Court. First, the Plaintiff asks
the Court to consider a retaliation claim, which was briefly
mentioned in his SAC, against several newly named defendants. Judge
Stormes declines to consider the retaliation claim in the present
action. Second, the Plaintiff asks the Court for an appointment of
counsel. Judge Stormes finds that the Plaintiff still does not meet
the "exceptional circumstances" standard required for appointment
of counsel.
The Plaintiff states in his filing that he withdrawals from suing
the Defendants in their official capacity and only sues the
Defendants in their individual capacity. Judge Stormes declines to
consider this amendment to the Plaintiff's SAC. The Plaintiff has
not requested, nor has he been granted leave to make such an
amendment. Therefore, the analysis of the Plaintiff's claims
against the Defendants both in their individual and official
capacity still stands.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Stormes recommends that the
Defendants' motions to dismiss be granted, and:
a) the Plaintiff's First Amendment Freedom of Association
claim be dismissed without leave to amend;
b) the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim be
dismissed without leave to amend;
c) the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiff's
miscellaneous letter and state court documents be granted; and
d) the Defendants' motion to strike or dismiss the Plaintiff's
injunctive relief and punitive damages claim be denied as moot.
The Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). No later than July 7, 2023, any party
to the action may file written objections and serve a copy on all
parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Report and
Recommendation." Any reply to the objections must be filed and
served on all parties no later than July 21, 2023. The parties are
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the
Court's order.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwbnhyac from
Leagle.com.
SAVIAN PIZZA CORP: Joseph FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rosalyn Joseph, on behalf of herself v. Savian
Pizza Corp., Trinacria Group Staten Island Inc., Salvatore
Lopiccolo, Rosalyn Joseph, on behalf of other similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Case No. 1:23-cv-01960 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on June 16, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-04584-LDH-PK to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Savian Pizza Corp is located in Staten Island, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein
Eunon Jason Mizrahi
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Fax: (646) 786-3170
Email: joshua@levinepstein.com
jason@levinepstein.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stuart Robert Berg
STUART R. BERG P.C.
1205 Franklin Ave.
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 747-9494
Fax: (516) 742-9680
Email: srberglaw@AOL.com
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scientific Drilling
International, Inc. The case is styled as Paul Esparza, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Scientific Drilling International, Inc., Case No. BCV-23-101895
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 16, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Scientific Drilling International (SDI) --
https://scientificdrilling.com/ -- is an independent service
provider offering complete high, accurate wellbore navigation and
drilling solution.[BN]
SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL: Edelman Sues Over Unlawful Misconduct
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Edelman, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P., GATO INVESTMENTS,
L.P., GEMINI LATIN HOLDINGS LLC, PETER M. KERN, ADAM RIESS, ERIC
ZINTERHOFER, LEO HINDERY, JR., ERNESTO VARGAS GUAJARDO, ALAN J.
SOKOL and JAMES MCNAMARA, Case No. 2023-0638-JTL (Del. Chancery
Ct., June 26, 2023), is brought against the Defendants named herein
to remedy their misconduct in connection with the acquisition (the
"Buyout") of the public shares of Hemisphere Media Group, Inc.
("Hemisphere" or the "Company"), by Hemisphere's controlling
stockholder, Searchlight Capital Partners, L.P.
On May 9, 2022, Hemisphere announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 9, 2022 (the "Merger
Agreement"), pursuant to which Hemisphere's controlling
stockholder, Searchlight, through its portfolio investment entity,
Gato Investments, L.P., would acquire the public minority interest
in the Company for $7 cash per share (the "Merger Consideration").
The Buyout also included the concurrent sale of Pantaya, LLC (the
"Pantaya Transaction"), the leading Spanish language streaming
platform in the United States, to TelevisaUnivision, Inc.
("TelevisaUnivison"). Searchlight and a private equity firm
ForgeLight LLC ("ForgeLight") are significant holders of
TelevisaUnivision common stock.
Searchlight was Hemisphere's controlling stockholder. Through its
portfolio investment entity, Gato, Searchlight controlled a
majority of the voting power of all of the Company's capital stock.
As a result, the Pantaya Transaction was effectively a transfer of
assets from one Searchlight subsidiary to another Searchlight
subsidiary.
On September 13, 2022, Hemisphere consummated the Buyout by filing
a Certificate of Merger with the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware. The Buyout represented a freeze-out of the public
minority interest in Hemisphere by Hemisphere's controlling
stockholder. Publicly available information indicated that the
Board failed to act with due care or in good faith to protect the
Company's unaffiliated stockholders from the self-interested
demands of the Company's controlling stockholder while negotiating
and approving the Merger Agreement in an inadequate and unfair
process resulting in an unfair price.
As a result of the flawed process, the price per share that was
paid for the minority shares of the Company was grossly inadequate.
As the process and economic terms of the Buyout were clearly unfair
to the Company's minority stockholders, Plaintiff brings this
action directly on behalf of a class of former Hemisphere
stockholders to seek redress for the harms stemming from
defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, and to recover all amounts
that defendants cost the Company's stockholders by their
inequitable manipulations of, and control over, the Company, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a stockholder of Hemisphere.
Searchlight Capital Partners L.P. is a private equity firm
established in 2010 by Eric Zinterhofer, Oliver Haarmann, and Erol
Uzumeri, its founding partners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
Richard D. Heins, Esq.
Samuel M. Gross, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: 302-654-1888
- and -
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
Jordan A. Cafritz, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
110 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 524-4290
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Cabo Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Leandro Cabo, Erica Leeds, Kathy Bibby, Sean
Flood, Vardan Balayan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC, ARMANINO
LLP, and PRAGER METIS CPAS, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02222 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 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22265 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Sequoia Capital -- https://www.sequoiacap.com/ -- is an American
venture capital firm headquartered in Menlo Park, California which
specializes in seed stage, early stage, and growth stage
investments in private companies across technology sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
K. Rachel Lanier, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
2829 Townsgate Rd Suite 100
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (713) 659-5200
Email: Rachel.Lanier@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
Alex J. Brown, Esq.
John Davis LaBarre, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N
Houston, TX 77064
Phone: (713) 659-5200
Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
Alex.Brown@lanierlawfirm.com
Davis.LaBarre@lanierlawfirm.com
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Girshovich Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Girshovich, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC,
PARADIGM OPERATIONS LP, and THOMA BRAVO, LP, Case No. 3:23-cv-00945
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 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22263-KMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Sequoia Capital -- https://www.sequoiacap.com/ -- is an American
venture capital firm headquartered in Menlo Park, California which
specializes in seed stage, early stage, and growth stage
investments in private companies across technology sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Azra Mehdi, Esq.
THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
95 Third Street
2nd Floor No. 9122
San Francisco, CA 94103
Ph/Fax: 415.905.88
Email: azram@themehdifirm.com
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Rabbitte Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patrick J. Rabbitte, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS,
LLC, THOMA BRAVO, LP, and PARADIGM OPERATIONS LP, Case No.
3:23-cv-00655 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 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22261-KMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Sequoia Capital -- https://www.sequoiacap.com/ -- is an American
venture capital firm headquartered in Menlo Park, California which
specializes in seed stage, early stage, and growth stage
investments in private companies across technology sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams (213113)
Hadiya K. Deshmukh (328118)
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415/288-4545
Fax: 415/288-4534
Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Eric I. Niehaus (239023)
Brian E. Cochran (286202)
Kenneth P. Dolitsky (345400)
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Phone: 619/231-1058
Fax: 619/231-7423
Email: ericn@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
kdolitsky@rgrdlaw.com
SGYS ST. IVES: Fails to Furnish Lead Certification, Cooper Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON COOPER and JOHN COOPER, on behalf of themselves, and a
class of similarly situated persons v. SGYS ST. IVES, LLC d/b/a
NORTHBROOK APARTMENTS; and NORTHBROOK MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
230601451 (Pa. Com Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 14, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs and similarly
situated tenants with a lead certification either at the time they
executed the original lease, nor provide with a lead certification
when their lease was renewed in April 2021, April 2022, and April
2023, in violation of the Philadelphia Lead Law.
On March 24, 2014, Defendant SGYS St. Ives, LLC, purchased the
Brookside St. Ives, LLC apartment complex known as Northbrook
Apartment Homes. On April 6, 2019, the Plaintiffs executed a lease
at the Northbrook Apartments, 1340 Stewarts Way, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for an apartment located at 2334 Ashwood Avenue.
The complaint asserts that at no time from April 1, 2022 to the
present have Defendants provided Plaintiffs or any class members at
the time of leasing or any renewal of a lease of an apartment at
Northbrook Apartments with a valid lead certification prepared by a
lead inspector stating that the property was "Lead Free" or "Lead
Safe" as required by the Lead Disclosure and Certification
Ordinance.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
- and -
Alan Denenberg, Esq.
David Denenberg, Esq.
ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, P C.
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 546-1345
SHATTUCK LABS: $1.4MM Class Deal in Securities Suit Has Prelim. Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN re: SHATTUCK LABS SECURITIES LITIGATION. This
Document Relates To: All Actions, Case No. 22-cv-560 (CBA) (RML)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for entry of an order preliminarily approving settlement and
establishing notice procedures as recommended by Magistrate Judge
Robert M. Levy in his Report and Recommendation.
On Dec. 14, 2022, Lead Plaintiff Scott Harrison and Named Plaintiff
Andrea Viti filed an unopposed motion for entry of an order
preliminarily approving settlement and establishing notice
procedures. The parties have agreed to settle the putative class
action for $1.4 million on the terms set out in their accompanying
Stipulation of Settlement. On Dec. 15, 2022, Judge Amon referred
the Motion to the Honorable Robert M. Levy, United States
Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation. On Jan. 17, 2023,
Magistrate Judge Levy conducted a hearing.
Based on this hearing and the parties' unopposed submissions, on
Feb. 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge Levy issued his report and
recommendation recommending that the Motion be granted and that the
class be preliminarily certified.
No party has objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has
passed. Judge Amon reviewed the record, and finding no clear error,
she adopts the R&R in its entirety. Thus, by entry of her
Memorandum and Order, 1) the Settlement Class is preliminarily
certified; 2) the terms of the Settlement are preliminarily
approved; 3) the plan of allocation is preliminarily approved; and
4) the form and method for providing notice of the Settlement is
approved.
The hearing date for the final approval of settlement is set for
Oct. 30, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 10D South, US. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza E,
Brooklyn, NY 11201. The Court is also filing an accompanying Order
Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement which provides the relevant procedures and
schedule that the parties will follow.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ejjs684b from Leagle.com.
SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Caballero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siteone Landscape
Supply LLC. The case is styled as Gustavo Caballero, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Siteone Landscape
Supply LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0006325 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., June 21, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
SiteOne -- https://www.siteone.com/en/ -- is the green industry's
No. 1 destination for landscape supplies, irrigation tools and
agronomic maintenance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Fax: (805) 618-2939
SKINN COSMETICS LLC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skinn Cosmetics, LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Skinn Cosmetics, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05142 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SKINN -- https://skinn.com/ -- is an award-winning, global skincare
and cosmetics company.[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
SMG FOOD AND BEVERAGE: Ordono Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMG FOOD AND BEVERAGE
LLC, et al. The case is styled as John Ordono, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Providence Place, Inc.,
Galina Knop, Does 1 To 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23607169 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 20, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
SMG Food and Beverage, LLC was founded in 1999. The Company line of
business includes providing management consulting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
729 Boylston St., Ste., 2000
Boston, MA 02116-2648
Phone: 617-994-5800
Fax: 617-994-5801
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
Website: www.llrlaw.com
SNEAKER JUNKIES LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sneaker Junkies, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sneaker Junkies, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05127-LJL (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sneaker Junkies -- https://sneakerjunkiesusa.com/ -- is a company
that operates in the Apparel & Fashion industry.[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
SOCALI MANUFACTURING: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Socali Manufacturing,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Socali Manufacturing, Inc., The Cann + Botl Company, Case No.
1:23-cv-05103 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Socali Manufacturing is located at 555 Rose Ave, Venice,
California.[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
SOS MAINTENANCE: Jimenez Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMA JIMENEZ, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S.O.S. MAINTENANCE INC., PETER
SEPULVEDA, and MARIA OTANO, Defendants, Case No. 23-CV-1177 (GRB)
(JMW) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants the
Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify the case.
Jimenez brings the instant action against her former employers the
Defendants for alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., ("FLSA")
and the New York Labor Law, Article 19, Section 650 et seq. and New
York State Department of Labor Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 142
("NYLL").
Solely as to the first cause of action for failure to pay overtime
in violation of the FLSA, the Plaintiff seeks to proceed as a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of
herself and similarly situated persons "who are currently or have
been employed by the Defendant as a customer service representative
at any time during the three years prior to the filing of their
respective consent forms. Before the Court is the Plaintiff's
motion to conditionally certify this case as a collective action
under the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The Plaintiff filed the Initial Complaint on Feb. 13, 2023 and, the
Defendants answered on Feb. 16, 2023. She then filed the Amended
Complaint on March 9, 2023. The Defendants moved for a pre-motion
conference to file a motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth claims
of the Amended Complaint, which sought damages for NYLL wage notice
and wage statement violations.
The Honorable Gary R. Brown referred the case to mediation and
denied the motion without prejudice to renewal following the
conclusion of mediation. In light of the referral to mediation,
Judge Wicks adjourned the initial conference sine die. Thus, no
formal discovery has taken place.
The Plaintiff subsequently requested an adjournment of the
mediation until after the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification was resolved. That request was granted and mediation
was stayed pending resolution of the Plaintiff's anticipated
motion. The fully briefed motion was filed on May 2, 2023. The
Defendants oppose the motion. The parties appeared for oral
argument before the undersigned on June 15, 2023.
The following allegations are taken from the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint and her declaration in support of her motion for
conditional certification. The Plaintiff brings the lawsuit against
the Defendants on behalf of herself and all other persons who are
similarly situated during the applicable FLSA limitations period
who also suffered damages from the Defendants' alleged violation of
the FLSA. Specifically, she brings her First Claim for Relief for
FLSA overtime violations, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated persons who are currently or have been employed by the
Defendant as a customer service representative at any time during
the three years before filing their respective consent forms.
The Plaintiff was an employee of S.O.S., a domestic corporation in
the facilities maintenance industry, as a customer service
representative from September 2019 through January 2023. S.O.S had
a gross annual revenue of at least $500,000 during the relevant
period and provided services to and received payments from
out-of-state customers. Peter Sepulveda and Maria Otano were
shareholders and/or officers of S.O.S., with authority to make
payroll and personal decisions and were active in day-to-day
management of S.O.S including the determination of wages.
The Plaintiff's employment duties included clerical duties related
to her customer service role such as supplying product or service
information, generating sale leads, forwarding customer information
to the dispatch team, handling customer complaints, maintaining
customer interaction records, processing customer accounts,
collecting documents from vendors, and filing documents. Employees
were responsible for handling, selling, or working on materials
that moved in or were produced for commerce, and were involved in
building maintenance, used tools, equipment, mops, solvents, waxes,
cleaning supplies and other materials, several of which originated
in other states.
The Defendants required the Plaintiff to work from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
one Saturday each month. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than
forty hours, typically forty to 48 hours each workweek under her
regular schedule. Additionally, the Defendants required the
Plaintiff to work on-call one week each month, where she was
required to work from 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., Monday through
Friday, and the entire day Saturday and Sunday.
During on-call shifts, the Plaintiff was required to remain in
constant contact with Defendants through an on-call group text
chat, and if she took more than fifteen minutes to respond after
being contacted, she was subject to reprimand. The Plaintiff
maintains that her personal time was limited during the on-call
shifts since she was not free to complete her personal business or
use her time effectively. If the Plaintiff left her house, she
needed to take a computer with her to continue to update the
Defendants or the Defendants' clients through their web portals.
While on-call, the Plaintiff responded to approximately five to
twenty calls each day, was required to follow up on each call, to
ensure that vendors were approved, and to keep constant contact
with vendors and clients to verify that their jobs were completed.
The Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff for the hours she
worked more than 40 hours a week or for her on-call hours each
month. They paid her a yearly salary of $47,840; paid her a flat
rate of $150 for each on-call week from September 2019 through
April 2022, and a flat rate of $250 for the remainder of her
employment; and did not pay her any additional compensation for the
additional five hours she worked on one Saturday each month.
The Defendants treated all customer service representatives in the
same manner. There was a high rate of turnover for customer service
representatives because they became "frustrated" with the
Defendants' practice of failing to pay overtime and/or adequately
pay for on-call hours. As a result, many employees worked for only
one to two weeks before leaving.
The Defendants employed at least four other customer service
representatives who performed the same or similar duties at any
given time, including but not limited to Rose Moscatiello, Denice
Whyte, Yasmeen Aly, and Jesica Herrera. The Plaintiff herself
witnessed other customer service representatives work more than 40
hours per week as representatives regularly worked shifts together.
She also knows other customer service representatives did not get
paid overtime after 40 hours a week because employees discussed
this amongst themselves. Moreover, she knows that other customer
service representatives performed the same on-call duties each week
because she would receive emails indicating which employee was
on-call that week.
Judge Wicks finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that
the other customer service representatives were subject to the same
alleged FLSA violations as the Plaintiff for the purposes of the
first step of conditional certification. The Plaintiff notes that
she regularly worked together with other customer service
representatives on the same shifts for over forty hours and also
had conversations with them in "the final few months" of her
employment (which ended in January of 2023), "typically on
Saturdays" when they "would complain" about not being paid the
requisite overtime "despite working the extra day." Her allegations
specifically note that Plaintiff and others were required to work
these "on-call hours."
After he determines that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that she is
similarly situated to other employees of the Defendants with
respect to the Defendant's alleged unlawful policy, Judge Wicks may
authorize issuance of a notice to inform potential plaintiffs that
they may opt into the lawsuit. The Plaintiff attaches a proposed
notice, reminder notice, email, and text message to which the
Defendants request a few changes in the event the motion for
conditional certification is granted.
Judge Wicks holds that (i) the proposed Notice is approved on the
condition that the Plaintiff's counsel modifies the Notice to
require it to be returned to the Clerk of the Court; (ii) the
Plaintiff must revise the Notice so that it reflects Feb. 13, 2020
rather than Feb. 13, 2017; (iii) the Plaintiff's request for a
blanket equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for all
opt-in plaintiffs is denied without prejudice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs seeking equitable tolling on a case-by-case basis; (iv)
the Defendants are to post the Notice and consent to join the
lawsuit in both English and Spanish in a conspicuous place in their
office locations during the duration of the notice period; and (v)
he overrules the Defendants' objection because courts in this
Circuit have consistently allowed plaintiffs to send out collective
notice via electronic means, including e-mail and text message.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Wicks grants in part and denies in
part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the
FLSA claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) as follows: (1) the Plaintiff's FLSA claim is
certified as a representative collective action for all; (2) the
Plaintiff is directed to revise the Notice as to the following; (a)
to reflect a three-year statute of limitations beginning Feb. 13,
2020; (b) to reflect that the consent forms are to be provided to
the Clerk of the Court rather than to the Plaintiff's counsel; and
(3) the Plaintiff's request for the statute of limitations to be
equitably tolled is denied without prejudice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs seeking equitable tolling on a case-by-case basis.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58whyxza from Leagle.com.
Matthew John Farnworth, Esq. -- mfarnworth(a)laborlaws.com -- Peter
Arcadio Romero, Esq., Law Office of Peter A. Romero, P.L.L.C.,
Hauppauge, NY, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Joshua S. Androphy, Esq., Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq. --
INFO@M-T-LAW.COM -- Morrison and Tenenbaum, P.C., New York, NY,
Attorneys for the Defendants.
SOUTHERN PIPE & SUPPLY: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Pipe &
Supply Company, Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Southern
Pipe & Supply Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05001-PGG-RWL
(S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Southern Pipe & Supply -- https://www.southernpipe.com/ -- is one
of the largest, privately held, independent distributors and offers
the very best of brand name plumbing, heating, air-conditioning
(HVAC), industrial, mechanical, and waterworks supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 584-5575
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SPRING FERTILITY: De Alba Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spring Fertility
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Andrea Yesenia De
Alba, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Spring Fertility Management, LLC, Spring Fertility Management
Oakland, LLC, Spring Fertility Management Silicon Valley, LLC, Case
No. 23CV034590 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 30, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Spring Fertility -- https://springfertility.com/ -- is an operator
of a fertility center intended to redefine the reproductive and
fertility patient experience.[BN]
T-MOBILE US: Bailey Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jessica Bailey, Martye Benjamin, Fernando
Garcia, Andres Gomez, Latresa Grantham, and Mike Magbaleta on
behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00211 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June
20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00424-BCW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American
wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas
and Bellevue, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
Email: toml@hbsslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Donald Houser, Esq.
Kristine McAlister Brown
ALSTON AND BIRD LLP (GA)
One Atlantic Center
1201 W Peachtree St., Ste. 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309-3432
Phone: (404) 881-7000
Fax: (404) 881-7777
Email: donald.houser@alston.com
kristy.brown@alston.com
- and -
Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3577
Email: LTsuji@perkinscoie.com
T-MOBILE US: Lopez Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Lopez, Jerome Cascio, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA Inc.,
T-Mobile US, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01263 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June
21, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00422-BCW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American
wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas
and Bellevue, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 858-3239
Email: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lawrence Harris Heftman, Esq.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
Chicago, IL 60605
Phone: (312) 258-5725
Email: lawrence.heftman@afslaw.com
- and -
Terance A Gonsalves, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 881-7983
Email: terance.gonsalves@alston.com
- and -
Mallory Marie Mcmahon, Esq.
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Ste 7100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 258-5500
Email: mallory.mcmahon@afslaw.com
T-MOBILE US: Polhill Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edward Polhill and Steven Vash, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile US, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00489 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri on June 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00421-BCW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American
wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas
and Bellevue, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Herman, Esq.
Peter M. Jones, Esq.
Candace N. Smith, Esq.
Connely Doize, Esq.
HERMAN JONES LLP
3424 Peachtree Road Northeast, Suite 1650
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: (404) 504-6508
Email: jherman@hermanjones.com
pjones@hermanjones.com
csmith@hermanjones.com
cdoize@hermanjones.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristine McAlister Brown
ALSTON AND BIRD LLP (GA)
One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3432
Phone: (404) 881-7584
Email: kristy.brown@alston.com
T-MOBILE US: Shoemaker Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Elizabeth Shoemaker, Andrea L. Arroyo, Benjamin
Atwell, Nicole Baez, Spencer Berggren, Antonio Bodacoloffi, Bonnie
Dawson, Stacy Dutill, Alaine Egeler, Colleen Evola, Brandy Foster,
Michael W. Gliko, IV, Chanta Graham, Lauren Grover, Alba P. Haro,
Jesus Hernandez, Sally Tami Hernandez, Nicole Hinds, Heather
Hosfeld, Melissa Johnson, Jonathan Keller, Ken Knutson, Brandon
Kruse, Charles Layman, Johnathan Limberger, Carmen V. Lopez, Kirti
Mandal, Natalia Maya, Patrick Melton, Commissioner Brian Mills,
Tina Mitchell, Francis Osorio, Jennifer Padilla, Helene Gayle Pry,
Greg Seth Resnick, Jeremy Robbins, Terri Rodgers, Jesica Rostine,
Cindy Salcedo, Gerry Schettini, Patricia Torres, Joseph Valdez,
Gabrielle D. Vann, Brendan Williams, Isaac Wilson, Joseph Burka,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA Inc, Case No. 3:23-cv-00427 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri on June 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00424-BCW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Trade
Commission Act.
T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American
wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas
and Bellevue, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
ron@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Amanda Grace Fiorilla, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Margaret C. MacLean, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 733-7266
Email: afiorilla@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
mmaclean@lowey.com
- and -
Anthony Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA 19081
Phone: (215) 399-4770
Email: achristina@lowey.com
- and -
Ian Wise Sloss, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, 15th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Phone: (203) 325-4491
Fax: (203) 325-3769
Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Deborah Yoon Jones, Esq.
Lisa L. Garcia, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576-1000
Fax: (213) 576-1100
Email: debbie.jones@alston.com
kristy.brown@alston.com
lisa.garcia@alston.com
T-MOBILE US: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Smith, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE, U.S. INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-00188 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on June 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00423-BCW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort Negligence.
T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American
wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas
and Bellevue, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
Robert Rhodes, Esq.
RHODES LEGAL GROUP
918 South Horton Street, Suite 901
Seattle, WA 98134
Phone: (206) 708-7852
Email: abrownesq@gmail.com
robert@rhodeslegal.com
John Heenan, Esq.
Joseph P. Cook, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9081
Email: john@lawmontana.com
joe@lawmontana.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Donald Houser, Esq.
Kristine McAlister Brown
ALSTON AND BIRD LLP (GA)
One Atlantic Center
1201 W Peachtree St., Ste. 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309-3432
Phone: (404) 881-7000
Fax: (404) 881-7777
Email: donald.houser@alston.com
kristy.brown@alston.com
- and -
Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3577
Email: LTsuji@perkinscoie.com
TESLA INC: Doyle Has Until July 17 to Consolidate and Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doyle v. Tesla, Inc., Case
No. 3:23-cv-01543 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 31, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Trina L. Thompson entered a case management scheduling order as
follows:
-- Consolidated Amended Complaint due by: July 17, 2023
-- Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended July 31, 2023
Complaint due by:
-- Responses due by: Aug. 14, 2023
-- Replies due by: Aug. 21, 2023
-- Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Sept. 5, 2023
Complaint Hearing set for:
-- Close of Fact Discovery is now: Nov. 8, 2024
-- Class Certification Opening Reports May 10, 2024
due by:
-- Class Certification Rebuttal June 21, 2024
Reports due by:
-- Substantial Completion of Document March 15, 2024
Productions due by:
-- Initial Disclosures due by: July 10, 2023
-- Motion to Appoint Interim Class July 25, 2023
Counsel Hearing set for:
-- Oppositions due by: July 5, 2023
-- Replies due by: July 12, 2023
The nature of sui states antitrust litigation.
Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company headquartered in Austin, Texas. Tesla designs and
manufactures electric vehicles, stationary battery energy storage
devices from home to grid-scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles,
and related products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XCM7tZ at no extra charge.[CC]
TESLA INC: Filing of Consolidated Amended Complaint Due July 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bose v. Tesla, Inc., Case
No. 3:23-cv-01496 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Trina L. Thompson entered a case management scheduling order as
follows:
-- Consolidated Amended Complaint due by: July 17, 2023
-- Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended July 31, 2023
Complaint due by:
-- Responses due by: Aug. 14, 2023
-- Replies due by: Aug. 21, 2023
-- Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Sept. 5, 2023
Complaint Hearing set for:
-- Close of Fact Discovery is now: Nov. 8, 2024
-- Class Certification Opening Reports May 10, 2024
due by:
-- Class Certification Rebuttal June 21, 2024
Reports due by:
-- Substantial Completion of Document March 15, 2024
Productions due by:
-- Initial Disclosures due by: July 10, 2023
-- Motion to Appoint Interim Class July 25, 2023
Counsel Hearing set for:
-- Oppositions due by: July 5, 2023
-- Replies due by: July 12, 2023
The nature of sui states antitrust litigation.
Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company headquartered in Austin, Texas. Tesla designs and
manufactures electric vehicles, stationary battery energy storage
devices from home to grid-scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles,
and related products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5P7w5 at no extra charge.[CC]
TESLA INC: Nana-Anyangwe Has Until July 17 to Consolidate Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nana-Anyangwe v. Tesla,
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-02035 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 26, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered a case management scheduling
order as follows:
-- Consolidated Amended Complaint due by: July 17, 2023
-- Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended July 31, 2023
Complaint due by:
-- Responses due by: Aug. 14, 2023
-- Replies due by: Aug. 21, 2023
-- Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Sept. 5, 2023
Complaint Hearing set for:
-- Close of Fact Discovery is now: Nov. 8, 2024
-- Class Certification Opening Reports May 10, 2024
due by:
-- Class Certification Rebuttal June 21, 2024
Reports due by:
-- Substantial Completion of Document March 15, 2024
Productions due by:
-- Initial Disclosures due by: July 10, 2023
-- Motion to Appoint Interim Class July 25, 2023
Counsel Hearing set for:
-- Oppositions due by: July 5, 2023
-- Replies due by: July 12, 2023
The nature of sui states antitrust litigation.
Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company headquartered in Austin, Texas. Tesla designs and
manufactures electric vehicles, stationary battery energy storage
devices from home to grid-scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles,
and related products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PDzsF6 at no extra charge.[CC]
TWITTER INC: Fails to Pay 2022 Annual Bonus, Schobinger Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SCHOBINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TWITTER, INC. and X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007 (N.D.
Cal., June 20, 2023) is a class action complaint against Twitter
alleging that the company have not paid their employees annual
bonus for 2022.
According to the complaint, Twitter has an employee cash
performance bonus plan that is paid out annually. Each year, the
company has an overall target for the bonus plan, and employees
each have a calculated amount of bonus they will receive if the
company pays bonus out at the target amount. In the months leading
up to Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter in October 2022, the
company's executives, including former Chief Financial Officer, Ned
Segal, repeatedly promised the Plaintiff and the company's other
employees that 2022 bonuses would be paid out at fifty percent
(50%) of target. This promise was repeated following Musk's
acquisition, the Plaintiff claims.
The 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. However,
Twitter reneged on this agreement. It allegedly refused to pay
annual bonuses to employees during the first quarter of 2023 (or
thereafter), despite funding the Bonus Plan throughout 2022 and
accounting for the payment of such annual bonuses, says the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff sues 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. He claims for breach of contract and promissory
estoppel, the lawsuit says.
Mr. Schobinger was employed by Twitter as Senior Director,
Compensation, from February 11, 2019, until May 26, 2023. He was
originally responsible for overseeing executive and incentive
compensation when he was hired by Twitter. In November 2022, he
assumed responsibility for all employee compensation for the
company globally.
Twitter is a social media company that previously employed
thousands of people across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
bmanewith@llrlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Four Elderly Sisters Sentenced in BFDL Fraud Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATV reports that four senior citizen sisters in Arkansas and three
other defendants were sentenced on June 23 to a combined 136 months
in federal prison for their involvement in a scheme to defraud the
nation's agricultural department out of more than $11.5 million
that was intended to benefit farmers who had been discriminated
against.
According to the U.S. attorney's office, the seven defendants
pleaded guilty to filing false claims under two programs of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture: the Black Famers Discrimination
Litigation (BFDL) settlement and the Hispanic and Women Farmers and
Ranchers (HWFR) claim program.
The BFDL settlement resulted from a class action lawsuit filed in
1997 in which a group of black farmers claimed they had been
discriminated against when they applied for farm credit, credit
servicing, or farm benefits from USDA, a news release from the
attorney's office said.
Similarly, the release explained, the HWFR claim program was
created after groups of Hispanic and women farmers filed separate
lawsuits against USDA alleging discrimination in their farm benefit
programs.
According to officials, sisters Delois Bryant, 76, of North Little
Rock; Rosie Bryant, 75, of Colleyville, Texas; Lynda Charles, 73,
of Hot Springs; and Brenda Sherpell, 73, of Allport will each serve
24 months in prison following their 2022 guilty plea of conspiring
to commit mail fraud and to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.
Authorities said the sisters were involved with a claim with the
BFDL and HWFR that resulted in an award of $62,500. Of that amount,
they said, $50,000 would be made payable to the claimant, and
$12,500 would be transferred directly to the IRS as a tax
withholding.
"Altogether, the sisters were involved with 192 claims, almost all
of which were successful, resulting in a loss of over $11.5
million," the release said. "The claims were false because the
claimants had not suffered discrimination and, in most cases, had
not even attempted to farm."
Three of the sisters - Delois, Rosie, and Lynda - filed false tax
returns used money from the conspiracy to purchase homes and
property, including a Chevrolet van and a Mercedes G550,
authorities said. The attorney's office said the United States is
pursuing recovery of those assets.
These sisters defrauded two programs meant to help those that were
discriminated against and instead lined their pockets," said
Christopher J. Altemus Jr., Special Agent in Charge IRS Criminal
Investigation, Dallas Field Office. "We want every American to take
advantage of the programs, deductions, and credits to which they
are entitled to by law; however, no one is entitled to defraud the
government. Protecting taxpayer money is a matter IRS-CI takes
extremely seriously and the sentences reinforce our commitment to
the public that we will investigate and prosecute those who steal
from American taxpayers."
Lynda's daughter Niki Charles, 50, of Puerto Rico will serve 16
months in federal prison for her role in the fraud scheme,
officials added.
Niki had admitted during her guilty plea to soliciting people to
file false claims, asserting they were discriminated against when
they tried to get assistance from the USDA for their farming
operations.
Details say Niki said she verified statements from corroborating
witnesses who submitted affidavits to support the claims, but none
of those witnesses actually met Niki. Her actions resulted in
another $4.5 million in losses.
An attorney who acted as the legal representative for most of the
claimants the five women recruited will serve just over a year in
prison, the Justice Department said. Everett Martindale, 76, of
Little Rock was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison for
his role in the scheme.
An indictment alleged Martindale would deposit claim checks into
his law firm trust account, issue a check from that account to the
claimant, and withhold his attorney fee. Officials said the
attorney fees for both the BFDL and HWFR were restricted to $1,500
per claimant.
The indictment said all four sisters entered into an agreement with
Martindale in which they would split the attorney fee and said the
sisters also demanded and received additional money from the
claimants themselves.
And lastly, the tax preparer hired by the sisters to falsify tax
returns, was handed down the same sentence as Martindale. Jerry
Green, 42, of Grand Prairie, Texas will also serve a year and a day
in prison.
The money received from a claim was income that should have been
reported on the claimant's tax return, the release said. But the
sisters and Green admitted that Green provided tax preparation
services for claimants they recruited and that Green falsified the
returns in order to create a tax refund.
Discrimination is real. The 192 settlement claims submitted by
these defendants, requesting millions of dollars, were not," said
United States Attorney Jonathan D. Ross. "The sentences send the
message that the United States is committed to prosecuting those
who steal from programs designed to provide justice for victims of
discrimination, and the Court takes seriously crimes such as these.
We will continue to seek prison time for fraudsters who
re-victimize those the government sought to make whole."
In addition to their prison sentences, the Justice Department said
each defendant would be sentenced to two years of supervised
release following their prison sentence. They will also be required
to pay more than $9 million in restitution.
I want to thank the United States Attorney's office, USDA-OIG
Special Agents, and our investigative partners for their hard work
on this investigation," said Special Agent-in-Charge Dax Roberson
from the USDA's Office of Inspector General. "When fraud is
committed to deprive proper recipients of USDA funds, OIG will
pursue justice to the fullest extent of the law." [GN]
UP FINTECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that
purchasers or acquirers of publicly traded UP Fintech Holding
Limited (NASDAQ: TIGR) securities between April 29, 2020 and May
16, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until August 21, 2023
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the UP Fintech class
action lawsuit. Captioned Burns v. UP Fintech Holding Limited, No.
23-cv-04842 (C.D. Cal.), the UP Fintech class action lawsuit
charges UP Fintech and certain of its top executive officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the UP Fintech class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-up-fintech-holding-limited-class-action-lawsuit-tigr.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: UP Fintech purports to be a leading financial
technology platform providing cross-market, multi-product
investment experience for investors around the world.
The UP Fintech class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) UP Fintech's business was
illegal as it related to operations in China as a result of its
failure to obtain proper licenses; (ii) UP Fintech did not fully
disclose to investors that it was engaging in unlawful activity and
instead characterized the applicable Chinese laws as ambiguous; and
(iii) the above subjected UP Fintech to a heightened risk of
regulatory enforcement.
On October 28, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
titled "Chinese Online Broker Shares Dropped After Criticism From
Central Bank" which stated, "[a] senior official at China's central
bank said cross-border online brokerages operating in mainland
China were acting illegally." On this news, the price of UP Fintech
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") declined more than 26% over two
trading days.
Then, on December 17, 2021, Reuters published an article titled
"EXCLUSIVE Next in China regulatory crackdown: online
brokers-sources," reporting that "Chinese officials are planning to
ban online brokerages such as . . . UP Fintech Holding Ltd from
offering offshore trading services to mainland clients." On this
news, the price of UP Fintech ADSs declined further.
Thereafter, on December 30, 2022, Reuters published an article
titled "China regulator asks Futu and UP Fintech to stop soliciting
mainland clients." The article explained, "China's securities
regulatory said on Friday that online brokerage[] . . . UP Fintech
Holding [has] conducted unlawful securities businesses, and will be
banned from opening new accounts from mainland Chinese investors."
On this news, the price of UP Fintech ADSs declined more than 32%
over two trading days.
Finally, on May 16, 2023, Reuters published an article titled "Two
online brokerages to remove China apps as Beijing data crackdown
widens," which detailed that "UP Fintech Holding Ltd will remove
[its app] in mainland China amid Beijing's sharpened focus on data
security and capital outflows." On this news, the price of UP
Fintech ADSs declined more than 7%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
publicly traded UP Fintech securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the UP Fintech class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the UP Fintech class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice to litigate the UP Fintech class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the UP
Fintech class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS
Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more
than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 – the third year in a
row Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those three years alone,
Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest
plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have
obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in
history, including the largest securities class action recovery
ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please
visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
VENTURE MARKETING: Blade Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS BLADE, individually and for others similarly situated v.
VENTURE MARKETING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00797 (W.D. La.,
June 14, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation
individually and as a collective action on behalf of all current
and former day-rate employees who worked for Defendant within the
last three years, and who were not paid overtime for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately January
to March, 2023. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members worked for
Defendant on a day-rate basis. While exact job titles and job
duties may differ, Plaintiff asserts that they were subjected to
the same or similar illegal pay practices for similar work.
Venture Marketing Corporation is a local distributor of beer,
alcohol and other beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
VOLKSWAGEN AG: N.J. Court Narrows Claims in McMahon Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PRICE McMAHON, LISA BULTMAN, MICHAEL McKARRY, DAVID
WABAKKEN, MOHAMED HASSAN, CHRISTINA MERRILL, ERIC LEVINE, PATRICK &
MARCIA DONAHUE, DEBBIE BROWN, CAROL RADICE, TERRENCE BERRY, AMANDA
GREEN, DAVID WILDHAGEN, KATY DOYLE, TASHIA CLENDANIEL, HOGAN
POPKESS, KORY WHEELER, HARRY O'BOYLE, JOE RAMAGLI, ERIC KOVALIK,
CHARLES HILLIER, LABRANDA SHELTON, ADAM & MALLORY MOORE, TINA
GROVE, KEECH ARNSTEN, SCOTT CARTER, MIKE SHERROD, CHRISTI JOHNSON,
MARY KOELZER, AND MARK STEVENS, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VOLKSWAGEN
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., AND
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA CHATANOOGA OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 22cv01537 (EP) (JSA) (D.N.J.), Judge Evelyn Padin of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants in part
and denies in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the claims
against them.
The putative class action arises from an alleged defect in certain
models and makes of Volkswagen vehicles. The Plaintiffs, consumers
who either purchased or leased one such vehicle, sued three
Defendants: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA"), Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft ("VWAG"), and Volkswagen Group of America
Chattanooga Operations, LLC ("VWCOL"). The Defendants separately
move to dismiss the claims against them. The Plaintiffs oppose all
three motions.
The putative class action arises from an alleged front-door wiring
harness defect present in model years 2019-2023 Volkswagen Atlas
and 2020-2023 Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport vehicles that the
Defendants collectively designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, sold, warranted, and serviced. The Defendants are: (1)
VWGoA, a NJ corporation with its principal place of business in
Herndon, V[irginia; (2) VWAG, a German corporation with its
principal place of business in Wolfsburg, Germany; and (3) VWCOL, a
Tennessee limited liability corporation having its principal place
of business in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The Plaintiffs are consumers who either purchased or leased a
Vehicle. The Defect allegedly caused multiple issues throughout the
Vehicles, such as the parking brake systems unexpectedly engaging
for no reason, windows randomly opening and closing on their own,
the Vehicles displaying error messages and emitting warning noises,
and the Vehicles' airbags failing to deploy properly.
The Plaintiffs state that (1) the Defect poses a safety risk
because when a Vehicle brakes unexpectedly, it poses a danger to
not only its driver and passengers but also to others in traffic;
(2) unexpected noises can cause the driver to become distracted;
and (3) the Defect can also cause safety-related systems (including
airbags) to fail.
Some Plaintiffs complained about the Defect to authorized
Volkswagen dealerships and sought repair. When owners complain
about the Defect and seek a repair, they are often told parts are
unavailable and often have to wait months for replacement
harnesses. The Defendants also do not consistently provide loaner
vehicles. Further, the Defendants simply replace defective parts
with equally defective parts, thereby leaving consumers caught in a
cycle of use, malfunction, and replacement.
The Plaintiffs also state that Defendants knew of the Defect prior
to them purchasing or leasing their Vehicles, yet failed to
disclose and actively concealed the Defect from the public.
On March 18, 2022, named Plaintiffs Sherrod and Plaintiff Fulbright
filed the initial class action complaint, bringing claims on behalf
of Tennessee, Texas, and nationwide classes. The initial class
action complaint only brought claims against VWGoA. On July 19,
2022, the Court consolidated the case with a separate pending class
action, brought by other plaintiffs against VWGoA, VWAG, and VWCOL,
involving the same Defect.
VWGoA issued a recall for the Vehicles on March 28, 2022. This
recall "publicly admitted" that there is "no solution to the
Defect" because the recall states that VWGoA sent "interim
notification letters" to Vehicle owners on May 10, 2022, informing
them of the safety risk and promising to send a second notification
once the remedy becomes available. The Plaintiffs claim the recall
is insufficient because the Defendants continue to replace
defective parts with defective parts.
On Aug. 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated
Complaint, or ACC, which asserted claims from 32 named Plaintiffs
against VWGoA, VWAG, and VWCOL. See generally ACC. The ACC alleges
56 counts in federal and state law brought on behalf of the named
Plaintiffs, unnamed individuals in the states the named Plaintiffs
seek to represent, and a nationwide class. These counts are: (1)
Breach of Implied Warranty, Manguson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA),
Section 15 U.S.C. 2301; (2) statutory and common law consumer fraud
claims; and (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability
claims.
On Sept. 16, 2022, VWGoA moved to dismiss all the Plaintiffs'
claims against it under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1), (2),
and (6). On Dec. 2, 2022, VWAG moved to dismiss all the Plaintiffs'
claims against it, adopting and expanding on VWGoA's arguments as
applied to VWAG. Then, on Dec. 20, 2022, VWCOL moved to dismiss all
the Plaintiffs' claims against it, and, like VWAG, adopted and
expanded on VWGoA's arguments; additionally, VWCOL moved for
dismissal under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of
jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs oppose all three motions to dismiss. The Defendants
filed replies in each instance.
First, the Defendants argue that Plaintiffs Marcia Donahue and
Mallory Moore lack standing to assert their claims. These
Plaintiffs have withdrawn their claims (Donahue: Counts 1, 14, and
15; Moore: Counts 1, 47, 48). As such, Judge Padin does not discuss
these Plaintiffs' claims further.
Second, VWCOL argues that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction
over it. Because the Plaintiffs concede thw Court cannot exercise
general jurisdiction over VWCOL, Judge Padin only considers whether
specific jurisdiction exists. She finds that the Plaintiffs'
conclusory allegation that VWCOL "deliberately targeted" New Jersey
is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. She also grants
the Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, which will
proceed on an expedited schedule. As such, she denies VWCOL's
motion to dismiss all claims against it without prejudice, allowing
renewal of the motion pending the conclusion of jurisdictional
discovery.
Third, VWGoA and VWAG argue that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims. Judge Padin grants
VWGoA and VWAG's motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims.
She holds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the MMWA claims
because there are less than 100 named Plaintiffs.
Fourth, the VWGoA and VWAG argue that the Plaintiffs cannot bring a
claim on behalf of individuals in states in which no named
Plaintiff suffered injury. The Plaintiffs argue that this argument
is better understood as a motion to strike allegations under Rule
12(f) or as a premature motion to deny class certification under
Rule 23, and should therefore be considered at the class
certificate stage, not via a motion to dismiss.
Judge Padin finds that the named Plaintiffs can only assert claims
on behalf of individuals in states where at least one named
Plaintiff has standing for that claim. Accordingly, she grants
VWGoA and VWAG's motions and dismisses claims to the extent they
are brought on behalf of a nationwide class.
Fifth, VWGoA and VWAG argue that all claims should be dismissed
under the prudential mootness doctrine. According to them, VWGoA's
voluntary, government-supervised recall moots the Plaintiffs'
claims because the recall remedies the Defect. Judge Padin finds
that the Plaintiffs adequately allege that the recall remedy may be
insufficient, requiring at least some Plaintiffs to take their car
to be fixed multiple times. Accordingly, she denies VWGoA and
VWAG's motions to dismiss the ACC as prudentially moot.
Sixth, VWGoA and VWAG argue all claims should be dismissed because
the Plaintiffs engage in group pleading improperly lumping together
the three separate and distinct defendants. Judge Padin disagrees.
She says the three Defendants are each a sub-entity of Volkswagen.
No particular Defendant claims to be in the dark about the actions
of the other Defendants. As such, the Plaintiffs, by referring to
the three Defendants collectively, satisfy Rule 8 and Rule 9(b)'s
pleading standards. Accordingly, VWGoA and VWAG's motions to
dismiss the ACC for impermissible group pleading is denied.
Seventh, WGoA and VWAG argue that all claims for equitable relief,
including injunctive relief, should be dismissed. Were these claims
to survive, Judge Padin holds that the Court would still need to
decide, e.g., liability, before the viability of injunctive relief
comes into play. Accordingly, she does not address the viability of
claims for injunctive or other equitable relief and denies VWGoA
and VWAG's motions to dismiss these claims on this basis.
Eighth, the Plaintiffs allege statutory and common law fraud claims
based on two theories: (1) an affirmative misrepresentation and (2)
a fraudulent omission/concealment. VWGoA and VWAG move to dismiss,
arguing that the Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to
demonstrate a fraudulent misrepresentation or a fraudulent
omission.
Judge Padin agrees. She (i) grants the VWGoA and VWAG's motions and
dismisses the Plaintiffs' statutory and common law fraud claims to
the extent are based on an affirmative misrepresentation; and (ii)
grants VWGoA and VWAG's motions and dismisses all of the
Plaintiffs' statutory and common law fraud claims because the
Plaintiffs' statutory and common law fraud claims are based on
either an affirmative misrepresentation or a fraudulent
omission/concealment and they fail to adequately plead either.
Lastly, VWGoA and VWAG argue, among other things, that any alleged
breach of an implied warranty of merchantability was cured through
the existing recall, "which remedies, free of charge, the very
issue alleged in the ACC. However, the Plaintiffs allege that the
recall remedy is insufficient because the Defendants merely replace
defective components with defective components. The Plaintiffs
sufficiently allege that the existing recall is inadequate.
Accordingly, VWGoA and VWAG's motions to dismiss yjr Plaintiffs'
breach of implied warranty claims on this basis is denied.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Padin grants in part and denies
in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. In summary, she:
a. grants the Plaintiffs' request to conduct jurisdictional
discovery as to VWCOL, which will proceed on an expedited schedule,
and denies without prejudice VWCOL's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction;
b. dismisses without prejudice all the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction: Count One; and
c. dismisses without prejudice Count Two to the extent it is
brought on behalf of a nationwide class;
d. dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs' fraud-based
claims against VWGoA and VWAG: Counts Two, Four, Six, Seven, Eight,
Ten, Twelve, Fourteen, Sixteen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty-One,
Twenty-Three, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Nine, Thirty,
Thirty-One, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Nine,
Forty-One, Forty-Three, Forty-Five, Forty-Seven, Forty-Nine,
Fifty-One, Fifty-Four, and Fifty-Five;
e. dismisses without prejudice the following implied warranty
of merchantability claims: Counts Fifteen, Thirty-Eight, and
Fifty-Three as to VWGoA and VWAG; Count Forty-Four, but only
Plaintiff Hillier as to VWAG; and Count Forty-Eight as to VWAG;
and
f. denies to dismiss the remaining counts under various
theories: Counts Three, Five, Nine, Eleven, Seventeen, Twenty,
Twenty-Two, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Eight, Thirty-Two,
Thirty-Four, Thirty-Six, Forty, Forty-Two, Forty-Six, Fifty,
Fifty-Two, and Fifty-Six.
The Plaintiffs have 30 days from the entry of the Opinion to file
an amended complaint. An appropriate Order accompanies the
Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bfm6dys2 from Leagle.com.
WASHINGTON: Fowler Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICKEY FOWLER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Mickey Fowler, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Tracy Guerin, director of the Washington State Department of
Retirement Systems, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-05367-BHS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Mr. Fowler represents a class of Washington teachers who
transferred from one state retirement plan, Teachers Retirement
System (TRS) Plan 2, to a later plan, TRS Plan 3 prior to January
20, 2002. He asserts that the Department of Retirement Systems
(DRS) failed to properly account for the daily interest he had
earned on his Plan 2 retirement funds when he transferred those
funds to Plan 3. He sued in June 2015, asserting a single 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 takings claim for violation of his Fifth Amendment
rights.
On Mar. 15, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment
on the limitations period defense, which the Court granted through
an Order entered by Judge Benjamin H. Settle on May 19, 2023. The
Court determined that the Defendant's arguments to the state courts
were not false assurances and, even if they were, they could not,
and did not, dissuade or otherwise hinder Mr. Fowler from timely
asserting here a Fifth Amendment per se takings claim based on an
event that by definition occurred before January 2002. Mr. Fowler
has not established that the limitations period should be equitably
tolled, and his claim in this Court is not timely. Accordingly, the
Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Mickey Fowler, et al. v. Tracy
Guerin, Case No. 23-35414, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 16, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Mickey Fowler and Leisa Maurer Mediation
Questionnaire was due on June 23, 2023;
-- Appellants Mickey Fowler and Leisa Maurer opening brief is
due on August 18, 2023;
-- Appellee Tracy Guerin answering brief is due on September 18,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MICKEY FOWLER, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
David F. Stobaugh, Esq.
BENDICH STOBAUGH & STRONG, P.C.
701 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-3536
- and -
Alexander F. Strong, Esq.
Stephen K. Strong, Esq.
BENDICH, STOBAUGH & STRONG, P.C.
126 NW Canal Street, Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98107
Telephone: (206) 622-3536
Defendant-Appellee TRACY GUERIN, director of the Washington State
Department of Retirement Systems, is represented by:
Cameron G. Comfort, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
415 General Admin. Bldg.
P.O. Box 40123
Olympia, WA 98504
Telephone: (360) 664-9429
- and -
Robert Bertelson Mitchell, Esq.
Christopher M. Wyant, Esq.
K&L GATES, LLP
925 4th Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 623-7580
*********
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 ***